Should we do away with subsidies for pig farmers? Yes, but not for the reason you stated, but because the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers.

Sounds like they’ll do just fine without my/taxpayer money.

Money is fungible. Say you have $100 to spend. You spend $50 on abortion, $50 on other services. I give you $20, stipulating that it can’t be used for abortion. OK, so you put it into the other services bucket. You then spend $30 of your money into the other services bucket, but put the other $20 of your money into…

If they’re foreign nationals, sure, I’d be OK with that since they don’t (or shouldn’t) get constitutional protection. But as soon as you start talking about a US citizen? Nope, sorry. It sounds good, but answer this: How do you get on? How do you get off? How do you know if you’re on the list? Does a judge and jury…

Cool, we don’t want you here!

So, you’re saying punish people who, under the law, haven’t committed a crime (you know, innocent until proven guilty)?

If he’d been convicted, sure by all means, but until such time...

They should realize they don’t have a right to jack, and should negotiate accordingly?

Frequently I do. Check out the Michael Brown Show on iheartradio. He tries to have daily the Taxpayer Relief Shot, which showcases an instance of a citizen who protects themself from an armed thug with a gun. So yeah, it happens all the time, but isn’t convenient for the press to report widely.

You can always stop replying. I’m pointing out the major flaws in your arguments. See, guns are force equalizers. Your average woman is much weaker than your average man, yet her having a gun gives her a fair chance to defend herself. Guns are also a way to protect the people from a tyrannical government. Look at…

And if the man hasn’t actually done any abuse yet? If the woman is just worried that based on previous statements that he might? Should the law go and just arrest him? But wait, does he not get a trial? OK, we’ll give him a trial, he gets out because they can’t prove it, but she is still worried about it?

Do people not…

And that’s your prerogative. However, do you want to deny a woman the ability to defend herself and her children from an estranged husband who wants to kill them? A restraining order is just a piece of paper that won’t do much good after the fact.

Care to name these “sensible restrictions?”

And yet some of those people ignore the fact that they don’t have a licence and keep driving, just like some people ignore gun laws and get weapons they shouldn’t have. Do you want to ban all cars because of these people?

Do you acknowledge that bad people will be able to get their hands on weapons? If so, then why do you want everyone else to be a potential victim? If someone is armed and wants to do harm to me, I want to be able to have any chance to protect myself. I don’t want to say “Whelp, I guess I have to wait for a trained…

Except that he is.

Shhhhh, you’ll break the narrative!

It’s a suppressor, not a silencer. It’s not like the movies where you put this mysterious “silencer” on your gun and it can’t be heard in the next room.

You need to also think of it as a deterrent. Say we had half the nation carry concealed. That means if I think of doing harm to someone, there’s a 1 in 2 chance that the person I try to harm will have a clear means to fight back. I’d think twice before trying to harm them if my odds of dying are around 50%.

Good fences…

Even if we got rid of all guns, there are still numerous ways to kill people. See the recent attacks using trucks through crowds of people. Ban all cars next?

They’re not shocked, because they know that crazy people are out there, hence the need for self-defense.