I’m disappointed that you’ve bought into this ‘conversation’ stuff. You really should know by now that when you debate them on their opening arguments and points, they change them to something else midstream when they find out you’re open to debating it.
Being ‘open’ to debating it is the same thing as surrender in their eyes, and they have a dozen, two dozen other silly ass “touchy-feely” heart tug questions and debate points to further draw you up in an unwinable ‘conversation’... you cannot win this ‘conversation’ with the media (all of it, even your drive time, and your teachers and their unions, etc.) You just can’t.
When a liberal I know brought up the great concern we should all have for "global warming", I asked him how much warming there had been since 1998.
He said he wasn't sure but thought that it was "about 3 degrees", I told him that the answer was ZERO.
He immediately responded, "Well what about all the glaciers melting?"
The fact that there might have been NO WARMING FOR 14 YEARS seemed to have little relevance whatever.
“I’m disappointed that you’ve bought into this ‘conversation’ stuff.”
Actually, I’m more interested in a conversation among those on our side of the issue.
Stipulated: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” pre-exists and does not depend on the US Constitution even though it is stated in and protected by that document. An owner of real property has no such clearly stated right in regard to real property. Obviously, a real property owner may not rightfully prevent one of the people to “keep and bear arms” while on the real property owner’s real property.
If you are “not at all for arguing, conversing about, the ins and outs of what the Second Amendment is...”, your possibly helpful thoughts on the above stipulation may remain unknown to others who would be helped by them.