Serious question for Gun Advocates.

[Taichiliberal]

not so much of hair splitting as it is making it extraordinarily vague on purpose. protecting the public 'at large' has no real definition, other than enforcing the laws that the public has in place. removing liability for failure to protect an individual, unless you're in some sort of custodial status, allows law enforcement to prioritize office safety above all else. nobody is going to want to work for the government if the government isn't going to protect them from liability. yes, we are both right in the sense that most cops will subject themselves to danger, voluntarily, but will not be held accountable for their failure to do so.

Well, this is an "Just Plain Politics" first. Smarter Than You and Taichiliberal are in AGREEMENT on a point of American policy.

Can I stand the strain?

 

[Taichiliberal]

No, but it's understandable why a political extremist would completely miss the point. No worries!

You have no "point" Dutch. You just keep repeating in various forms the same old gun monkey crap. That YOU personally put labels on something with means nothing. I can (and have) logically and factually debunked EVERY gun lobby via congress talking point. Gun monkeys just ignore what they don't like and keep repeating their talking points.

The OP question forced gun monkeys to inadvertently omit that they are NOT about any true security in this country outside of their fanatical belief that if they can buy any type of weapon they want and carry it (strapped or otherwise) anywhere they want will solve all security problems. And if that means putting fellow citizens at risk, so be it (funny that Charlie Kirk got the EXACT result of his ideology that he professed).