I see the aggressive seizure and forfeiture of all firearms, particularly those of criminals, in order to better secure the security of our public and our peoples.

im for rec nukes

>secure the security

pardon i'm inebriated

noguns

yeah i'm done

remember to stay constructive for your argument

back to lurkin

second constructive

i can just rebut now

nah

i might surprise you two

I'll do a rebuttal

Can I do four for typing?

four mins

I can actually help you ghost. you need to rebrand into Pro Capitalism. Anti movement are jewish psyops destined to lose.

memetically

anti loses

captialism is a jewish idea and so is communism.

adam smith

what im saying is i run many propaganda outlets

anti ones always fail

The argument in order to allow citizens who, in a turbulent time, and under myriad stresses, have shown to have colossally, commonly awful coping mechanism, including physical assault. That the ordinary man, even one well trained with firearms, could not suffer an episode from one of a staggering list of mental or stress-induced illness, is just one of any number of instances where concealed carry will not help.

they built off of rage and rage rides a parabola

The seizure of firearms that I outlined before was, as well, an aggressive one, particularly of criminal property. They would be the first focus, followed by law-abiding citizens.

that's about it

The argument was inferring a man killing his family.

I wasn't clear enough, sorry

there's other formats

it's one rebuttal per constructive

nah, it's good

I feel like you left holes, as I'm sure you found in my argument, and I think that FLAnon's rebuttal was becoming a tangent toward the end, talking about aiding mental health

I feel like just doing the debate helped me understand it better though

it feels like it's shifting topics

constructive

nah, that wasn't for new content

just wanted to test y'all's chops

turtle is the only other classical liberal here

no in voice

me and him