> January 6th argument against the Chaz/Chop, BLM "mostly peaceful protests"

This is a tired, old line of bullshit.

> Now in regards to your central argument that there is a hypothetical court that determines who has a valid stand on retaining or having their 2A rights restricted OUTSIDE of committing and being found guilty of an act like a felony or domestic violence that would preclude them from owning a firearm (something we both probably agree is a good thing for at least a period of time) Can you, and this is an honest question, can you fathom any situation or circumstance where this could be abused or bastardised and result in a law abiding citizen being stripped of their ability to defend themselves until a committee of likely unelected bureaucratic officials deem it safe? Could that system be weaponized?

Could you, and this is an honest question, possibly fathom any way to be more pedantic and overly prolix?

> If you agree so, is that just collateral damage you're willing to accept for the greater good?

> If not, do you then hold the position that such a court would be somehow foolproof in ensuring NO ONE EVER lost their 2nd amendment rights unjustly?

Ah yes, the ol' "How long has it been since you last beat your wife, and do you think spousal abuse is wrong?"

Your whole schtick is like a big old grab bag of intellectual dishonesty.

Edit: formatting