I've had a lot of conversations with people about this SCOTUS case from DC. I'm perfectly happy arguing the merits and typically let others do it who have a passion for that type of thing.
This last conversation went a little differently and touched on certain issues differently. While the actual script would look vastly different here's a shell of the feel of it for me.
After the jump.
Two beings meet in an empty space devoid of others.
First Being: There is no need to be armed here.
Second Being: Thank you. There is no need to fear me.
First: You cannot do this.
Second: Why not ?
First: It is not responsible.
Second: What is not responsible ?
First: Being armed here.
Second: You would have me leave ?
First: Yes.
Second: Will you make me leave ?
First: I approve that others would or will do it.
Second: So you will not force me to leave. But others will ?
First: Yes, if they must.
Second: Are you with them ?
First: In this case, yes.
Second: Why is being armed the cause of this assertion ?
First: It is not responsible.
Second: But I am responsible.
First: I cannot know that.
Second: You have my assurance.
First: I cannot trust that.
Second: Would you trust me unarmed ?
First: Probably not.
Second: If you cannot trust me armed or unarmed, I prefer to stay armed.
First: It is your choice.
Second: I cannot defend myself ?
First: Not by armed means.
Second: How is it possible to assert another cannot defend themselves by armed means?
First: It is unsafe for most to be armed.
Second: Therefore all should not have them ?
First: Yes.
Second: Others who are armed, will enforce this rule ?
First: Yes.
Leave a comment