SO vetting makes for 100% guarantee a coach won't do this? No? Then you missed his point entirely.
What relevance does this have to do with the hypothetical scenario he posed?
Once again, what relevance is this?
He would be a much better lawyer than you. While you and I actually agree on guns, he makes a better case than you and it's not even close. Your response to his questions are completely irrelevant to the point he's making. I'm 100% pro guns, and disagree with him about the need for more regulations, but even I can acknowledge he makes pretty compelling points.
