Pretty sure this here says Obamacare should be buying me rifles, ammo and training classes along with Sally’s brithcontrol. Because if that debate told us anything, it’s that not paying for = denying access too.
Too bad we aren’t talking about Roe V. Wade then we’d agree…
Or taught how to fire a weapon in Public school. That’ll be the day.
When you answer the meme’s question, which you’ve avoiding, because it blows your entire argument out of the water, You’ll know the answer to your own question here.
What I was saying before. You quoting from what amounts to an OP-ED about a book doesn’t actually prove anything you claim.
Your claim: There is no individual right to bear arms because the words “well regulated”.
Reality: the second clause, is not a dependent clause, and completely nullifies your entire argument, in plane, elementary English.
Used to. My Father in Law learned to shoot in school.
Nice. I didn’t know that. We had archery. That’s something I guess…
How the mighty have fallen.
Sorry, but as a 54 y.o. adult, I generally don’t communicate in memes. To be honest, I didn’t even look at it, and am not inclined to do so.
Please make your argument, rather than simply declaring yourself correct.
Man was that easy. All I had to do was post a meme, with bacon, and I completely destroyed your entire argument.
That didn’t take long.
Answer the question and you have my argument.
Unless at 54 you’re too old to admit you can’t. Because we all know when you do, you’re entire argument is gone.
He did makes his argument. I’m not even a native English speaker and understand dependent vs. independent clauses. I believe there is even a sentence diagram in the Heller opinion.
Regarding your “point” that law students and academics didn’t write about 2A, well, as a former Harvard Law Review editor (alas, a mere Associate Editor – I graded on and was not a cool kid) that would be because lawyers and especially law professors are overwhelmingly pathetic liberals. If you wanted to get published, a pro-2A student note would not be your topic of choice. You’d get blacklisted. Mine was about warning labels and the wisdom (or lack thereof) of having them in foreign languages.
Super-sexy stuff, but I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I was racist to argue that you should not have 154 languages on a warning because you ended up with a book that no one read. I changed what I wrote to something absurd and got my “A” and my federal judicial clerkship.
ooohhhh boo hoo.
You won’t even answer the question, and we know why you won’t, don’t worry. So cry victim because I wasn’t nice to you…
You attack freedom, and I’m not inclined to be nice about it. You have by attacking the 2nd. You refuse to answer the very simple question in the meme, because it proves I’m right.
So play victim, but know that zero people here see through your silly diversion away from answering the simple question.
I mean, I make it in the part he’s quoting…
But he’s too busy running off pretending to be a victim at this point.
Your schools didn’t have rifle teams?
We had archery, which included a firearms and hunting safety course.
The problem with this argument is that it runs exactly counter to the history of heterodox 2A scholarship. That is, for the first 200-odd years of the Constitution’s existence–a span which, presumably, included periods during which law professors were not “overwhelmingly pathetic liberals”–there was essentially no 2A scholarship conducted. (We could call this the Lost Amendment period of the 2A.) It is only in the last ~30 years that the ‘overwhelmingly pathetic liberal law professors’ have advanced what they (ironically) call the Standard interpretation of the 2A. So your conjecture seems unmoored from the facts.
Dude, you misunderstand. I’m not playing victim–I’m claiming victory. I said you would stop arguing and start attacking me, and that’s exactly what you’re doing. Trust me when I say there’s no sense of being a victim on my part.
Edit: What freedom have I ‘attacked’?
Lol guess we’ll have to call it a difference of opinion. Everything that was said gave me zero cause to consider the FFs intentions for any reason. Oh well
By refusing to answer a simple question?
You’re avoiding a simple question, over and over and over, and claim victory?
Okay chief. Whatever helps you sleep at night. My meme blows your entire argument out of the water, and you’ve avoiding it because you know that. Otherwise you wouldn’t have tried the pathetic “I’m 54 years old” nonsense and just answered the question.
And just for you:
Run along you anti-rights commie. I’m done with your pathetic meandering.
Being this dense…
No, I live in a Commie state.
They were afraid of da evilz gunz…