(09-04-2019 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 06:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 04:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or perhaps, can you show us evidence that democrats actually care about methods to preserve the individual right (apparently 'specious' to some) embodied in the 2nd Amendment?

Ah, the Three Musketeers with the classic deflection!

And it was abundantly clear that I was not calling the 2nd A specious. Another classic move by y’all.

You did the other thing -- called any way to ascertain the words expressly within it as 'specious'.

What other verbiage in the Constitution do you consider 'specious' to ascertain, given that is the lad reason de jure for ignoring certain provisions you dont like?

Reread that post again, please. I made it very clear I was talking about a single argument you’ve repeatedly made, which we have actually discussed previously.

Lad, perhaps you actually need to go home, read Heller, then come back and give us a book report on how the 'speciousness' of 'shall not infringe' comes into play. That is, as opposed to your interesting viewpoint on it.

That's the whole point! It's more complicated than "shall not infringe" because, as you say, you need to understand the legal theory behind the Heller decision.