Abatis
Platinum Member
Sounds like trickery of some kind, to not say something, but to "recognize".....
Understanding the operation of the pronoun "it" as representing an inanimate thing or concept previously mentioned and understood to be present in the immediate context, is not trickery.
Understanding the operation of synonyms is not trickery.
If they didn't say something, then it's not there. It's quite simple.
But the Court did say what I quoted.
Your only possible disagreement is that I am over-reading the term "bearing arms for lawful purpose" as being synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.
Your problem is the Court did say the right of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is IT in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that IT shall not be infringed; . . . "
Your task, should you accept it, is demonstrating how "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is not the IT that is not granted by the Constitution, nor the IT that exists without any dependency on the Constitution, or the IT that the Second Amendment declares that shall not be infringed . . .
I don't see how you can honestly think my belief, that "bearing arms for lawful purpose" is synonymous with the rights recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is trickery. Really you just sound like a partisan contrarian.
Just because some dude writing an article . . .
What dude? What article? Whenever I quote a source that is not of my own mind and hand I always use quotation marks.
So, I guess we agree that neither Presser nor Cruikshank actually said any of this stuff then. Solves that problem easily.
Well, why your think your copy and paste proves anyhing is beyond me. Every word of what you quoted, opposes, rebuts or just destroys your arguments.
It's kinda funny really . . .