Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

JakeStarkey said: I see. You misunderstand (deliberately?) his use of "amendment" or alterations, which can be made by the courts.
I can conclude he is trying to get it right, and you of all people should not be correcting anyone on the use of language. What he said is easily understood, including his follow up. You are refusing to accept that it is normal for people to amend, alter, followup, edit, and change comments in light of dialogue. You would want that type of treatment for yourself, I am sure, so I suggest you give it to others. And the fact remains that the courts, not you or me or anyone here, have the power to define and enforce their rulings concerning the 2dA. Finally, why do you seem angry?

You were haltered and pulled up short for doing what you accused someone else of doing, and now you are running around in circle at the end of the halter. Pull this kind of stunt, and you will be corrected every time.

 

Make your citation then.

What stunt? Not being able to read someone's mind and pointing out that they didn't say what they claimed they did? Then mocking their white knight rescuer? Okie doke smokey.

 

You are haltered, Reality, by your action, and there you are running in circles. Tough.

 

It is in fact what I said, you are just pretending you don't comprehend it. I was of course referring to the restrictions passing strict scrutiny.

I didn't. I corrected your misreading of what I wrote.

 

I'm haltered by my action? What planet are you from chief?

 

As quoted above, its not in fact what you said. If you wanted to correct yourself you should've said "my bad, I meant X" not "I totally said X"

 

It's not my fault to choose to remain ignorant of constitutional law, after being corrected so many times.

which has no relevance to you being incorrect, as you are here yet again.

it is not.

You are trying to take my quote out of context. I won't let you.

 

Pretending it isn't doesn't change the fact that it is.

I meant exactly what I said, which is perfectly clear in the post you quoted. You pretending you don't understand what I posted, or thinking I meant something else is entirely your problem.

 

Dude its right there in black and white. You. Left. Out. Any. Bit. About. Statutes. You said that AMENDMENTS are subject to strict scrutiny. You were corrected. You doubled, and now have quadrupled, down.

You meant exactly what you said? So you meant that Amendments are subject to strict scrutiny?

 

Don't feed the trolls.

 

I quite clearly stated, and you quoted, that the RESTRICTIONS must pass strict scrutiny.

No, that is you pretending I said that. When the quoted words clearly show, RESTRICTIONS.

 

as you well know, correcting you isn't trolling.

 

This is post 75
According to the rules of the English language (grammar), the THEY here refers to the only subject present in the sentence: SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS.

This is post 85.

See the two bits italicized? allow for rights to be restricted isn't a subject therefore THEY cannot apply to it.

When you come around after correction and add AS LONG AS THOSE RESTRICTIONS a 2nd subject to the sentence, you correct your error.

All you had to do was say "my bad I meant X" instead of quintupling down that you had not in fact made an error in the first place. This is just sad dude.

 

yes, thank you for again showing I was referring to the restrictions passing strict scrutiny. Continuing to pretend I said something, which you know perfectly well I didn't, and have been called on it by more than 1 person, just makes you look silly.

 

See above dear. You might see someone about your mental confusion here.

 

yes, I pointed out how you again quoted me showing that I said, RESTRICTIONS need to pass strict scrutiny, not amendments.

You pretending I said something, which you know perfectly well I didn't, and have been called on it by more than 1 person, just makes you look silly.

 

Yes, you do say restrictions AFTER I correct you. 85 being greater than 75 and the word RESTRICTIONS only appearing in post 85.

That would be my point dear, are you just now grasping it?

 

The ignorance on the matter is wholly yours, and yours alone on this particular matter. Even attorneys have stated such regarding yourself.

Yet another claim on the part of yourself that cannot be demonstrated as being correct.

 

Nope, you quoted me saying restrictions must pass strict scrutiny. It's in black and white.
85 being greater than 75 and the word RESTRICTIONS only appearing in post 85.

yes, I grasped the fact you are pretending I said something I didn't, and you've been called on it by more than one person.

 

Irrelevant to the fact you are incorrect, regarding constitutional law.

We both know it is correct.

 

And yet it is myself that is agreed with by the attorneys on the matter of constitutional law, while they state the opinion of yourself is incorrect.

No. It is not. Either start demonstrating that such is indeed known by both parties, or cease making the claim.

 

Yes, AFTER I corrected your post 75. You're welcome dear.

You see the word RESTRICTIONS here? I don't.

 

which has no relevance to the fact you are incorrect.

It's been demonstrated.

 

yes, do you see the word RESTRICTED right before the comma? And then followed up with IF they can pass strict scrutiny.

Thank you for again demonstrating I was talking about the restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny.

 

MYou guns were all stolen ...