Whatever you say buddy...Yeah, you are just now understanding what I told you back on page 8.
I am sure that you will make it all nice and easy to understand as always...I am not the one with the literacy issues, as we will soon see, you don't seem to understand the function of a conjunction.
I understand what I said, because I said it and meant it... You took it out of context before and are apparently understanding it or keeping it in the correct context now, that is all. Seriously, you talk in circles worse than my ex.Simply False. Here is your quote, with the line before and after to provide context :
It was already clear, glad you brushed up on your English though...The way the rules of grammar work, specifically regarding conjunctions and compound sentences, you have Bodhi, in the middle sentence above, stated two things that you "feel", the first about the clarity, the second about the incorporation. Glad I could clear that up for you.
That is fine that you disagree. That is the most reasonable I have literally ever seen you be.I simply disagree. The "because" would hang the right on militia involvement, whereas the actual wording puts it in its proper place, as a good reason, but not the only reason.
The re-written version is not incorrect. It does not cloud the issue, but rather illuminates its meaning.I took 4 years of Latin so I do not need your assistance to understand ablative absolute, nor do I need your rewritten version to cloud the issue.
Yeah, education on what not to do, if anything. Look, you only have a couple of Bachelor degrees, as do I, yet I have the MASTERs, therefore I - AM - THE - MASTER.I am decribing the properties and function of the ablative absolute contruction to a person who does not yet understand them. This is not interpretation, but education.
You can disagree all you want -- it only means that, in terms of having a discussion regarding the 2nd amendment as law, and the legal issues surrounding it, your position is unsupportable.
This applies to anyone and everyone that disagrees with a SCotUS ruling, regardless of who they are and what the ruling is.
You simply don't like our arguments and dismiss them with a flick of your wrist saying that they are unsupportable.
Logically, nothing could or would ever change if there were no other forms of support.
There would be no 13th Amendment if we followed your logic, because any dissenting views would be unsupportable and irrelevant.
Therefore, saying the court said so isn't good enough, one needs to point out the part of the Constitution violated and explain why it's a violation.
Courts that rule favorably towards gun bans are violating the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment, for example.
When the question is "Under US law, does the 2nd amendment protect an individual right" the answer is "yes" -- because that's the curent holding of the court. Now, that holding is logically and historically and legally sound, but all of that is beside that particular point.
If you'd like to discuss the soundness of that decision, that's fine, if you'd like to argue that the law should change, that's fine, but in the context of what the law corrently says, the court's pronouncement is the final word.