Yes, there is an apparent conflict of opinion among the federal circuits on the individual/collective rights argument. The Solicitor General’s Supreme Court brief, which I quoted and you appear to be referring to here, acknowledges the conflict. But as I also explained in this thread, there are no conflicting holdings among the circuits because the Emerson individual rights discussion is 100% dicta (i.e., unnecessary to the disposition of the case). And it is conflicting holdings that gets the Court’s attention, not mere differences of opinion. The Court can take the case even without a conflict of holdings, of course, but the odds of review are much longer than if there is an actual legal conflict, rather than an editorial one.
I explained that above. It is not grounds for you to accuse me of intentional misrepresentation.
Yes, but I then posted a “squirm” post above, which showed that I would not always. So where I said “always” I mis-spoke out of haste, and was incorrect. My “Thou shall…” reference was with respect to issues that specifically do not cause me or those I love harm. Yes, that is a grey area, I admit it. I am a flawed person, trying to express what my actions would be in several hypothetical situations - and not always succeeding.
Tying a pink ribbon? Well, it sounds silly, but let’s take it into real life:
Congress honest-to-God passes a law saying we must all tie a pink ribbon to the barrels of our guns if they are loaded.
This law is presumably upheld, or has not been challenged yet.
Let’s say I meet up with Ms. FBI Agent who is having a bad day.
Now, if I tie the pink ribbon on and she stops me for a “random gun check”, she looks me over, and goes about her business. I continue to do everything I can to change the stupid law, from fighting it online and IRL in debates, to contributing to political candidates, to voting.
If I don’t, she stops me for a “random gun check”, finds out I’ve violated Federal Law, and arrests me. I am then taken in, fingerprinted and photographed, then browbeaten for a couple of hours by agents who want to know “what I was trying to pull.” Then I get put into a holding cell for a seemingly random length of time until arraignment, where I may be granted bail I can make. And then, the world of shit starts…
Alternately, I become a fugitive from justice, give up my comfy life, and am now a criminal, living in the back streets, in junkyards, or down in Mexico or up in Canada. My friends and family don’t see me again…are you understanding the difference here?
What would be your answer, Crafter_Man? Would you effectively end your life as you know it over a pink ribbon? I wouldn’t.
And I understand what you might be trying to do - you might be trying to show the slippery slope at its smallest slope, and most innocuous form. First pink ribbons, then mandatory trigger locks, then 1-gun a month, then no handguns…I understand this very well. I understand that, but life is full of choices and compromises, and very often we just get fucked up the butt whichever way we choose - we just have to take the route with lube, rather than enduring it dry.
The difference, on the other issue, is that I went out of way to admit that I was clearly using hyperbole. An openly-admitted strawman is not a very effective one. So think about what was my real motive - since I certainly wasn’t hiding anything when I labeled it “Hyperbole Theatre”.
What’s funny is to see how “Liberals” pull all sorts of interpretations out of the BOR, citing ‘emanations and penumbras’ and all sorts of legal hilarity, but when it comes to the 2nd, they suddenly become scaliast textualists.
It’s one thing to believe (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that firearms should be banned, but the mechanism for this is to change the damn amendment. That’s how things are supposed to be done in this country, not 20,000 conflicting gun laws which make honest law abiding citizens vulnerable, not safer.