[quote] pushharder:
The fact that Hill overturned Dunn confirms what I keep saying: application of BoR was controversial and swung both ways. Sheesh, you’re hard to get along with. [/quote]
This is just simply untrue. You know it is. There was no controversy. And you know it’s untrue. There weren’t large factions on opposite sides of this issue, debating it. One court case - overturned by the same court years later - isn’t evidence that the nation had an unsettled controversy over whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states from the outset.
This has become farce. You’ve made it clear there is almost nothing you won’t say to support these fictions you pass off as truth. And that’s what they are - fictions. From your straw men to your woeful inadequacy on a topic you swear you KNOW everything about, it’s become dull. And it’s arguing in bad faith. Perfect example:
TB: Some old West frontier towns didn’t allow constitutional carry. I agree with them. And that’s ideological company I am happy to keep on this issue (they knew a thing or two about violence).
Push: Where in the world did you learn that - Hollywood?
TB: Nope, actual history. See [examples].
Push: Oh yeah, well, they were territories! And that somehow invalidates your point!
TB: No, it doesn’t - the point is, it’s a fact that they enacted gun control laws that didn’t permit constitutional carry. And my point I agree with them.
Push: Well, you’re wrong that this means they were constitutional!
TB: I didn’t say they were or weren’t constitutional. I said they enacted them, and I agree with the policy decision.
Push: Still watching Hollywood movies, are you?
You can see why I am bored.
As for arguing in bad faith, Lixy was bad at it, so was Forlife. Now, you too have joined their ranks.
Shame.