Your unsubstantiated "claim", if that's what it was, was that my claim, that the Second Amendment differed in no distinctive way from the First and thus is incorporated by virtue of the Fourteenth, is untrue.
How do you ask that your "claim" stand when you failed to provide the distinction which such a "claim" would require for justification?
When your opinions are shown to be baseless and self-contradictory, you trot out the many anti-gun decisions which suffer the same lack of logic.
Then you accuse others of mixing opinion and fact.
The FACT that the courts have allowed infringements of the Second Amendment is challenged by nobody on this thread. What is challenged is the nonsense that passes for justification.
You have agreed to the fact that the Miller decision was flawed and that the grammar of the Second Amendment does not justify their constraint of the right by the dependent clause.
When challenged to justify the non-incorporation of the Second Amendment by virtue of the Fourteenth, you have provided NOTHING. Erroneous court decisions are not justifications. If you wish to use the arguments of such erroneous court cases, then you must adopt their "reasoning" no matter how shallow and illogical or provide reasoning of your own.
Otherwise, it will be you once again who confuses opinion with fact.
There was no Miller decision.
"and that the grammar of the Second Amendment does not justify their constraint of the right by the dependent clause."
I said it was different. Hey, maybe those other decisions were "flawed".
"The FACT that the courts have allowed infringements of the Second Amendment is challenged by nobody on this thread."
I see. I cite case after case after case, and you just sit there and type, "flawed, flawed, flawed". That's the sum total of your debate.
Well, if that's the very best you can come up with, then maybe the courts are right and you're wrong. That possibility ever occur to you? It sure has to me, I'll tell you.
My "claim" is that the courts (excl. the 5th) have ruled that the RKBA in the second amendment is tied to a militia. It has nothing to do with incorporation. Keep it straight.
I have stated that it was not incorporated. I have cited the process of incorporation. I have stated why I believe the second amendment should remain unincorporated.
But I was never "challenged" to justify why the second amendment wasn't incorporated. Write a letter to the USSC and ask them why they haven't incorporated it. I certainly don't know, and without knowing, how can I possibly justify that decision?
Challenged to justify, indeed. Just like you to ask such a question.