Replies

Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

Take all the time you need! I've been discussing that article for 5 years now, and am in no hurry.

Or were you trying to dodge having to present an actual argument?

You, on the other hand, seem to consider web sites like these as gospel and indicative of the way things are.

Ah, I see I have my answer. Insulting one messenger got you called out for saying that a UM Law Review article was a "conspiracy web site" so now you're deflecting by insulting me.

I hadn't mentioned it until now, but you seem to consider anything that increases government power to be heaven-sent, and anything which might threaten government power and thus increase individual liberty as not worth consideration.

Now that I've mentioned it, did it prove anything about your points in this thread? No? Well neither did your personal observation about me, which was way off base, BTW.

robertpaulsen wrote: Just that they are a misrepresentative sample of cases that I do not have the time to address or dispute.

Take all the time you need! I've been discussing that article for 5 years now, and am in no hurry.
Or were you trying to dodge having to present an actual argument?

Paulsen is incapable of making a Constitutional argument on this subject. -- He is convinced that prohibitional decrees banning weapons, booze, drugs, personal nonviolent behaviors, whatever; -- are all 'legal' under our form of government.
To him, our free republic does not exist, and never did.