Time after time. Post after post. That's all you got. And it's either that or some direct quote from the U.S. Constitution -- like quoting "due process" and "life, liberty and property" is actually an intellectual response.
Make a point. Back it up with a link. Then I'll respond. Otherwise, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old who always responds "because".
The people decide, when writing their constitution, which rights will be protected and to what extent.
That theory is a total fabrication.. Totally unsupportable.
Can you tell us paulsen; -- which rights are not protected in those enumerated by "life, liberty or property"?
Typically paulsen, you've again ignored my questions above in order to 'answer' others with your stock patter of rulings & findings from gov't sources that agree with your basic positions.
-- You have no real intention of "settling this", do you?
Could it be that your real intention here is to agit-prop the gov't view on its 'power to prohibit'?
Why respond to you with the facts
There you go again. Your 'facts' are gov't 'rulings & findings' [opinions] from gov't sources that agree with your basic positions. --- Opinions are not facts.
when your standard response is, "Yeah, but it's unconstitutional and the feds/courts are allowing that to continue".
That is indeed the fact. - Our constitutions clear words are facts, facts that you cannot address or refute.
Time after time. Post after post. That's all you got.
And all you've got are self serving gov't opinions, opinions that are easily refuted by the words of our Constitution.
And it's either that or some direct quote from the U.S. Constitution -- like quoting "due process" and "life, liberty and property" is actually an intellectual response.
What other response can be made to those like you who reject basic constitutional principles?
Make a point. Back it up with a link. Then I'll respond.
My points are, and have been made and backed up by many links over the years. You ignore them regardless of links..
Otherwise, it's like arguing with a 6-year-old who always responds "because".
Yep paulsen, one of your many fall-back positions when pressed is to call your opponents juvenile.
Get some new arguments, -- learn to back up your anti-constitutional positions ["The people decide, when writing their constitution, which rights will be protected and to what extent."] with facts, not opinions.