>The purported contradiction you laid out is based on some heavy and willful parsing of my posts.
They are direct quotes.
Yes, that is the agreed upon definition of parsing someones words. You take direct quotes out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. Honestly, do you own a dictionary?
As you keep having trouble with the meaning of commonly accepted English words and terminology, yet are fast to grab hold of semantics to bolster your point, I'm going to guess that you are currently in higher education or a recent graduate. There is nothing like a little bit of knowledge to bring a fool to full bloom.
Getting back to the subject, when a 90 pound woman places a condition of entry on a 300 pound repair man, that he not be armed when he enters her house (because she is still a bit traumatized by being raped and wants to maintain her advantage on her property at all times by being the only one with a gun), what would you propose that the all powerful state do to punish her great offense? Prison, fine, both? Lord knows, next she will be putting up "No Swimming" signs.
I'm very curious what punishment you will hand out for those who treat their property as if it were theirs to do with as they please. You certainly don't want to live in a state where people can just abridge YOUR rights at their home, right?
FYI, the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not individuals. Any law to the contrary is wrong. If I only want green eyed people that worship toads to visit my house, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Ending Jim Crow in government was a fantastic move forward. Applying anti-discrimination laws to individual businesses was a misguided move. What a man wants to do at his lunch counter is his business, per natural law.