[robertpaulsen]

"Which means if they declare CC a right at the Federal level, States are still free to ban CC. If incorporated, then States banning CC would have those laws struck down."

True, but I thought we agreed for sake of argument that the right to CC was not a right at the federal level? Why are you trying to confuse things?

[P_A_I]

Ken H says, operating under RP's confused "agreement":

"Which means if they declare CC a right at the Federal level, States are still free to ban CC. If incorporated, then States banning CC would have those laws struck down."

True, but I thought we agreed for sake of argument that the right to CC was not a right at the federal level? Why are you trying to confuse things?
218 paulsen

Watching you get totally confused in your own wordgames is high comedy, paulsen. Thanks for the laughs..

[Ken H]

If incorporated, then States banning CC would have those laws struck down.

True, but I thought we agreed for sake of argument that the right to CC was not a right at the federal level?

Just pointing out that incorporation has potential upside but no downside.

You agreed that the Second Amendment was intended to set limits on Federal infringement of the RKBA. An incorporated Second Amendment would set the same limits on State infringement of the RKBA.

I think you've been arguing as if the Second Amendment could be used to limit the RKBA.