WHEN SOMEONE TAKES on false coloration in order to cast doubt on his enemy’s arguments, seemingly from said enemy’s part?
What species of pettifoggery? What logical or argument fallacy?
How must we deride the fools who claim to contend from the right to contend that Heller is inconsistent with conservative or libertarian jurisprudence, not because it was insufficiently loyal to the text of the Constitution and did not bear down with the desired absolutism
— taking literally and as holy writ the phrase “shall not be infringed” but because, like Roe v. Wade, the majority in Heller did not take the wishes of the people’s representatives into account when interpreting a document which lays proscriptions on said representatives?
Um… Alger? Hel-LO! New York Times?
And your point is…?
Come back to me on this when you have three real, reliable sources.