No, it was a question. Do you agree with Prof. Cole's analysis, then?

The best answer to that is what I said before: the cleanest way to do it is to stump for equal rights to keep and bear arms regardless of any immutable quality one might list. To do otherwise pits those against each other whose rights are being usurped. E pluribus Unum, my friend. To consider otherwise is counter productive.

CDF

Sounds like you do agree with him, then, and that's good. I find it quite amusing that you've repeatedly been avoiding just saying so. :-)

He agrees with me. :-0

on edit the next morning:

Every profession has its ladders, and mine as a teacher was no different. I started teaching developmental comp, then freshman comp and various entry level literature classes until I worked my way up to the really interesting classes like Logic and Critical Thinking. I'd been doing those for about four semesters when the Obergefell v. Hodges came down. I live in a pretty scarlet congressional district where they call it "gay marriage," reflecting their religious and dogmatic approach to human relations. So I began to call it "marriage equality" in keeping with the very broad interpretation of marriage as a legal contract rather than a religious one. Calling it a legal contract allows for a religious treatment, where calling it religious negates any other interpretation. We see this narrow and discriminatory approach in all things maga.

Now, I'd been raised a Golden Rule person, and I viewed that decision in that way. But for Logic and Critical Thinking I had to develop a classroom presentation to Obergefell that would stand up to logical scrutiny. This is when I articulated what I've posted above, using the due process and equal protection clauses.

tl;dr: I'd already developed my approach to all cases which seek to use immutable characteristics to separate one tribe from another when I was shown Prof. Cole's paper. Thus, "he agrees with me" is accurate. :-)

CDF

CDF