that's not what you said...

I figured the nature of my statement indicated that I was not making an absolute blanket statement but a general statement about the government's ability to control what you wear. You can nitpick the few exceptions if you want but my initial statement clearly wasn't saying never.
Regardless, I am glad I could clear that up for you.

I figured the nature of my statement indicated that I was not making an absolute blanket statement but a general statement about the government's ability to control what you wear. You can nitpick the few exceptions if you want but my initial statement clearly wasn't saying never.
Regardless, I am glad I could clear that up for you.

"that law would have a tough time pasting (sic) constitutional muster"
is not anywhere near
"There are laws which make it illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime but not ones that blanket prohibit someone from wearing a facial covering in public.
What I was getting at was any sort of blanket law which criminalized facial coverings on their own, absent any other crime."

to make it simpler, your second statement, which says in essence, "there are no laws that state this" does not prove your first statement, which says in essence, "the law is unconstitutional"
I never was nitpicking any exceptions

I am glad I could clear that up for you

How so? I’m not a Constitutional expert, so I’m genuinely curious as to the 1) the questions/tests posed and 2) their interpretations relative to the constitution.

and for someone that asks a lot of questions, you sure don't like to answer any direct questions to you, eef

Great, everything you posted just supports what I said.
#1 you cited a law with no mention of any case law showing it could stand constitutional test
#2 You cited a law that talked about using masks in connection with another crime - something I specifically said I wasn't referencing
#3 you cited a law that was actually struck down

Feel free to disprove your own claim that I am wrong any time you feel like it.

Plus you are ignoring the burden of proof. Is isn't my job to prove a negative.

Show me where I cited anything at all?

I quoted some sources, but quotations without attributions are not "citations" in the context of your reply.

You seem to always fall back on, "Everyone has to prove everything they say -- except for me."

You're pathetic.

You seem to always fall back on, "Everyone has to prove everything they say -- except for me."

Prove it.

Prove it.

He does that with almost every hissy fit he starts on here.

He's like a self-licking ice cream cone -- doing what needs doing on its own.   

"that law would have a tough time pasting (sic) constitutional muster"
is not anywhere near
"There are laws which make it illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime but not ones that blanket prohibit someone from wearing a facial covering in public.
What I was getting at was any sort of blanket law which criminalized facial coverings on their own, absent any other crime."

to make it simpler, your second statement, which says in essence, "there are no laws that state this" does not prove your first statement, which says in essence, "the law is unconstitutional"
I never was nitpicking any exceptions

I am glad I could clear that up for you

I was responding to a general suggestion of banning masks in public during speeches or protests, especially political in nature, I did not respond to a specific suggestion to ban masks when involved in a  criminal activity. I was saying a blanket ban would have time passing constitutional muster. Flapp responded by pointing out specific situations where the law did exist. I then clarified that I wasn't talking about in criminal situations in response to him.


How about this, rather than rehash an alleged unspecificity on my part you just answer me this: Are you comfortable with the government making a blanket law on what clothing items people are allowed to wear?

and for someone that asks a lot of questions, you sure don't like to answer any direct questions to you, eef

How about you re-read page 1 where I answered his post.

Show me where I cited anything at all?

I quoted some sources, but quotations without attributions are not "citations" in the context of your reply.

You seem to always fall back on, "Everyone has to prove everything they say -- except for me."

You're pathetic.

You get cranky when you lose a debate. Need a Snickers?

Can you even answer the key issue I raised? Are you fine with the government making a blanket law on what clothing people can wear?

You get cranky when you lose a debate. Need a Snickers?

Can you even answer the key issue I raised? Are you fine with the government making a blanket law on what clothing people can wear?

Why do you always have to make every discussion about yourself and what you said?  We all see your posts.  We know you're lying/backtracking.

We kinda expect it from you, but it's amazing to watch you continue your track record.

I refuse to engage you on any topic when you can't make an honest (and mature) effort to be civil.

I also don't feel like having to educate you time after time when you seem to refuse to make an effort to do your own research. 

Or, is it you just don't give a shit and are just here to troll the forum with off-the-wall bullshit hoping to stir up fights?

Why do you always have to make every discussion about yourself and what you said?  We all see your posts. 

Because I don't give into trolls.

I refuse to engage you on any topic when you can't make an honest (and mature) effort to be civil.

Hahahaha, now that is a good one. Flappjackson is complaining about someone else not being civil. You can dish it out but you can't handle it in return?

I also don't feel like having to educate you time after time when you seem to refuse to make an effort to do your own research. 

Never asked you to "educate" me. But I appreciate when your education just validated my point.