View Single Post
Old February 19, 2009, 04:06 PM   #105
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly.
Au contraire, my personal opinion, assuming same is unsatisfactory to you, would form the basis for further ad hominem on your part. Thus it is irrelvant to the issue at hand, and diverts from critically thinking about the question.

Quote:
That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.
That does nothing more than spin the argument or evidence a lack of understanding of same. You raised the lack of merit of the comparison, now that that has been answered, you aren't happy with the result. And pray tell, what civil rights do service members lose?

Quote:
Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.
I see...so you are the definer of the term "principled"? Ok are you using in the philosophic sense or the dictionary sense? And how does that effect your post hoc ergo hoc statement above.

Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms.
Really? Inherent lethality of an item on a mass basis is not principled or reasonable within a constitutional framework where such restrictions would undoubtably pass muster? Are you familiar with the NFA?

Quote:
Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.
You confuse the rhetorical question with a postition. Further, assuming it is a position does not mean one should take it out of context in uno vis a vis looking at it in omnibus

Quote:
The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation
really? Histrionic?

WildfolkshateitwhentheygetcaughtinwaslawAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04530 seconds with 7 queries