Quote:
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.
|
Because evading questions aids critical thinking, right?
You are putting a lot of effort into not answering a direct question about your own writing just because you regard the effect of stating your opinion with apprehension.
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
Quote:
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?
|
If you believe that meeting identification of your fallacy with "
But you're spinning the argument" is not puerile bickering, then feel free to stick with that.
I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?
Quote:
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.
|
I don't believe you "see". I have explained in the now italised text why that cannot be the principle behind a FA restriction.
I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.
Quote:
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?
|
Yes. I am also familiar with the difference between being able to pass a constitutional test and being the product of a plausible, reasonable principle.
Quote:
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.
|
No. Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it. If that is not your position, feel free to indicate that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TNgent
Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction.
|
Beyond noting that this leg of the conversation doesn't involve either, I make two observations. First, you may consider "lethality" to be a principle upon which a restriction should be based, but would have to admit that a bus or a 50bmg rifle are each likely more dangerous/lethal than a FA 10/22.
Second and more fundamentally, "lethality" and "dangerousness" are very closely related to "efficacy". That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.