Quote:
|
There are much better ways to say what he wanted, without sounding like the village idiot.
|
That is a problem. The fact that a lot of what he said was consistent with SCOTUS rulings is virtually cancelled out by the fact that he supports his comments with a clearly fallacious basis.
"Well regulated" in the context of the amendment had nothing to do with regulation in the legal sense, making his use of regulated to support regulation an equivocation fallacy. On top of that, "well regulated" in the amendment clearly refers to the militia, not explicitly to the possession or use of firearms which means that even without the equivocation fallacy, there's still a problem with his reasoning.