View Single Post
Old February 19, 2009, 05:12 PM   #108
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
You are free to bicker all that you want. The word means what it means in the context of constitutional law and this discussion and my personal feelings again, have no bearing on the argument, one way or another.

I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?
LOL, how predicatable....OK, Yes. And would be subject to the same discipline that any employer would impose on an employee.

By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?

I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning does not require both

Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it.
Inference based on bald words requires reference to ones own prejudices. here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient. You thus will be unable to make the critical judgements necessary for this discussion. Thats OK, but it does not add to what we are attempting to accomplish here.

WildwemustallputthegunwoobieasideforthisthreeadAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Page generated in 0.03566 seconds with 7 queries