View Single Post
Old February 19, 2009, 05:31 PM   #113
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,540
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.
Except inasmuch as you offer them into the argument.

By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?
No, I am explaining to you that military restrictions on its personnel do not describe the limits of a civilian's constitutional rights.

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
Ken, indeed it does. That's why "ergo propter" is in there; that conflation is why it is a fallacy.

here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient.
That is incorrect.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.04795 seconds with 7 queries