View Single Post
Old November 21, 2012, 09:51 AM   #21
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by dbooksta
But it seems odd to refuse a hypothetical discussion because you reject its premise in principle when in practice you actually accept the premise. I.e., unless you're engaged in civil disobedience you have, in practice, "accepted" the restrictions you reject in principle.
There is a considerable distance between resigning oneself to the enforcability of poor public policy and acceptance of that policy. If there is a monotonous tone to advice freely given here, it is to fastideously observe all legal restrictions whether they are sensible or not.

People haven't accepted your premise; they've explicitly rejected it, in part because,

Originally Posted by dbooksta
Economists or game theorists may notice that this is -- or should be -- a straightforward equilibrium problem.
RKBA jurisprudence isn't in a state of equalibrium; it is shifting considerably. Entrenching a status quo ante in some sort of politically driven acquiesence isn't a benefit to people who hold that body of rights.
zukiphile is offline  
Page generated in 0.03247 seconds with 7 queries