[zukiphile]

Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.

If it is a fair question, you should be able to answer it. If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly. No question "needs to be asked", but you raise the issue of your own opinions when you offer them, so it is plainly relevant to the issue of your opinions.

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.

No. It addresses your question, which was,

Originally Posted by ken

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?

and posited "the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms " without any stated limitation.

really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled

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.

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.

LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.

This contains a couple of conspicuous problems. First, shotguns are grossly lethal and used by use soldiers in WWI to the consternation of those against whom they were used. Second, it entirely misses the implicit premise of the proposed restriction, which is that automatic fire is unaimed or unaimable fire. Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms. Any bolt action 30-06 will leave the recipient just as dead, and a .50bmg rifle is more lethal than any of the above, yet is not particularly restricted.

Reductio ad absurdum

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.

I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.

Since the specific subforum rules discourage puerile bickering, I will allow others to give your conclusions about who loses due consideration. The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation misses the fact that the difference in your conclusion is noted, even though you share an analytical framework.