Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient.
|
That is incorrect.