Haymarket is in a no win position. He has been trapped by reliance on one of several definitions of civilian-the informal one being what a group uses to describe "non-members". while that definition appears, on the surface to help him, it forces him to have to admit that cops are military and then he gets whomped stomped and Gift-wrapped by the Posse Commitatus act which specifically prohibits members of the military from engaging in domestic/civilian law enforcement.
so he is forced to make the patently idiotic argument that cops are not civilians (so he can argue their weapons are not suitable for other civilians as his party demands) and they are not military but he can find no proof that such a third status actually exists in American law-be it constitutional law, federal statute, international law or state law
and the problem with this constantly evasive argument-an argument that uses informal definitions in a debate that requires legal and technical discipline is that he gets caught in internally self contradictory positions as EB has demonstrated succinctly in post 339
Actually Haymarket completely your false dichotomy as a falacy. And as such it has no merit nor credibility.
But then both you and EB know that because it has been done many times previously when you attempted such tactics and refuse to accept reality and instead try to foist your own to further extremist goals.
And your argument does not hinge on any dispute about if cops are civilians are not. So you can expend massive quantities of anger and vitriol against me on this issue - and in the end it does not matter.... it is inconsequential .... it is irrelevant.
You see Turtle - American police officers do NOT have the weapons they have because of the Second Amendment. So any attempt to backdoor your need for military weapons as a result of the Second Amendment goes nowhere because that is not why cops have these weapons in the first place.
And Haymarket will continue to shine the spotlight of TRUTH upon the reason for your attempt to reject experts who write the dictionaries on the English language in favor of extremism to advance your loathsome goals.
This tactic is not something the far right of the gun lobby dreamt up themselves. It is shared by other extremist groups who are pushing an agenda that is not supported by the public and is being thwarted by basic reality. In this case, the reality is that police officers DO NOT have the weapons they possess because of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has not a darn thing to do with it. They have the weaponry they use because they are tools of the job. This is true in the USA and it is true the world over regardless of the law about individual firearms. That is simply reality Turtle.
So for you to try and backdoor expansion of weaponry through the Heller decision claiming that police weapons are "common use" is the worst sort of dishonesty.
You want to throw out all the dictionary definitions of CIVILIAN as part of your far right cause celebre to prepare for the Right Wing Day of Jubilee? Thats your right to do so. Other groups do it too when reality and basic English get in their way so you have the same opportunity.
NAMBLA does the same in its effort to get mainstream or at least legal acceptance of sexually molesting children - a practice abhorent to the majority of our society. They want to redefine the words CONSENT and LOVE to further their extremist goals. The far right wants more powerful weapons.
You want your brothers in the right wing cause to be able to have more powerful weapons to prepare for domestic insurrection? Fine . Put it before the people and their elected representatives and see how far you get. Do that. Don't try to backdoor a shabby effort and extremist goal by perverting a recent Court decision decided by a single vote and pretend that allows you to do it. Because that political tactic is a sham and a fraud.
:2wave: