Scout wrote:
> "Magus" <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:y0YJi.64425$Y7.64012@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Scout wrote:
>>> "Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
<snip>
>>>> Leif speaking: Then we agree that the militia consisted of those who
>>>> were obliged to militia service by law, rather that being taken from
>>>> persons from the general public who happened to have a gun?
>>> So once again Leif is back to claiming the militia is defined under
>>> federal/state law.
>>>
>>> You really do need to make up your mind there Leif, exactly who
defines
>>> the militia. Is it the Founding Fathers, the law, or SCOTUS?
>>>
>>> Oh, and no matter how the militia is defined.....the right is still
that
>>> of the people. You do know who the people are, right?
>>>
>>>
>> No he doesn't. According to him it's those obliged to serve in the
>> militia.
>
> Well, he says that then turns around and ignores both federal and state
law
> and claims that SCOTUS says the militia is only the National Guard.
>
> He really does need some consistency in his argument because his
assertion
> of who the militia is changes from message to message. One might even
get
> the impression he doesn't know, other than he wants it to sound like he
does
> and he doesn't want it to mean anyone not under the thumb of the federal
> government.
>
>
His inconsistency comes from reading into things what he wants to see
there. He starts with "this is how things are" and looks for cites that
vaguely sup****t his opinion--rather than reading the material to
determine the truth.
>> According to Weasel it's the federal government.
>
> Citing Weasel is sort of like quoting a chipmunk. A lot of chatter, but
no
> content.
>
Was I citing the Weasel or using him as another absurdity?
|
