Scout wrote:
> "Magus" <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:aNYJi.64448$Y7.13857@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Scout wrote:
>>> "Magus" <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:y0YJi.64425$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.
>
> Sounds about right. Certainly does explain the fact that he can't hold a
> consistent arguement from one source or cite to another.
>
>
>>>> 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?
>
> I wouldn't put Leif and Weasel on the same level. Leif seems at least
able
> to engage in some sort of cognitive mental process even if it is
orientated
> to trying to prove what he knows must be true (ie the FF couldn't
possibly
> mean for the ordinary average person to be able to have guns and other
> arms). Weasel's thought process such as it is, seems to derive more as
an
> expression of mental static than any sort of cognitive functioning. One
of
> the reasons why one is in my killfile and the other is not, at least
yet.
>
>
>
Agreed, Leif seems to honestly believe his position and tries to sup****t
it--Lee is just a lying sack of ****.
|
