XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Magus"  wrote in message   
   news:aNYJi.64448$Y7.13857@bignews3.bellsouth.net...   
   > Scout wrote:   
   >> "Magus"  wrote in message   
   >> news:y0YJi.64425$Y7.64012@bignews3.bellsouth.net...   
   >>> Scout wrote:   
   >>>> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >    
   >>>>> 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 support 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)