Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: brimic on August 06, 2014, 09:52:50 AM
-
http://dlaster.com/DOCUMENTS/How_to_read_2nd_Amendment.pdf
I thought I'd post this here for people to share with their English challenged liberal cohorts.
-
Most readers will never get past the main title. The glaring grammar fail instantly discounts the author's credibility in the reader's mind.
Brad
-
The solutions are making criminals serve their whole sentences, eliminate parole, and executing people who commit crimes that should be punished with execution. That is we hold people responsible for their actions.
That is only one-sided and doesn't address the whole self defense aspect. The other side of it is that liberals/communists/anti-rights people have sought to change the law by getting friendly judges to ignore pre-constitutional common law which has required states to rewrite self defense statutes to specifically allow self defense and has IMO restricted the self defense rights of Americans and drawn very thin lines between a murder conviction and self defense.
-
Most readers will never get past the main title. The glaring grammar fail instantly discounts the author's credibility in the reader's mind.
Brad
I didn't notice that at first glance, but it ACTUALLY should be easy to fix.
-
I didn't notice that at first glance, but it ACTUALLY should be easy to fix.
:facepalm: I didn't notice it either; my mind automatically filled in the missing letters.
It is possible that the article was titled by the editor though .... so I'd not automatically ascribe it to the author. Either way it's obviously an oversight.
-
I'm a fairly accomplished native English speaker and I have no trouble understanding those words of the Second Amendment just as they are.
It's too bad that over the past, say, 10 decades, we have been put in a position to have to defend them against "interpretations" and bracketed "explanations" such as adding "[militia]" between "people" and "to keep and bear" in some school texts, among other things.
The limits of the anti-2A propaganda experts, patterned after some Axis propagandists in world War II, have not yet been reached.
Lies are lies.
Terry, 230RN
REF (Among others):
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/wait-until-you-see-how-a-high-school-textbook-summarizes-the-rights-granted-in-the-second-amendment/#
-
A lot of liberals & progressives have a problem with the phrase "the right of the people," for some reason ... perhaps thinking it ought to be tempered or modified, "or taken in proper context with" the "well regulated militia" part of the 2A.
Author Stephen Halbrook in his book That Every Man Be Armed examines and debunks the liberal interpretation of the 2A (essentially a "group rights" interpretation as opposed to an individual rights one).
Hey, I majored in English in college and I never "got" the "collective rights" concept either.
But then, Shakespeare and Chaucer provided no help at all with the 2A. [tinfoil]
-
I didn't notice that at first glance, but it ACTUALLY should be easy to fix.
Not so easy. There is poor grammar and awkward sentence construction throughout. It makes me think it's a false flag. Who would accept a grammar lesson from this guy? Certainly not a lesson on constitutional law.
-
you dummies
dont' you know that 9 of the 10 amendments refer to individuals, and the 2nd refers to a collective right?
Duh
*someone whispering in my ear*
I'm being told that freedom of speech only applies to CNN, also
-
you dummies
dont' you know that 9 of the 10 amendments refer to individuals, and the 2nd refers to a collective right?
Duh
*someone whispering in my ear*
I'm being told that freedom of speech only applies to CNN, also
:rofl:
-
Not so easy. There is poor grammar and awkward sentence construction throughout.* It makes me think it's a false flag. Who would accept a grammar lesson from this guy? Certainly not a lesson on constitutional law.
* Eeeyup. Perhaps it is a false flag, but I still think his argument makes sense.
Halbrook's disection in That Every Man Be Armed is a little easier to follow, IMHO.
If it isn't a F.F. then I am a bit taken aback that someone who is capable of decomposing sentences and analyzing meanings doesn't do better at outright composing sentences.....
-
Yeah, I do like his argument. As to his sentence construction, permayhaps English is not his first language. Someone may be able to look at something and grok how it works without having the aptitude to build something as elegant on their own. Or, I can take a transmission apart just fine. Couldn't put one together to save my life. Still, his errors do detract from his demonstration.