6 thoughts on “Understanding the Second Amendment, an English Lesson”
this will confuse the dumb ones.. heh heh.
democrats and thier sick agenda luv to crow “rights”- the “right” to housing, the “right” to free medical care…real rights not so much. look at the munchkin in canada- housing isn’t FAIR. so we are spending a shiiteload of YOUR money to put undiserving people in houses… another fav word of lunatics- its not FAIR..
the stupid is deep…
5
Or offering them a permanent dirt nap if they’re homeless.
IE: ‘MAID’ in Canada..
2
another fav word of lunatics- its not FAIR..
.
In 4-year-old parlance, “fair” approximately equates to “what I want”.
.
Thus, “it’s not FAIR” means “it’s not WHAT I WANT”.
.
Our governments are run by grown-ass men and women with child minds, just as likely to throw temper tantrums as your average pre-schooler.
1
No one has the right to food. They have a right to eat food, but they have to earn it themselves.
Just like guns.
1
Reading this another way, it’s not “Who has the right to food? A well-balanced breakfast, or the People?”
.
It’s also, “On what planet is this interpreted to mean the right to keep and eat food only applies at breakfast?”
.
Semantically, that’s closer to the “collective right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: You have the right to keep and eat food as part of a well-balanced breakfast, but not as part of second-breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner, supper, etc. — those other lawful meals can have their food restricted. On top of that, the government also gets to decide who’s a “legitimate” well-balanced-breakfast-eater and who’s not.
.
No wonder foreigners think learning English is hard! Our own native English speakers can’t figure it out!
4
I get the point but it doesn’t really work for me.
On the other hand, there’s an excellent essay on the parsing of the 2nd Amendment in Neil Schulman’s “Stopping Power”. That was available online, it may still be. Lots of good stuff in there. If you haven’t read it, go look for it.
this will confuse the dumb ones.. heh heh.
democrats and thier sick agenda luv to crow “rights”- the “right” to housing, the “right” to free medical care…real rights not so much. look at the munchkin in canada- housing isn’t FAIR. so we are spending a shiiteload of YOUR money to put undiserving people in houses… another fav word of lunatics- its not FAIR..
the stupid is deep…
Or offering them a permanent dirt nap if they’re homeless.
IE: ‘MAID’ in Canada..
another fav word of lunatics- its not FAIR..
.
In 4-year-old parlance, “fair” approximately equates to “what I want”.
.
Thus, “it’s not FAIR” means “it’s not WHAT I WANT”.
.
Our governments are run by grown-ass men and women with child minds, just as likely to throw temper tantrums as your average pre-schooler.
No one has the right to food. They have a right to eat food, but they have to earn it themselves.
Just like guns.
Reading this another way, it’s not “Who has the right to food? A well-balanced breakfast, or the People?”
.
It’s also, “On what planet is this interpreted to mean the right to keep and eat food only applies at breakfast?”
.
Semantically, that’s closer to the “collective right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: You have the right to keep and eat food as part of a well-balanced breakfast, but not as part of second-breakfast, elevensies, luncheon, afternoon tea, dinner, supper, etc. — those other lawful meals can have their food restricted. On top of that, the government also gets to decide who’s a “legitimate” well-balanced-breakfast-eater and who’s not.
.
No wonder foreigners think learning English is hard! Our own native English speakers can’t figure it out!
I get the point but it doesn’t really work for me.
On the other hand, there’s an excellent essay on the parsing of the 2nd Amendment in Neil Schulman’s “Stopping Power”. That was available online, it may still be. Lots of good stuff in there. If you haven’t read it, go look for it.