Jump to content

Wow how the New Yorker twists 2A


quackersmacker

Recommended Posts

I think this might become the new "narrative." Really getting tired of "narratives" etc

 

Anyway, check this out.................

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those too busy to click on the article and actually read it, the gist of it is that the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment show that the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to have 2A authorize and indeed, demand, gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, just wow.

 

 

 

Authors use words as tools of their profession, the same way a carpenter uses hammers and nails as their tools of their profession. What we have in that article is a 'carpenter' using a saw as a hammer, and becoming an epic 'fail'.

 

I did notice that there is no way to answer and post a comment to the article. Pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those too busy to click on the article and actually read it, the gist of it is that the words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment show that the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to have 2A authorize and indeed, demand, gun control.

Willful ignorance about changes in linguistics and definitions over 200 years is a convenient way to twist history to your point of view. There are plenty of references for those who wish to look that indicate "regulated" in 1790 was closer in meaning to "efficiently functioning" than "burdened by legislation and policies to the point of nonexistence" that the liberals would have you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brain literally shutdown reading this and I just stopped.

 

Same thing happened to me and my brain needed to be rebooted, as in a quick boot to the head.

 

The amount of stupid in that article is unbelievable. It's written by your typical low-information gun hater who actually thinks that that "well regulated" means gun regulation and "militia" is meant to describe "military contexts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It constantly astounds me that people still cannot comprehend that this language . . .

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

. . . means straightforwardly . . .

 

"Since the State needs to be protected by the Militia, the People who make up the Militia should have the Arms and organization to facilitate that protection, and that is something that cannot be infringed upon or interfered with."

 

It doesn't say that the State gets to have arms, or even a Militia. Instead, it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, because they ARE the Militia that secures the freedom of the State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...