How Democrats Are Corrupting The English Language

[norwegen]

T

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

The Federalists weren't future; they were present at the convention. Learn history.


And Rotweiler cited an independent clause in the Second Amendment.

 

[Pogo]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

 

[Agit8r]

T

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

The Federalists weren't future; they were present at the convention. Learn history.


And Rotweiler cited an independent clause in the Second Amendment.

The Federalist Party came together shortly after the Jeffersonians. Lower case federalists were all those who supported the ratification of a new federalist constitution (as we have).

 

[Redfish]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

 

[Pogo]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

That's called "metaphor", Sparkles.

Nor does it confront the point anyway. The fact remains we do not have a theocracy, period. Religion is private, not politic.

 

[Redfish]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

That's called "metaphor", Sparkles.

Nor does it confront the point anyway. The fact remains we do not have a theocracy, period. Religion is private, not politic.

I agree completely, but the founders documented THEIR belief in God. They recorded such beliefs in our founding documents and then made the practice or all religions or none free to citizens as they chose.

The abortion debate is not always religion based, many base their beliefs on knowledge of anatomy and human biology, not religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. They pretends like what is written on a legal document really isn't written there. It's the only way for them to engage in illegal activity...

All of life is a giant 'loophole' until liberals come up with a way to regulate or tax it.

If You Don’t Give Me What I Want, You’re Stealing
Democrats can create entire issues out of corrupting words. Take “access”— formerly meaning “having the ability to approach, enter, or use.” In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

How Democrats Win Debates By Corrupting The English Language

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

That's called "metaphor", Sparkles.

No.

 

[Pogo]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

That's called "metaphor", Sparkles.

Nor does it confront the point anyway. The fact remains we do not have a theocracy, period. Religion is private, not politic.

I agree completely, but the founders documented THEIR belief in God. They recorded such beliefs in our founding documents and then made the practice or all religions or none free to citizens as they chose.

The abortion debate is not always religion based, many base their beliefs on knowledge of anatomy and human biology, not religion.

I didn't bring up abortion, but the Founders were constructing, and completely describing, a government, not a religion, nor was the latter an ingredient in forming it. Specifically to the contrary they were putting distance between that government and an institution of religion -- one which had been all too dominant in prior governments (the so-called First Estate) and was now being sent to its proper place -- the personal and not the political. Which is where it belongs. Deal with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

Actually, you’ve demonstrated that the premise of the thread is wrong, as conservatives are infamous for misrepresenting the Second Amendment and its meaning.

 

[Mac1958]

The Regressive Left has been fabulously successful in manipulating the language to use as a bludgeon.

That's what Political Correctness is all about: Strategic hypersensitivity deployed specifically to put your target on the defensive and control the conversation.

Control the words and you control the conversation.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

There is no "qualification". It clearly and undeniably states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Undeniable. Indisputable. If there were a "qualification" it would say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. What liberals want to do is apply the why as the what. It doesn't work that way. The what is that the American people have an unfettered right to arms (not just muskets, not just guns, arms). The why - with regards to the what - is largely irrelevant. It's good to know. It's fine to add. But it doesn't change the what.

And the OP himself provides an example of a conservative misrepresenting the Second Amendment and its meaning.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Scalia was a liberal – truly surprising.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I thought this was going to be a thread on
redefining marriage!"

Which would have been just as moronic and wrong.

 

[Centinel]

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

They both agreed that a well regulated militia in necessary to a free state. That's why article I, section 8 grants congress the power to organize the militia. You know what power art I, section 8 doesn't contain? Any power to regulate the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the united states. And just to be sure, they included an amendment that specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Redfish]

God is another one -- the leftwing OPPONENTS of Christians and Conservatives keep assigning negative associations and meanings to God and what people have done "in the name of God"

"God" is not political and has no place in politics. It's personal.
Not unless we live in a theocracy, which on paper at least, we don't.

"endowed by their creator" "In God we trust". Spin all you like, but the founders believed in God.

That's called "metaphor", Sparkles.

Nor does it confront the point anyway. The fact remains we do not have a theocracy, period. Religion is private, not politic.

I agree completely, but the founders documented THEIR belief in God. They recorded such beliefs in our founding documents and then made the practice or all religions or none free to citizens as they chose.

The abortion debate is not always religion based, many base their beliefs on knowledge of anatomy and human biology, not religion.

I didn't bring up abortion, but the Founders were constructing, and completely describing, a government, not a religion, nor was the latter an ingredient in forming it. Specifically to the contrary they were putting distance between that government and an institution of religion -- one which had been all too dominant in prior governments (the so-called First Estate) and was now being sent to its proper place -- the personal and not the political. Which is where it belongs. Deal with it.

we agree, why end your post with the idiotic "deal with it" WTF is wrong with you?

 

[sealybobo]

I've literally been saying this for decades now. The left pretends like words do not matter. They pretends like what is written on a legal document really isn't written there. It's the only way for them to engage in illegal activity...

All of life is a giant 'loophole' until liberals come up with a way to regulate or tax it.

If You Don’t Give Me What I Want, You’re Stealing
Democrats can create entire issues out of corrupting words. Take “access”— formerly meaning “having the ability to approach, enter, or use.” In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of “access” to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms “free” for anyone who desires them

How Democrats Win Debates By Corrupting The English Language

We want poor people who don't have money to have easy access to birth control. That's a nice way of saying free.

Do you know what the costs are if we don't give them free birth control? I don't think you do.

 

[CowboyTed]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

There is no "qualification". It clearly and undeniably states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Undeniable. Indisputable. If there were a "qualification" it would say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. What liberals want to do is apply the why as the what. It doesn't work that way. The what is that the American people have an unfettered right to arms (not just muskets, not just guns, arms). The why - with regards to the what - is largely irrelevant. It's good to know. It's fine to add. But it doesn't change the what.

It was was also stated that the constitution was not meant to be a stagnant document but a living document which was meant to be changed with the will of the people...

When is the last time the constitution has had a meaningful change?

So constitution is not in the will of the framers of the document...

 

[Redfish]

Well regulated militia = every idiot being able to play tyrant for a day.

Actually - it equals nothing. Because here is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Thank you for proving the entire premise of this post. You pretend like you don't see that and jump back to an early part and try to apply it where it simply doesn't apply.

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

There is no "qualification". It clearly and undeniably states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Undeniable. Indisputable. If there were a "qualification" it would say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it doesn't. What liberals want to do is apply the why as the what. It doesn't work that way. The what is that the American people have an unfettered right to arms (not just muskets, not just guns, arms). The why - with regards to the what - is largely irrelevant. It's good to know. It's fine to add. But it doesn't change the what.

It was was also stated that the constitution was not meant to be a stagnant document but a living document which was meant to be changed with the will of the people...

When is the last time the constitution has had a meaningful change?

So constitution is not in the will of the framers of the document...

changed by constitutional amendment, not by executive orders or judicial rulings. Do you understand the difference?

 

[CowboyTed]

The Second Amendment was approved by both future Federalists and Republicans, which is why it contained the qualification.

They both agreed that a well regulated militia in necessary to a free state. That's why article I, section 8 grants congress the power to organize the militia. You know what power art I, section 8 doesn't contain? Any power to regulate the acquisition and possession of arms by the people of the united states. And just to be sure, they included an amendment that specifies that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They both agreed that a well regulated militia in necessary to a free state

True 200 years ago, today not so much... The military grade weapons available to the army would make short work of any militia....

Plenty of countries worldwide are living freer than US with no one listening to their conversations, not getting shot by police,.... And they don't need access to guns..