25 Comments on For Leftist Dopes That Have Poor Reading Skills – 2A Explained
1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments are closed.
iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.
I find it amusing every time some leftist tries to interpret the Bill of rights for the purpose of enlarging the prerogatives of government.
Most importantly, “regulated” doesn’t mean what it means now… Regulated meant equipped and trained, with their own stuff on their own time.
And seriously, do the libiots really think that the means to check an oppressive govt. should be subjected to that very government?
You can take my bacon from my cold dead hands.
That explains it unequivocally.
Though that won’t stop the liars and dissimulators (or the prevaricators).
Facts have little to do with political discourse.
izlamo delenda est …
Well regulated meant, and, in many contexts, still means today, well prepared to serve its purpose. For example, a well regulated clock is one that is reliable and keeps accurate time.
I read somewhere yesterday that “A well informed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to read books shall not be infringed.” Pretty cool.
We will actually need this food amendment soon. The progs have already taxed and regulated the size of soda for example. Be sure to include beverages in the amendment—-don’t leave them any wiggle room this time.
But it only meant hard tack, jerky and beans. Not a six egg semi auto omelette.
I like my bacon black, like my AR-15
This is very good, as is the reading/books analogy in a previous American Thinker post. You should do a graphic on that one, too, and all of us on Twitter should start posting them. Maybe one will get through.
You can not convince someone that insists you say “Gender is a voluntary selection” what really is (depending on what their, not your definition of “is” is). They have proven they’re abject disinterest in reality. You might be able to convince them that “men” who wore wigs wanted slaves to be armed. But only if you provide “convincing” video that the plans were agreed to during a foam party.
The relevant quote from the AT article:
“Imagine that the 2nd Amendment is about something other than firearms. Suppose the amendment said, “A well-educated electorate being necessary for the functioning of a free republic, the right of the people to read and write books shall not be infringed.”
Excellent graphic, however, we are dealing with idiots who cannot master the simple definitions of automatic and semi-automatic. The problem is they want to be ignorant because they want to be fearful and are motivated by it.
The whole idea of freedom and responsibility are repugnant to them. They want the State to be their daddy from cradle to grave and despise that we are free men who are armed and can resist their oppression and control. So, education of such basics is a losing proposition.
Now you know that somewhere, some drooling snowflake looks at that breakfast photo and thinks, ‘Let’s just take away one choice of meat, or one egg, and toast and pancakes, why do you need that much?’
That looks like a salt bacon. Why would civilians need that?
No one wants to take away YOUR breakfast; we just want to make sure sausage is kept out of the hands of the “wrong people”.
Otoh, the belief that a good breakfast is the most important meal of the day didn’t originate from nutrition and health research. It originated in the sales office of breakfast cereal companies. A good breakfast isn’t really necessary, maybe even harmful.
Mohammedans: “More than one thing is offensive in that graphic. Feelings hurt. Fix it.”
Leftists: “We’re on it.”
Citizens: “Come and fix it.”
Militia also had a different meaning at the time 2A was written. Militia, at that time, meant any able body man who was of age.
And for any Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge to interpret the 2A any different than what has been explained in this thread is beyond me. Sedition and treason are the words I use when that occurs.
But here is the problem, back when the protection of breakfast was written, we were an agrarian culture and people worked really hard. Now that we are more civilized and don’t have to work very hard, many people overeat. And that causes everybody’s health care costs to rise.
So if we actually tell you what you can have for breakfast the whole world will be better off.
Trust us.
“Who has a right to food?”
your right to possess anything is only granted by your right to defend it
… once that is taken away you are nothing but a serf, living by the will of your Master
if you cannot understand that simple fact, you will forever be content to be led instead of living free
That’s where I read it, American Thinker. Thanks guys.
“Yes but who needs more than 10 slices of bacon for breakfast?”
There would be those who believe it is their duty to infringe on the right to keep and eat food by legislating what food you can eat to prevent obesity because they have an irrational fear of fat people.