Saturday, December 8, 2012
ARE BLACKS REALLY KILLED AT A HIGHER RATE BY OTHER BLACKS THAN ANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUP IN AMERICA?
Was the KKK really made up of more Democrats than Republicans?
Do abortion clinics really kill more black fetuses than white fetuses?
Was Margaret Sanger really a Democrat?
Was she really associated with the KKK?
Did Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger really think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of blacks born in America through abortion?
Did she really write in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2): "The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"
And did she really write concerning blacks, immigrants and indigents that they were: "...'human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."?
Are guns really manufactured to target blacks?
Is there really some mechanism in guns that makes them more prone to kill when pointed at a black person?
Is really it true that the only way a gun can murder someone else is when the shooter aims it at the other person and pulls the trigger?
Is it also really true that harsh gun control advocate, Senator Donne Trotter, was arrested in Chicago for having a gun in his carry on luggage?
And is it really true that he claimed he forgot the gun in his luggage and that it is from his "job" as a security guard. Is it true that he has no such job?
Is it really true that shootings are up 49% in the "gun free" area of Chicago?
Did we really amend the Constitution to make certain people had the right to own guns with the words: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This only goes to confirm what I always believed... Obama is the worst President in America's history.
TDDW: I certainly agree with you on that! He is despotic and has taken to bypassing the House of Congress, resulting in a dictatorial "reign," which he intends to continue.
Did we really amend the Constitution to make certain people had the right to own guns with the words: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."?
-------------
I notice you leave out "well regulated".
It makes that train wreck of a sentence ambiguous so you ignore it.
Ducky: You act like "well regulated" has some ethereal meaning that changes the direct instruction the "...right of the people...shall not be infringed."
The addition of "well regulated" does not dismisses the subject and/or predicate of the sentence.
Liberals and leftists do not know how to read, do not know the basics of the English language and love to change meanings to suit their left-wing agenda.
Try a simple 8th grade level diagram of the sentence. "Right" is the subject and "shall not be infringed" is the predicate.
Sorry, Ducky, you have the right to bear arms whether you exercise it or not (I don't, by the way).
Joe - The exact text of the constitutions reads "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."
Let me repeat the first and key phrase: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
WELL REGULATED.
MILITIA = "An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces."
If you or any of your Right Wing weapon horders thing your secret underground stash of firearms and ammo will let you overthrow a government armed with drones, tanks, hypersonic assault craft, ballistic missiles carrying thermonuclear warheads and who also have the ability to shut down the internet, then you are just silly little people who don't remember what was fought and decided during the Civil War.
Sure. Sign your secession petitions. Stock up on ammo and canned goods. Frighten your children and make your employers afraid to let you into the building.
Let me know how all that works out for you.
XO: I knew the exact text before you were born.
The question is: how do you read sentences?
You need a subject and a predicate. The rest of the sentence is made up of modifiers, subordinate clauses and/or conjunctions.
The sentence is: "right" (the subject of the sentence) "shall not be infringed."
All of the rest of the sentence is made up of articles, prepositional phrases and a subordinate clause.
You can see it properly diagramed at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=41856
You'll clearly see the subordinate clause detached from the main body of the sentence, meaning that it is an explanation of purpose and does not constitute the main body, and thus does not constitute the meaning of the sentence.
It is not the militia that has the right to bear arms. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the SUORDINATE CLAUSE. It is an explanation, not the subject of the sentence.
That's elementary grammar. Did you take it?
I'm a "people," and I have a Constitutional right to bear arms. You do, too.
The right is to bear arms. The "well regulated militia..." is the reason all citizens have that right.
That it reads "a well regulated militia," does NOT negate the right. The right is a limitation on the government, not permission for the government to take arms from everybody but the military.
Joe - Yes, I took elementary grammar and we diagrammed sentences too. One of the most useless and tedious exercises ever devised.
You can cut and slice the language however you like, but it's clear that the founding fathers envisioned gun ownership to be necessary for maintaining a WELL REGULATED National Guard style militia.
Too bad the Founding Fathers aren't still alive so you can school them in sentence construction. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would love to have you critique their writing skills.
How they managed to create the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution without your proofreading is an incredible mystery.
XO: "One of the most useless and tedious exercises ever devised."
For a person with half a brain it shows the relationship of words in a sentence, something the founders knew but 20th and 21st century government educated citizens don't.
To them, a sentence means whatever they want it to mean or whatever they have been erroneously taught it means.
Construction of a sentence is what gives it its meaning.
The way the sentence is constructed (and the founders knew exactly what they were doing), it means: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. One of the reasons it shall not be infringed is that we need to have a well organized militia made up of those citizens available." The second sentence of those two is the message of the subordinate clause.
A subordinate clause is a subordinate clause because it is subordinate to the other parts of the sentence.
To think otherwise is an act of insubordination.
There are many reasons why Congress is prohibited from denying people the right to bear arms, the militia being only one of them.
There's always the love of short sleeved shirts.
The first 10 amendments were added by popular demand to give "the people" specific guarantees. The amendments clearly indicated reference to individual rights, not states' rights.
The term "militia" referred to all able-bodied male citizens at least 18 years old.
In 1903 an act was passed creating the federal control, funding and training of state forces as organized militia. It designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
An act of 1916 designated the organized militia as the National Guard. This was further clarified by the National Defense Act of June 4, 1920, and this act again designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45. It also specifies two classes of militia exist; the organized and unorganized.
In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, there were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the same kind in common use" at the time.
The 2nd Amendment mentions the need for a militia as the primary reason for the right to bear arms, but it does not limit it to solely the militia, be it organized or unorganized.
Isn't it interesting that the very people who are always braying about living in a police state are the same ones who want only the government to have weapons?
I don't think early settlers had cell phones to call 9-1-1 and summon the militia if under attack by outlaws or hostile natives. It is absurd that the Founders intended only militias to be armed. That situation remains the same today, since there are many neighborhoods that police are afraid to enter. Those neighborhoods exist in the cities with strict gun control.
Of course, liberals don't mind sounding stupid, since the lack the gene to blush.
GEC: It could not have been said better! Good history lesson!
Only liberals will ignore it or re-write it.
LR: "...liberals don't mind sounding stupid, since the lack the gene to blush."
True. They only spew arrogance and ignorance.
Post a Comment