Posted on Mar 28, 2018
6
6
0
I hate when people pull this kind of tactic as a way of fighting people who don't believe as they do. These are the same kind of people who claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax. People are guilty of it on both sides and it needs to stop.
VERIFY: People are sharing this fake picture of a Parkland survivor destroying the Constitution
Posted from wusa9.com
Gun Control
Constitution
Freedom
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
The doctored photo is actually revealing more of the truth than the non-doctored photo.
(6)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSG Robert Webster - Your own lack of understanding English shows each time you respond to me. We're done here. Just wasting my time at rational conversation when you can't be honest about your own use of words. Buh bye.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CW3 Harvey K. - Again English escapes you.
"If so, then in like manner --- If the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms they would have simply said ---
“The right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”."
The 2nd Amendment does say that. Let me help you this way.
"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."
becomes...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
Does that help since you and SSG Webster enjoy playing the word game. We can move the words around as much as we want but you can't ignore how Militia plays a key role in the intent of the law at the time of it's writing. Armed people to form a Militia to secure the State (not necessarily the Country). We also assume free State references the Country and not each independent State that makes up the nation as the Founding Fathers had believed State Rights over Federal.
We can play this game all day but I got better things to do. Buh bye.
"If so, then in like manner --- If the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms they would have simply said ---
“The right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”."
The 2nd Amendment does say that. Let me help you this way.
"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."
becomes...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
Does that help since you and SSG Webster enjoy playing the word game. We can move the words around as much as we want but you can't ignore how Militia plays a key role in the intent of the law at the time of it's writing. Armed people to form a Militia to secure the State (not necessarily the Country). We also assume free State references the Country and not each independent State that makes up the nation as the Founding Fathers had believed State Rights over Federal.
We can play this game all day but I got better things to do. Buh bye.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MAJ James Woods - Considering your response, I am surprised that you did not add CW3 Harvey K. in there, too. It is obvious that you have even less of an understanding of English than I do, because if you were really trying to have a rational conversation about the subject, well...
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MAJ James Woods -
“Again English escapes you.”
This accusation from the same guy who thinks he can take the adjectival phrase “well regulated” out of the nominative absolute where it modifies “Militia” and move half of that idiomatic phrase, the word “regulated”, into the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment, and use that half of the idiomatic phrase to now modify “the right to keep and bear arms”.
All that violation of the grammatical rules of English, while having “well regulated” travel through over two centuries of time, to gain the modern notion of “government controlled” which it was proven not to have when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You have not just demonstrated your incompetence with language and logic.
You have made a laughing stock of yourself.
I intend to preserve this inane gem of yours, for future use as an example of what passes for logic and linguistic analysis of the 2nd Amendment among the gun-grabbers.
Here it is in all its glory:
“Also why do we keep overlooking the word "regulated" which implies government will regulate the right to keep and bear arms meaning gun regulations are meant to change over time. Perhaps it's time for Congress to clarify what it means for citizens to have the right to keep arms for purposes not associated with national security and defense.”
--- MAJ James Woods
“Again English escapes you.”
This accusation from the same guy who thinks he can take the adjectival phrase “well regulated” out of the nominative absolute where it modifies “Militia” and move half of that idiomatic phrase, the word “regulated”, into the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment, and use that half of the idiomatic phrase to now modify “the right to keep and bear arms”.
All that violation of the grammatical rules of English, while having “well regulated” travel through over two centuries of time, to gain the modern notion of “government controlled” which it was proven not to have when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You have not just demonstrated your incompetence with language and logic.
You have made a laughing stock of yourself.
I intend to preserve this inane gem of yours, for future use as an example of what passes for logic and linguistic analysis of the 2nd Amendment among the gun-grabbers.
Here it is in all its glory:
“Also why do we keep overlooking the word "regulated" which implies government will regulate the right to keep and bear arms meaning gun regulations are meant to change over time. Perhaps it's time for Congress to clarify what it means for citizens to have the right to keep arms for purposes not associated with national security and defense.”
--- MAJ James Woods
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
So as a target shooter, what reaction am I supposed to have when the young lady with the "boot" haircut ONLY tears a target (and not the Constitution) in half and strikes a defiant pose, with an echo of that pose by other young ladies behind her?
Does this "symbolic action" give the lie to all the denials we hear, that "We aren't against people who hunt or target shoot, just the crazies with 'assault weapons' who murder school kids"?
What interpretation was intended by this pantomime ?
Does this "symbolic action" give the lie to all the denials we hear, that "We aren't against people who hunt or target shoot, just the crazies with 'assault weapons' who murder school kids"?
What interpretation was intended by this pantomime ?
(5)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
SSG Robert Webster - Well I guess I'm glad you don't have a problem with it. Don't know why you assumed I thought you would. Nor do I understand why you have to explain to me what political dissent is, or referencing the Citizens United ruling that addressed campaign finance laws. Yes she's 18 and can have a public voice on any socio-political issue; but guess what, if she was 16 or 17 she would also be entitled to having a public voice on any socio-political issue. As for political attacks, there are the kind that attack individuals based on facts and then there is the spreading of fake images and false statements that is unacceptable propaganda meant to distort and misinform.
As for her expressing hatred towards the shooter for who he was character wise prior to the shooting, it's safe to say from the witness accounts that described his abusive and violent behavior towards others, a lot of people had a reason to not like and even hate him. Interesting how you're implicating the shooter was a victim of bullying yet some would say he was the bully, the loner, the agitator.
As for her expressing hatred towards the shooter for who he was character wise prior to the shooting, it's safe to say from the witness accounts that described his abusive and violent behavior towards others, a lot of people had a reason to not like and even hate him. Interesting how you're implicating the shooter was a victim of bullying yet some would say he was the bully, the loner, the agitator.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MAJ James Woods - Now that you have my opinion on the “altered photo”, which you were so determined to obtain, why have you not replied to it?
It is now my prerogitive to ask for your reaction to the opinion you so urgently sought, instead of ignoring it and just mentioning how you thought I was avoiding replying to something you thought to be of great importance.
I did not, and do not, share your view of the importance of that “altered photo”.
It is now my prerogitive to ask for your reaction to the opinion you so urgently sought, instead of ignoring it and just mentioning how you thought I was avoiding replying to something you thought to be of great importance.
I did not, and do not, share your view of the importance of that “altered photo”.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CW3 Harvey K. - Oh stop playing victim after being called out. I'm not asking you to share my view of the "altered photo" but thanks for the laugh. Had you simply responded honestly to my question in the first place, perhaps this conversation could have been more rational as opposed to arrogant. Oh and I do disagree with your opinion that the "altered photo" is acceptable but now I know.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
MAJ James Woods -
Neat attempt to project your own "I'm a victim" ploy on me. Pity it didn't work. The fact is you don't pack the gear to make a victim of me, or anyone with half a brain.
I considered your question a distraction, which it was. It was far more important to you than it was to me, so I formed and stated that opinion as a courtesy to you. A courtesy which you have not returned by a proper response which was MY "prerogative" to ask of you.
Sorry to see you go. I will miss the laughs.
Neat attempt to project your own "I'm a victim" ploy on me. Pity it didn't work. The fact is you don't pack the gear to make a victim of me, or anyone with half a brain.
I considered your question a distraction, which it was. It was far more important to you than it was to me, so I formed and stated that opinion as a courtesy to you. A courtesy which you have not returned by a proper response which was MY "prerogative" to ask of you.
Sorry to see you go. I will miss the laughs.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Symbolism has meaning and impact, in this instance we have a spokesperson for the anti-gun movement tearing up a target that represents the use of weapons. She isn't protesting the chopping down of trees to make the targets nor is she ripping it up to say you cant use this target anymore, She is making it plain that she wants to do away with firearms of any type witch links her protest the the 2A which makes the changed add true.
(3)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
Cpl Tom Surdi - They want to change more than the 2A, everyday more and more of their agenda leaks out, believe it or not I am not wearing tin foil on my head I don't watch Fox news and Info wars ins'y my search engine :)
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
My comment (above) addresses the "original" video, with a target being ripped, followed by poses of determination and defiance from the group of schoolgirls.
That symbolic expression of contempt for lawful gun use should not be overlooked, nor any smokescreen of feigned outrage distract us from examining and replying to that symbolic statement.
I am glad to see I am not the only one who will not be deceived by the attempt to concentrate on the "unjust photoshopping", to avoid the meaning of the parody of that symbolic statement of contempt for 2nd Amendment rights.
That symbolic expression of contempt for lawful gun use should not be overlooked, nor any smokescreen of feigned outrage distract us from examining and replying to that symbolic statement.
I am glad to see I am not the only one who will not be deceived by the attempt to concentrate on the "unjust photoshopping", to avoid the meaning of the parody of that symbolic statement of contempt for 2nd Amendment rights.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Cpl Tom Surdi - Is not the 2nd Amendment a part of the Bill of Rights? Is not the BOR in turn, a part of the Constitution? Is an attack on one part of the BOR, not then an attack on the Constitution itself?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google