This is what she said (supposedly)
“warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
There’s a lot wrong with what she (supposedly) said there.
It’s a victory for Palin if she can make it about warned or not warned.
But I would really be hoping that “let’s not talk about this anymore” is the way this one goes.
Her statement was unclear - but those familiar with the history knew exactly what she meant. Those unfamiliar, and with an agenda - ridiculed her.
They were wrong.
And actually - you are wrong as well. Although the grammer - as you have produced it - is weak/terrible - why don’t you point out which parts are “a lot wrong with what she said” -
He -
warned the British
Who were coming to take arms
He was riding a horse from town to town
Bells were ringing
As far as “shots were fired - there are a few possible interpretations -
1. Shots certainly were fired and 2.) she was referring to “the shot heard round the world”
Why don’t you point out - EXACTLY what is wrong with the statement? How many books on the topic have you read?
Note that - in the article above - the History Profs align with her - even with this grammar.
Do you know why the Brits were headed out there? Because her statements indicate - she knew exactly why.