Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MamaTexan
MamaTexan said: "If their intentions were for the acknowledgment to be considered separate, they would have written 'the Right to keep OR bear arms'."

I think you are over-simplifying the use of the conjunction. If I had a right to "dance and sing", you would claim that I can't simply dance without singing or sing without dancing?

48 posted on 02/06/2014 10:56:54 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell
you would claim that I can't simply dance without singing or sing without dancing?

No. Since you can do both - 'sing and dance' - doesn't necessarily mandate you MUST be doing them both at the same time. What if, however, you could not dance without singing? In the case of bearing arms, the ability to keep arms is a prerequisite to bearing them.

Considering them separate Rights implies the ridiculous notion that you could carry something you didn't have the acknowledged right to have in the first place!

IMHO, that's also why they used the unquestionable joining conjunction 'and' instead of the refining/exclusive conjunction OR.

56 posted on 02/06/2014 1:22:53 PM PST by MamaTexan (Due to the newly adopted policy at FR, every post I make may be my last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson