Re: Free State Security - part 2
- From: Bob the Burger-Builder <Burger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:19:00 GMT
Scout apparently said ...:
[...]
: and I am still proposing that the 2nd Amendment is a
single complete conditional script that cannot be broken
into smaller bits,
Sorry, but under the standard rules of English grammar....which apply
even
in Britian..there are at least 2 smaller bits contained within the 2nd
Amendment. A main clause and a non-restrictive subordinate clause.
So you keep saying, but never explain how this curious twist
occurs, other than references to documentation based on the
same twist.
I accept your admission you know virtually nothing about the structure of
the English language at which point your claims about the meaning of the
2nd are worthless, or you are a bold faced liar. In either case, your
argument has been met, challenged, and defeated and you are in circular
denial and unable to present any proof to support even the simplest of your
assertions, and you simply have shown yourself to no longer be worthy of
attention.
<plonk>
How curious! Almost word for word what I've been resisting
saying about you!
I'll take your plonk as an admission you can't deal with the
issue then?
--
Bob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Free State Security - part 2
- From: Morton Davis
- Re: Free State Security - part 2
- References:
- Free State Security - part 2
- From: Bob the Burger-Builder
- Re: Free State Security - part 2
- From: Scout
- Re: Free State Security - part 2
- From: Bob the Burger-Builder
- Re: Free State Security - part 2
- From: Scout
- Free State Security - part 2
- Prev by Date: Re: Try This Resolution for Sensible Gun Control on for Size
- Next by Date: Re: The security of a free state?
- Previous by thread: Re: Free State Security - part 2
- Next by thread: Re: Free State Security - part 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading