The presidential oath of office that Trump was required to recite during the swearing in ceremony:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about guns/firearms. It was written as arms. It specifically talks about a militia and being able to keep things. It also says that we have the right to obtain the arms of bears (bear arms). There is literally no precedent to allow anyone have a gun.
It’s pretty explicit in what they wanted.
/s
This is why trying to argue based on literal words, and not intent, is dumb.
They’re trying to play semantic games and claim that supporting is not the same thing is preserving, protecting, and defending. It’s a laughably bad argument and hopefully it gets struck down pretty much immediately.
Would ‘I have something to do’ (I posess an option of a thing to do) would be the same as ‘I have to do something’? (I need to do a thing) I thought those were different words.
The presidential oath of office that Trump was required to recite during the swearing in ceremony:
It dOeSn’T sAy “sUpPoRt”!!1! ChEcKmAtE lIbS!!
(I feel dirty now)
That’s literally the legal defence they are using.
The “I’m not touching you” defense.
See also the, “We’rE NoT A DeMoCrAcY” set.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about guns/firearms. It was written as arms. It specifically talks about a militia and being able to keep things. It also says that we have the right to obtain the arms of bears (bear arms). There is literally no precedent to allow anyone have a gun.
It’s pretty explicit in what they wanted.
/s
This is why trying to argue based on literal words, and not intent, is dumb.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution defines the powers of Congress, including:
According to the words of the Constitution, Congress can’t appropriate any money to the Air Force.
“Raise your little armies everyone! First your left arm and then your right arm and then your bear arm! Now wave your armies!”
But didn’t you see he had his fingers crossed? That means he doesn’t have to do it!
They’re trying to play semantic games and claim that supporting is not the same thing is preserving, protecting, and defending. It’s a laughably bad argument and hopefully it gets struck down pretty much immediately.
He only quarter to do it
Hmm, I’ve usually heard it pronounced half to, but I guess the ‘correct’ spelling is have to.
What would “half to” even mean?
What does have to mean? Have is possessing something, have to doesn’t make sense either.
It means that it is required. Obligatory.
It’s a modal verb. And I think it comes from the secondary meaning of have as “to undergo or experience” rather than to possess. Or maybe not.
in any case:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/have-to
In my dialect, you’re correct about one thing. It’s pronounced nearly the same way as half. But that would make no sense.
Would ‘I have something to do’ (I posess an option of a thing to do) would be the same as ‘I have to do something’? (I need to do a thing) I thought those were different words.
The word order makes all the difference.
“Preserve, protect, and defend, but not support. Checkmate liberals!!!”