Miguel puts up a great post showing Ladd Everett quoting George Washington out of context.
Seems that old Gorgeous George would be yet another “Insurrectionist” “Guilty of Treason”.
Ladd likes malign people who note that an armed citizenry can fight back, and repel tyranny, but yet he’s quoting a British subject who rose up and commanded an army of British Subject to fight back a Tyrannical King. Ummm….
The most interesting thing is that he’s quoting a person he has nothing but contempt from. This also the same guy who constantly misquotes the Federalist papers.
You also see things like “Secular Humanists” quoting the bible out of context. What are they going for? I mean they hold utter contempt for the source, so if the source “Supports” them what do they gain?
I mean I could pour over sources I have contempt for and cherry pick out things they got right, where am I? I might have a smug “Gotcha Moment” (tho if I did some serious cherry-picking, I’m risking an embarrassing exposition), but what’s the value of a scoundrel, liar, or overall unreliable source that agrees with me?
Of course these are the people who also praise the Heller and McDonald case for “Taking Gun Bans” off the table…but still seek to ban guns, and argue that somehow the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY one that DOESN’T apply to the individual, and somehow a “Collective Right” exists.
I quote people I have open contempt for, because it shows how contemptuous they are.
So the CSGV is OK with Lincoln ( a Republican ) sending in the army to arrest all of the Democrats in the Maryland state legislature?
This is the reason that I’m always suspicious of quotations from fill-in-the-blank famous person that go either for or against gun rights. Context matters, and quote mining is a dangerous business.
Heh sounds like you’ve read a lot of quotes and citations by Michael Bannerman Esq. AKA “Laci the Dog”.
Ah, Pooch. Yup, he does enjoy droning on, especially when it’s a dense legal argument. He had his tail handed to him recently by a lawyer who wrote an amicus brief for the Heller case, though. It was fun to watch.
The thing that many don’t realize–even some on our side, alas–is that the eighteenth century sentence was typically longer than a modern one, and each sentence fits into a much larger passage.
Well its a fairly smart strategy. Misquote several paragraphs of legal jargon (often from a case that was overturned, didn’t cover the issue at hand, or has no standing) and claim it supports your case.
It LOOKS like a solid point, and unless somebody knows the specific case law, it would take them hours of tedious reading to point out that he’s full-of-shit. And given that all the bunch-of-numbers gang are severe anti-social narcissists, its not like being caught in a lie will stop him from continuing to do it.
Ladd is a total fruit loop. I’m actually getting a kick out of watching him repeat himself like a 2yr old on the starbucks valentine day massacre, and getting his ass kicked on theStarbucks FB page. The infantile fucktard has resorted to making hit and run posts. It’s almost as amusing as it is annoying.
If this be treason, make the most of it.