[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m impressed with Trump in regards to this:
However, there is a problem with this statement: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice.”
Can you tell me what it is?
[/quote]
Either use of allowed v right to own protected
or
no “s” at the end of firearm.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m impressed with Trump in regards to this:
However, there is a problem with this statement: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice.”
Can you tell me what it is?
[/quote]
Either use of allowed
[/quote]
Yep, it’s more than a semantic error, I believe.
It alludes to the idea that the government has the right to “allow” a basic, inalienable, natural right. That moves us to the next logical progression which inherently says that if the government can allow it it can also disallow it.
Fact of the matter is the people of the USA allow the government certain powers via the Constitution with reservations, namely, among many, the right to keep and bear arms. So the government does not allow law-abiding people to own the firearm of their choice; the government is not allowed to disallow it.
It may be a subtle thing but I think it’s important to get the foundation right or that which is built upon it is in peril of crumbling when the storms come. And they will.
[/quote]
Words matter, and I agree with your objection for sure.
I’m not going to assume trump is intentionally using this language either way, more so, it’s a “straight forward” presentation of what he wants people to think his position is.
But yes, if we were to re-write the second, that shouldn’t be the wording.