Nadler Omits Key Part Of Second Amendment in ‘Quote’

There are times when you can quote parts of something, omit a bit in the middle, and not really change the meaning. Those middle parts are often superfluous to the meaning and so they can be omitted without a problem.

But if someone does that, they need to be prepared to be challenged. After all, in many other cases, removing something from the middle can drastically change the meaning of the quote.

Why am I talking about quotes and omitting a few words?

Because words matter, and in something like the Second Amendment, there are two words that are vital to correctly understanding what it means. Those words are “the people.”

Yet Rep. Jerry Nadler doesn’t seem to think they’re all that important.

Note that Nadler specifically says the word “quote” before beginning to recite most of the Second Amendment. Yet by omitted “the people,” he changed everything.

See, Nadler is, in fact, correct that the Founding Fathers had little trust in standing armies. They did see them as tools of tyranny–standing armies were often used domestically in those days–and they wanted the United States to have a militia instead.

But the gist of what Nadler is suggesting is that they wanted the states to have militias. The phrase “the people” is a key giveaway that while they saw militias as being essential to American security, they saw it as the people’s right to keep and bear arms so they could serve as militia. It’s why the right is an individual one.

Nadler’s omission wasn’t likely to be a simple mistake. In fact, the folks over at American Greatness are positive it’s not.

The omission of the crucial words “of the people” in the Congressman’s reading of the Second Amendment is more than a politician’s linguistic slip.
By deliberately leaving out the correct verbiage, Nadler radically alters the original meaning of the amendment which limits the power of government to infringe upon an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I agree.

Nadler’s omission will likely be explained away as a slip-up or that he was paraphrasing.

Neither of those holds water.

First, Nadler’s anti-gun sentiments are well-known and well-documented. He’s a proponent of the view that the Second Amendment is a collective right, which is easier to sell to the American public if you remove “the people” from the text entirely.

Especially since “the people” means individual rights everywhere else in the Bill of Rights but supposedly doesn’t in just this one convenient instance.

As for paraphrasing, well, that would be easier to accept if he hadn’t used the word “quote” before reciting part of the Second Amendment. You don’t use that particular word when you’re not intending to quote something.

No, Nadler knew what he was doing.

He just hoped that everyone listening would be too stupid to see it for what it was, an attempt a revisionist history by just ignoring that which he didn’t like.

Well, we saw it and we’re calling him out on it.

One Comment

Leave a Reply
  1. The Constitutional Law’s implementations Must be Up Held.! We the People want term limits for Congress and Senate. Federal Prison is opened for Business and Gitmo also sense the demorats empty it. America has been Sold from within 😡Treasonous acts committed against America and American’s Security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Biden Tweaks Asylum Rules to Minimize Media Coverage of Criminal Migrants

Israel Enters Rafah As Negotiations With Hamas Breakdown and Bibi Tells Biden Where to Put It