New patriots 2nd amendment flag
- Thread starter dZ
- Start date
Dennis Olson
New member
Needs to be LIBERTY'S.
Dennis Olson
New member
Oh. Well, I was always a stickler for punctuation....
Good flag though, but GUARANTEED to get you labelled a "gun nut" everywhere it's seen, unfortunately.
Good flag though, but GUARANTEED to get you labelled a "gun nut" everywhere it's seen, unfortunately.
Dennis Olson
New member
I like the first one better.
Ed Brunner
New member
Do we only have ONE liberty? If so then it should be Liberty's. If we have more than one liberty it would be Liberties'
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Dennis Olson
New member
It's "our Liberty", as in singular.
Our Liberty's = something BELONGING to our liberty.
Our Liberty's = something BELONGING to our liberty.
I just did a search for Gadsden's flag; about half the images read dont tread on me, with the other half don't tread on me. Regardless, the meaning of dont is clear, whereas the meaning of libertys is not clear. It could just as easily be a messed up plural instead of a messed up possesive.
Personally, I'd much prefer Don't Touch Our Liberty's Teeth. Remember, back then they really didn't have a standard way of writing; now we do.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Personally, I'd much prefer Don't Touch Our Liberty's Teeth. Remember, back then they really didn't have a standard way of writing; now we do.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
Dennis Olson
New member
Personally, I'd say something like "DON'T TREAD ON OUR LIBERTY", let it go at that, and keep the top banner, the snake and the rifle.
Let the "force" be implied, rather than explicitly stated by the text.
My opinions only, of course.
Let the "force" be implied, rather than explicitly stated by the text.
My opinions only, of course.
Kinda comes out as "don't kick liberty in the teeth" doesn't it?
As for parsing the thing; if Liberty has teeth, the possessive sense of Liberty's is correct. If the teeth are those of the mechanism of Liberty then Liberty would be correct.
I like the first flag; I wish it were punctuated as it gives credence to the Left's portrayal of us as uneducated; I think Liberty is most correct although "the teeth of Liberty" would be most correct (see first paragraph); perhaps "fangs" could be considered.
Of course, besides being "teeth" firearms are the "guarantor" of Liberty as the final "arbiter".
We are all familiar with these sayings but the uninformed public is not. The less we confuse them the better.
------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
As for parsing the thing; if Liberty has teeth, the possessive sense of Liberty's is correct. If the teeth are those of the mechanism of Liberty then Liberty would be correct.
I like the first flag; I wish it were punctuated as it gives credence to the Left's portrayal of us as uneducated; I think Liberty is most correct although "the teeth of Liberty" would be most correct (see first paragraph); perhaps "fangs" could be considered.
Of course, besides being "teeth" firearms are the "guarantor" of Liberty as the final "arbiter".
We are all familiar with these sayings but the uninformed public is not. The less we confuse them the better.
------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
Go, Dennis! I love it when someone comes to the defense of proper punctuation.
My .02 -- The FFs got away with a lot because back then grammar was pretty laissez-faire, plus we expected them to do all kinds of wacky stuff like use 'f's for 's's and whatnot. Nowadays, you risk somebody writing your whole argument off on account of poor punctuation. We have enough trouble winning support without nitpicky stuff like that standing in our way.
For want of a nail and all that, y'know.
Or maybe it's just 'cos I'm picky with my students about apostrophes. Who knows.
------------------
*quack*
My .02 -- The FFs got away with a lot because back then grammar was pretty laissez-faire, plus we expected them to do all kinds of wacky stuff like use 'f's for 's's and whatnot. Nowadays, you risk somebody writing your whole argument off on account of poor punctuation. We have enough trouble winning support without nitpicky stuff like that standing in our way.
For want of a nail and all that, y'know.
Or maybe it's just 'cos I'm picky with my students about apostrophes. Who knows.
------------------
*quack*
Why not just DON'T TREAD ON ME? The addition of the banner and the rifle makes it clear what we're talking about.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
It has been mentioned to me that the whole Washington Liberty Teeth quote is suspect
I want the flag to protest the 2nd amendment protects hunting concept that our representatives are reguritating
The "dont tread on me" concept is OK but doesn't address the marginalization of the second amendment
dZ
I want the flag to protest the 2nd amendment protects hunting concept that our representatives are reguritating
The "dont tread on me" concept is OK but doesn't address the marginalization of the second amendment
dZ