John Gaquin
What you mean is that you really can't counter my arguments. I blew your argument out of the water.
Driving is a Right 2548John Gaquin You really don't know how to respond, you can't counter what I say, so you lower yourself by resorting to Ad Homimens, or Personal buttults. Read the quote...
Now you are resorting to Ad Hominems in the form of Personal buttults. This is a typical responce of those who can't stomach having their arguments blown out of the water.
another" and the Right "of free transit", both which are clearly the definitions of a verb.
If their use of the word "transit" were a noun, it would be refering to a Thing instead of an Act. Automobiles are Things. Driving Automobiles is an Act. If there use of the word "transit" were a noun, the phrase "free transit" would mean we have a Right to a thing, a Right to Free Automobiles (without charge). Or, 150 years ago, it would have meant we have a Right to Free Horses (without charge). But, that is clearly absurd. Their use of the phrase "free transit" means we have the Right to an Act, that being "freedom of the ACT of transit" or "the ACT of transit without obstruction".
And, therefore, the adverb "ordinarily" does indeed function as a qualifier to the verb "transit", and indeed, we do have the Right of Transit Ordinarily exercised for the purpose of Personal Travel at our own inclination on our Public Highways.
Hahahaha! So, are you suggesting it should be illegal for me to read legal documents?
