Thought you guys would enjoy this:


PDA






woodsja
January 27, 2010, 12:56 AM
http://imgur.com/Myba5.jpg

P.S. Why is it the FOURTH amendment in this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg).

[If you have firefox try holding the control key (CTRL) and scrolling in or out with the mouse.]

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought you guys would enjoy this:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
John Parker
January 27, 2010, 01:04 AM
I don't get it...there isn't suppossed to be a comma there. It's always been "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

MachIVshooter
January 27, 2010, 01:24 AM
Why is it the FOURTH amendment in this.

You'll notice there are 12 articles there. The ratified BOR we're all familiar with strikes the first two.

And John Parker is correct. There was never a fourth comma in the second amendment.

woodsja
January 27, 2010, 02:15 AM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

versus

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The first says individual right to bear arms.

I think the second says collective right to bear arms.


Regardless of what it says though I feel we should always have some recourse if what we say to our government isn't heard.

Edit: Ahh I see the 27th amendment was later adopted after the second in that list failed to gain adoption.

mnrivrat
January 27, 2010, 02:31 AM
I think the second says collective right to bear arms.

You perhaps are an academic ? With all due respect, I very much disagree .

I don't think our individual rights hang on a comma . However , if you feel that the lack of the comma means individual rights, then we at least have arrived at the same conclusion, and that's what is important.

woodsja
January 27, 2010, 02:45 AM
A sixer down, my logic's a bit flaky.

I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of defense against atrocious action by secondary party be it government or individual.

Armament against such action would be an expression of defense against atrocious action.

wishin
January 27, 2010, 09:10 AM
Velly intellesting!:D

mnrivrat
January 27, 2010, 01:25 PM
Woodsja - or as this guy happened to put it :

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Note the "as a last resort" . I do not advocate self defense against government as anything but that .

If you enjoyed reading about "Thought you guys would enjoy this:" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!