tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823302.post4576166863330902297..comments2008-03-21T23:59:59.667-04:00The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07842255699950841410noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823302.post-60589539298028009122008-03-21T23:59:00.000-04:002008-03-21T23:59:00.000-04:00First off, we inherited this "language" from you lot, so any errors or omissions are clearly traceable to that long ago effort by Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Anglo-Saxon barmaids.<BR/><BR/>As for the "use" of the arms, this demonstrates exactly why You People lost the Revolution to My People. Clearly no one ever actually bothered to inform His Majesty's Finest that "bearing arms," particularly when connected to "for defense," might actually - by implication, admittedly - involve USING the things.<BR/><BR/>Well, that and the whole "shooting from behind rocks and trees" thing.j underhillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823302.post-45052466453800992272008-03-21T22:22:00.000-04:002008-03-21T22:22:00.000-04:00This is all well and good, but the good Mr. Underhill appears to have overlooked a certain rather critical point. Section 27 does, indeed, protect the right of the people to bear arms. No matter how closely I read it, nor indeed through which glasses, I cannot see any reference to the right of the people to use those arms, or in fact even to load them. <BR/><BR/>Mind you, the entire document does seem a little flawed. As well as being somewhat derivative (James Madison really should be getting royalties), it does seem a little confused. I'm really not quite sure why the death penalty would be included in the Bill of Rights, and I'm a touch troubled by the "abuse of this right" clause in section 9. <BR/><BR/>And as for the spelling — did nobody proof-read this thing?actualpatriothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02419601213817615443noreply@blogger.com