Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

Subject: Respect for the "Law" Author: Motie [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 21:43:50 11/13/02 Wed In reference to teh article by Ed Lewis, I am impressed by most of his knowledge. His example of Mo violating the US Constitution in the writing of their own Constitution is enlightening. There is an even earlier example of a Constitutional violation within his article, that he failed to acknowledge. Excerpt from his article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 2nd Amendment says this: "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." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many of the arguments about what the above 'really' means, are based on misinformmation and confusion about when/where the Militia Clause can be determined to apply. I submit, that much of the confusion could be cleared up and debunked, if we would only use the wording of the 2A as ratified. The ratified version of the US Constitution, 2nd Amendment has only one comma in it, after the word "State". I contend that any version that has 3 commas, is a fictitious version. "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." This is 2A as RATIFIED by the States. Any changes to the ratified version would have to be by Constitutional amendment, and ratified by the States. I am unaware of any such action. Until it happens, I will stand by the Constitution AS RATIFIED! Any arguments about the meaning, that rely on the fictitiously added commas, are null and void! Motie [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]