Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] But of course!

Subject: RE: [OM] But of course!
From: "James N. McBride" <jnmcbr@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 11:03:09 -0600
Mike,  Where did you come up with this interpretation? Curious minds want to
know.  /jim

-----Original Message-----
From:   owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike
Sent:   Saturday, June 14, 2003 10:10 AM
To:     olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        Re: [OM] But of course!

>
>
><snip>
>the right to bear arms
><snip>
>
>Geez, that resolves a question. I thought it was the 'right to bare
arms'...
>always puzzled me (especially for Alaskans).
>
>D.
>
Donald, You are absolutely right. Perhaps an historical perspective will
help clarify the issue. At the time of the framing of our constitution
things like dueling were major problems nor was spelling standardized.
What our founding fathers had in mind was that folks might rather "bare
arms" and go at it au fisticuffs rather than just kill each other.
Spelling being loose at the time the word was recorded as "bear" for
posterity. Maybe they'd just been out hunting.  The constitution plainly
makes allowance for a militia to actually carry the guns. Enter the
present conservative strict constructionist supreme court who (like my
old strict constructionist english teacher) say "when we grade essays,
spelling counts" Doesn't matter what was originally intended.

Hope this helps,
Mike
:>)


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz