Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (230340)	12/4/2007 7:07:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793891

If you don't like abstract, how about logic: Hey, I'm the one who thrives on abstract. B can be true even if A is not. I didn't and don't claim to know what the Constitution means, particularly in light of the passage of time and the change of assumptions regarding militia. I said at the top of this discussion: "That said, I don't claim to know what the conjoined sentence means as written. " I agree with you that, in light of the passing of militias, the right CAN still be valid. The operative word is "can." That's not the same as "must be." What I objected to was the notion that the first clause was absolutely, positively irrelevant to the right in the second. Clearly it wasn't irrelevant at the time it was written or that first clause wouldn't have been there. The current status of the right, IMO, could be interpreted either way. I object to claiming that the right is clearly absolute. It ain't.