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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (74380)	7/2/2008 9:45:29 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 543200

It's not clear- and some previous court decisions have done a lovely job laying out the "unclearness" of Tim's position. Since the writers certainly could have said exactly what they said without alluding to States and well regulated militias it's "clearly" meaningful that they put those words in- and as an ablative absolute clause at that...

To: Cogito who wrote (74380)	7/2/2008 11:18:28 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543200

So would you mind explaining to me what that bit about a well regulated Militia is about? 1 - Not the active clause of the statement. Its not something that modifies, limits, or negates the active clause. It would be similar to having a first amendment that said "the need for debate before elections being important, the right of the people to free speech and a free press, shall not be infringed". If the 1st amendment said that the right would not be limited to only political debate before elections. 2 - A justification for the active clause. 3 - The militia IS individual people to a very great extent. The amendment is not "the states have a right to have military organizations", the militia was then, and had long been, ordinary people with their own weapons. Also by current US law most adult males, and some women are also members of the militia.