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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (28831)	7/3/2008 9:11:45 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: None of those claims about "actual written legislative history" amounts to strong support of the constitutional right being anything other than an individual one" Really? How could you possibly know that (without yet having bothered to actually READ the written legislative history of the Congressional debate)? I couldn't answer that question either 'yea' or 'nay' either, without having done the research and read the legislative history --- which I haven't done yet. Re: "...even if you assume they are accurate." Yes, I assume the written record of the federal Congressional debates are 'accurate'. (Why wouldn't I????????????) Most especially --- when the House puts in CLEAR LANGUAGE laying out an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to bear arms... and the Senate refuses to go along, and strikes the language, and the House is then forced to accept the Senate's language, and the bill passes and is adopted with that less expansive language intact... I would generally tend to believe that that little dust-up was at least relevant to what the 'original intent' of the language that WAS ADOPTED was and is. But then, that's just me. Not so-much into wishy-washy what-you-want-to-see-is-what-you-say-you-see 'New Age-ish' interpretive / flexible 'constitutional reading'. If you want to be though, OK. More power to 'ya. :-)