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 (28837)	7/3/2008 3:15:45 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: [...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....] "That the main claim, in question (although not the only one)." Yah, that seemed to be one of the main arguments in the short little news item. (As far as I could tell, also.) Might be others in the formal submission that the historians made to the Supreme Court. (Remember: I suggested that you D/L it if you had an interest in the arguments they were making --- and the DETAILS that they were citing in support of their arguments. NO DOUBT it is considerably more detailed and exacting then that simple little newspaper article....) Re: "It indicates just about nothing." Eh? LOL! It 'indicates' one CLEAR PIECE of (what is now American history) showing how that clause came to be written as it is and then placed into the new constitution. <GGG> Re: "... It doesn't indicate the reason for supporting different wording...." No doubt the formal records from the MONTHS of DEBATE of the Congress over this go into exactly (member by member) the 'reasons' you seem desirous to learn....