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 (28878)	7/7/2008 4:46:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"... Nothing in the amendment says or even implies that the right is for militia use only." Well... guess that's why 'opinions are like AHs', 'cause everyone has one. :-) Re: "Or even implies.... LOL! (Then why even MENTION 'militias'? I always though the Constitution exemplified a fairly remarkable restraint* and a conservation of language....) I rather think that modifier clause, or preamble, or what-have-you, is the heart of the dispute. (And, like I previously pointed out: The more ambiguous language was the DIRECT RESULT of a conflict between the House and the Senate... which the Senate won. The House's earlier language directly said it was a right of individuals --- but that was struck from the draft that passed, because the Senate would not accept it that way.)