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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28879)	7/7/2008 6:19:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Then why even MENTION 'militias'? To provide rhetorical support for the principle. I always though the Constitution exemplified a fairly remarkable restraint and a conservation of language. Compared to most modern laws it does, but that doesn't mean it consists of strict minimalism. 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. The house came out with a formulation. The Senate came up with a formulation. The senate won. That doesn't indicate a rejection of the principle of an individual right. The senate's language "the right of the people" indicates an individual right. So your whole argument goes nowhere. Even if that wasn't the case neither you, nor anyone you quoted has done anything to show that the house's language was rejected BECAUSE of the mention of individual rights in the house's version. What's interesting is that you never even post the house's version when you try to make arguments based on it.