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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4498)	12/3/2000 3:57:02 AM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

I have a theory on this: the authors of the Constitution were revolutionaries. Many were also aristocrats, who were a bit above "the people" in social standing and wealth. They didn't want to suggest that people just simply had a right to bear arms so as to overthrow a future tyrannous government--that was a real sensitive topic at the time. Nor did they want to say without qualification that there was right to bear arms. They surely knew how to do that without confusing qualifying language. The strange structure of the Second Amendment smells of compromise. "Okay, we'll put in a right to bear arms, but we'll say it's needed in order for the people to serve in a well-ordered militia, under some governmental control." I think this appeased those who feared the "rabble" being armed. What all this now implies for Constitutional analysis is unclear. Compromises always muck things up.