Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No disrespect intended at all in my response. I know it is a divisive issue.

Looking at the history though you would want to be a revisionist historian if you were to be phrasing it in that manner.

It was a contentious issue even back then. I have described why it reads as it does as it is important to understand that in reality, those who drafted the amendment went through multiple revisions before arriving at the final version precisely because each state had reservations about the level of power that should be given to individual citizens. They based their reservations on their own experiences dealing with threats on the frontier and with their experiences raising, training, and incorporating citizens into a force capable of defeating a well trained army during the American Revolution.

They tried to use what they had learned looking back, and craft an amendment that would help preserve the nation's ability to look ahead to a more prosperous future as an independent nation capable of defending itself from the threats they knew about or could expect at the time.

Like all the other amendments, the text in this one was a compromise between those who were charged with codifying standards for the new nation that all could agree upon.



You probably know a lot more about it than me. I'm not even from the USA.

I was using the DC v Heller 2008 case and various commentaries on that.


I'm no expert on any of this. I'll have to look up that case for context. Thanks for the discussion.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: