Another Position on the 2nd Amendment

Paul Finkleman makes the obvious point that the 2^nd amendment was passed after the Constitution was approved, as evidenced by the fact that it's an amendment, making Thom Hartmann's argument that the it was about slave patrols moot.

The Bill of Rights was passed about two years after the Constitution was ratified, though some states had not ratified the Constitution, by the time that the Bill of Rights was proposed.

The actual line may be somewhere in the middle. You see, one of the factors in the ratification of the Constitution, was the Massachusetts Compromise, which involved a commitment to amending the Constitution, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which includes militia rights.

Considering that it was Mason and Madison, both of whom were slave holders, who were instrumental in the development and ratification of the Bill of Rights, it's still a matter of some dispute.

My inclination is to lean a little bit on the side of Thom Hartmann, particularly given the history, which clearly shows that slavery was arguably the most contentious issue at the constitutional amendment.

In any case, it is more ambiguous than I originally suggested.

H/t DC at the Stellar Parthenon BBS.