Since there seems to be some confusion concerning the Second Amendment compromise that ran in the July 17 edition of the Tribune, perhaps I should clarify my position more fully.
According to how the Founding Fathers originally worded the Second Amendment, the individual right to bear arms goes hand in hand with the necessary existence of a “well-regulated militia.” It is apparent to me that these two elements are of equal importance, neither being more important than the other. You cannot have a well-regulated militia without the individual right to bear arms; and you cannot have the right to bear arms without the need for a militia.
Based on the original wording of the amendment, it is clear to me that the Founding Fathers understood this truism. And so, my original “compromise” that I offered remains.
If you want (or feel the need) to own a gun, you must be a member of a militia.
What part of this concept is so troublesome to today’s Second Amendment proponents?
— Steve Herr, Roscoe Village, Ill.
