Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Second Amendment right tied to militia

I’ve become disgusted to an extreme by the letters in this column submitted by gun lovers who wrongly think that the Second Amendment specifies an open entitlement to possess guns of any sort, with unlimited magazine capacities, and who also think that gun controls at any level trespass on what they call “our Second Amendment rights.”

So now I’m responding to the statement by Douglas Savage (“Schirard right to uphold U.S. Constitution,” Letters, Herald, Sept. 14). Savage displays little understanding of what he terms the “intentions of our founding fathers” in establishing the Second Amendment.

I say: Time for you to get it about the Second. Its intention (plain from reading the whole of it) is to grant citizens the right to keep and bear (“carry in a visible manner”) arms as members of a militia that is well trained (“regulated”), with the purpose of ensuring “the security of a free state.”

So, as Savage advocated, in a misreading of the Second, this amendment “shall not be infringed upon.” Is he a member of a well-regulated militia? If you’re not, the Second, as it was intended, entitles him to nothing. His entitlements come from Supreme Court decisions and statutes.

So yes, let’s enforce the Second Amendment. Immediately turn in your guns! That, or form a local militia and train it rigorously.

As for Duke Schirard, as a sheriff his responsibility is to uphold the law, not to rescind it. If he refuses in his duties, he’s an outlaw to be treated as one. Period!

Tom Wright

Aztec



Reader Comments