To the editor:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The framers of the Constitution, looking back at their handiwork, decided that this statement should be added as an amendment to the original set of laws enacted to be the framework of their new republic. A well-regulated militia ... to attain this goal, one can safely assume that the arms which the people had the right to bear would be the latest weaponry that would ensure the effectiveness of a militia. That would mean guns, not clubs, spears, swords, or bows and arrows, would be necessary to defend our freedom from tyranny — from within or without.
That being said, it follows that if one truly believes that the second amendment disallows any attempts to limit the types of guns that might be owned by private citizens, we must go back to the first two clauses of that short, but not so simple sentence. If indeed, our right to bear arms is to maintain the “well-regulated militia,” guardian of our security, we the people are woefully under-armed with only assault rifles allowed as our defense.
If an armed public were to be truly able to defend itself against an oppressive force, much more would be needed to wage an effective battle, e.g., grenade launchers, mortars, ground-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, land mines, etc. This may be insane, but it is logical, if the second amendment is taken to be the defense against gun regulation. But of course the National Rifle Association is not really interested in the second amendment, but rather is adamantly dedicated to supporting arms manufacturers. To this end, no amount of senseless carnage will deter it from its ceaseless protection of the gun industry.