Interpretation of Second Amendment has strayed far from its roots | Letter to the Editor
January 29, 2013 · 3:09 PM
I agree with the author of a letter in last week’s paper that the National Rifle Association, as an organization, was not responsible for the Newtown massacre (“Violence caused by a murderer, not the NRA”). However, I have to strongly disagree with his interpretation and misquoting of Article II of the Constitution (also called the Second Amendment).
The amendment states, “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.” Nowhere in these lines is there any reference to standing against the tyranny of government. At the time of its writing in 1787, the United States had no permanent standing army. The militia was the method by which an army would be raised for the defense of the country. The amendment is referring to that practice and that alone.
The amendment is in effect about maintaining an army as was the practice at that time. Our modern interpretation of the amendment departs far from this idea and seems to be more about individual freedoms rather than protecting the country.
— John Williams
Comment on this story.
So keep your comments:
- Civil
- Smart
- On-topic
- Free of profanity
We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and “drive-by” commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.
