Subscribe for 17¢ / day

Do we all need to reread the Second Amendment more carefully, with open heart and mind? It 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.”

After a careful reading, it is difficult for me to believe that in 2008, the Supreme Court interpreted these words to mean that each person individually is given the right to own, carry and use fire arms. The amendment refers to a militia (Army? National Guard?) which itself must be “well-regulated,” so that the expression “the people” in this context seems to mean the people collectively.

When the amendment was written more than 200 years ago, firearms available to the people and to the army or militia were mostly muzzle-loaded muskets and simple handguns. There was no way for the writers of that time to foresee the types of firearms that exist today, many of which are weapons of mass destruction.

I think we citizens, as well as the courts, need to revisit the meaning and intention of the Second Amendment in the context of today’s reality, and factor in the Constitution’s expressed rights for all citizens: our right to life and to domestic tranquility.

Phyllis Morris