President Ronald Reagan once noted that his opponents did indeed have a right to their own opinions, but he complained that they did not have a right to their own facts. Such is my view in response to a letter writer’s suggestion (“Founders got it wrong on guns,” Dec. 4) that the Second Amendment be repealed. The amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows:
“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.”
Contrary to the writer’s contention, this had nothing to do with aiding and abetting potential insurrection against corrupt government. Rather, it was put into place in recognition of the need for protection against outside aggression, given that there was a near-universal distaste in the newly created country for a standing army. The desire not to have a standing army arose from the constant presence of red-coated soldiers while the Colonies were under English rule.
There is no disagreement here that repealing the Second Amendment would be a step toward regulating firearms, but get your facts right before making the argument.
Michael Smith
Wells
Send questions/comments to the editors.
