This is in response to the Nov. 24 letter to editor from, “Second Amendment didn’t anticipate today’s arms.” I thank her for her opinion and the genuine attempt at helping to resolve the gun issues that are in today’s media. I’m glad to finally have read an article that was not politically bias or motivated and did not seem to contain any intentional propaganda.
The writer claims the authors of the Second Amendment when they used the English word “arms” were only talking about single-action weapons, as it was the 18th century and that’s what they had in mind when it was written. The very next thing the writer says is “We do need to define what we mean when we say ‘arms.’”
Why does the writer insult the intelligence of the authors of the most well written and important document in United States history? The same reason she insults her own intelligence by pretending to not understand the English language or definitions of a word because it was printed a long time ago.
If they wanted to just allow single-action muskets they would have said that. If it was only muskets what about bayonets? They meant what they said and what they said included everything! Yes, Even a canon.
It mattered not what object one chose to bear but that you had a constitutional and God-given right to protect yourself and property. So tyrants, AKA big government would not be able to use force on the people who created it without protest. Don’t fall for the propaganda that somehow the word “arms” means something else other than its definition then, now or 1,000 years from now.