This is in response to J. Bruce McKinley’s letter, “Form a ‘well organized militia'” (March 14).
McKinley’s position rests on what the Founding Father’s meant by “state.” According to McKinley, “state” is a synonym for “nation.” That is wrong, of course, as doing so alters the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.
After the Revolution, the 13 colonies governed themselves under the original constitution, The Articles of Confederation. They weren’t called “colonies” in that document. They were 13 free and independent “states.”
Confederate governance proved ineffective and, within a decade, a new constitution was written, giving the centralized government more authority. The revolution against King George III was still fresh, so people feared a strong federal government would grow too powerful and tyrannical toward the 13 states. The Second Amendment relieved that fear.
A person’s right to firearms is not, as McKinley believes, contingent on joining a militia. It is so that if the federal government becomes tyrannical, the states can raise militias to defend themselves. However, if the federal government confiscates firearms from citizens, as the British did, a state would struggle raising a militia for its defense.
Public discourse on the people’s right to firearms is important and necessary. However, doing so with complete disregard for the founder’s intent is neither helpful nor respectful to the discussion this nation is having.
Randy Lautz, West Poland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
