Opinion: Home invasion wasn’t on the framers’ minds when they wrote the 2nd Amendment

To the editor: With regard to your recent op-ed article, “An intruder, a handgun, and what happened next,” by Daniel J. Levitin, there seems to be some confusion when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Self-defense, home-defense, hunting and target shooting are all well and good, and reasonable people may partake of those activities or not. But the reason our founding fathers placed the individual’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights was to ensure that if the government ever became tyrannical or dictatorial (see Venezuela for an example), the people would have the means to fight to keep our rights.

It is no coincidence that many dictators wish to keep their people disarmed. I am of the belief that armed people are citizens, and unarmed people are subjects.

David M. McCarthy, San Diego

..

To the editor: The fact that extremists from both sides attacked Levitin for either owning a gun or not using it to repel a home invasion means that he must have done something right.

His voice is so refreshingly reasonable, so needed, and it left me with a feeling of hope. Not much does that as of late.

Bob Kahn, Pacific Palisades

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook