Gun Control and ’22 Cowardly Acts’

I, a law-abiding gun owner, am personally offended by The Times’ scurrilous characterization of me, and my fellow gun owners, as “a small band of zealots, who--history and reason notwithstanding--persist in a willfully distorted reading of the Second Amendment” (editorial, “Judgment Day on Firearms,” Sept. 13). I would genuinely entertain an explanation from your editorial writer of exactly how a simple, straightforward sentence (“ . . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”) can be distorted into anything other than what it says. I think our legislators are in need of remedial English because they apparently do not understand the clarity or meaning of the phrase, “shall not be infringed!”

I have not forgotten the first part of the Second Amendment, the part which refers to “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . .” Both Webster’s and the American Heritage dictionaries define “militia” as an army composed of citizens who are not in the armed forces, and who can be made available in time of emergency, attack or crisis. Webster’s further defines the armed forces reserves and the National Guard as the “organized militia” (regulated by the military’s rules), and all others as the “unorganized militia” (regulated by civil laws and the guiding principles of the NRA).

In 1903, Congress defined the militia as consisting of all able-bodied male citizens more than 18 and less than 45 years of age. Therefore, virtually every one who is a law-abiding citizen can claim the right to own a firearm, regardless of any “reason,” “safety,” or “public interest” canard that the gun-banning factions can present in opposition.

If Assemblymen Connelly and Johan Klens (D-Castro Valley) truly mean to act in the public’s interest, then let them enforce the laws that already exist to keep gun-wielding criminals locked up and off our streets (and schoolyards), because putting more restrictions on the rest of us has historically proven to cause no increase in safety at all.

JAMES B. KIEL

Anaheim