2nd Amendment
Hurray and hallelujah for your Aug. 29 editorial proposing “Sensible Gun Limits--Now.” Although the 2nd Amendment creates the right of the people (plural) to keep and bear arms as “a well-regulated militia” (which in colonial times were an alternative and balance to potential federal despotism), this says nothing about personal rights to “firearms.”
On the very face of it, the 2nd Amendment “right” appears designated for and limited to a collective (militia) defense for “the security of the state” under the specific conditions that, even then, such a militia shall be “well-regulated.” Was this language ever intended to condone (much less to empower) arms possession by individuals acting independently? And if so, then why should firearms be limited mainly to guns--to the exclusion of personal tanks, private bombers and neighborhood nuclear devices? These questions go begging.
ELI ELLIOTT
Laguna Beach
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
