2nd Amendment Says ‘Arms,’ Not ‘Muskets’

* Jeffrey Levin’s March 14 commentary, “In Defense of the Right to Bear Flintlock Muskets,” is a stretch of logic and history at its most tortured. To believe that the framers of the Constitution, among them the visionary Jefferson and the inventor Franklin, envisioned static technology is ludicrous. No, Mr. Levin, these men of letters used the language with great nuance; they did not choose their words capriciously. The word they chose was not “muskets,” it was the generic “arms.” They anticipated your argument.

MICHAEL LAWLER

Los Angeles

* Levin makes an excellent point. And the 1st Amendment applies only to unamplified speech and newsprint, certainly not to radio, television, electronic Web sites, telephones, etc.

J. LARY KUHNS

Woodland Hills

* Bravo to Levin! At last someone with some real common sense. The U.S of 1789 and the one of 2001 are two different places. This country has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to own anything other than hunting weapons, and we have a pile of dead bodies to prove it. Our leaders are gutless wonders and will only continue to give lip service to how “tragic” these situations are and how their hearts “go out” to those involved. These words, like all words used by politicians, are hollow.

They will then continue on as before, behind closed doors, doing business as usual. It is way past due for a big change in the way this country handles its affairs in many areas that affect the quality of life and rights of its citizens. My guess is this change will not happen under the watch of President “Select” Bush and his cronies.

PHIL ROWLAND

South Pasadena