Editor, Daily Press:

Unlike what [TDP columnist] Brent Been and others of his ilk desire, attempting to rewrite and intentionally misunderstand what the Second Amendment says and means only tends to cloud a very plain issue that is stated clearly.

The definition of a "well-regulated militia" (circa the 1700s) is a group of civilians who volunteer to serve their community or country at need, and are not regular members of the military or the National Guard. It is a quaint idea that members of any community might want to volunteer to defend their homes and country. The members of the militia owned and cared for their own weapons, and were required to bring those weapons when they reported for duty.

At the time of the Constitution's writing, and was ratified with the amendments, there was not, and there was no need for, a large standing army. So, when the need for troops arose, the militias formed and served, as happened even in World Wars I and II. My father served in such a local unit created "for the duration of the emergency." The only difference was the military supplied its own weapons when the need arose, rather than rely on those owned by civilian.

Any other adopted meaning or attempt to impose modern meanings onto the very simple and straightforward wording of the Second or any of the other amendments has more to do with a personal and political agenda than with clarity or truthfulness.

Dr. Jonathan C. Jobe

Crescent Valley

Recommended for you