Unhappy with NRA viewpoint


The NRA uses the Second Amendment to prove their right to own guns.

Here's the text:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe that's more than keeping and bearing arms. Let's look:

"A well-regulated militia." Gun-owning citizens were part of the military. Those who own guns today are, therefore, in the military and eligible for active duty.

It calls for a "well regulated" militia. Gun owners are part of the militia. Regulations on them and their guns are fine.

"...necessary to the security of a free state" Our main concern at the time was foreign invasion. Owning guns for other reasons is not mentioned.

"...the right of people to keep and bear arms..." What "arms" are our Founding Fathers talking about? AR-15's? No. Flintlocks? Yes. So, gun owners today can own only flintlocks. If they want to publicly display their weapons, that's OK.

."...shall not be infringed...". Why would we infringe on the rights of millions of guns owners, all part of the military, from owning their flintlocks to protect us from invasion?

Rather than cherry-picking just nine words out of the Second Amendment, the NRA and many gun owners should apply all 27 when making their case.

Richard Nevels


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service