Letter to the Editor: Purpose of Second Amendment Questioned

Los Alamos

Having read Ben Carlson’s latest column on the value of restrictions on personal gun possession, I was wondering if anyone else had noted that an argument can be made that the Second Amendment to our Federal Constitution seems to want to prohibit such possession, not allow it.

A careful reading shows that the amendment uses for its justification of personal possession of guns, the necessity for a “well-armed militia.” Since we no longer have (or need) such a militia, hasn’t that reasoning gone away, and haven’t we returned to a state where individual possession is no longer necessary?

This might not mean that people can’t have guns, but it would mean that their right to “bear arms” is no longer supported by the Constitution.