Disarming citizens is not the answer
If the recent writer of the “well-regulated militia clause” letter had studied history, he’d know why our founders distrusted government and included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Those scholars understood the old when creating the new, thus the addition of 10 amendments to the Constitution.
The writer condescendingly informs us that the Second Amendment grants arms solely to the militia for national defense. In fact, the militia were armed citizens of various states who could be readily organized to defend the country, along with the Army and Navy (Article I, Section 8) if ordered by the president (Article II, Section 2.) Perhaps replacing the comma with “and” between “free state” and “right of the people to bear arms” would have helped the confused or willfully blind. The provenance of the amendments is the Declaration of Independence, citing our duty to “alter and abolish” an oppressive government should it arise.
Nothing today can match government firepower, but a citizenry with millions of small arms would be a formidable guerilla force. That aside, depriving law-abiding citizens of guns will leave them vulnerable to criminals who will always acquire guns, just as they do illicit drugs. We’ve seen the results of gun-free cities, churches and school zones. Disarming citizens isn’t the answer.
Finally, is it logical that the founders would enshrine nine amendments for the people, and reserve one for the government? And why is there no record of early gun confiscation?
The writer’s ignorance of our founding principles is sadly predictive of Ben Franklin’s: “We’ve given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”