I believe it is time to emphasize the language in the first phrase of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
That is the purpose of the Second Amendment — to establish a militia.
The second phrase, “the right to bear arms,” is only the means by which the militia will obtain the necessary weapons.
When our Constitution was written, there wasn’t a standing army.
Each colony had a voluntary militia.
Today, the United States has a professional army and each state has a National Guard division.
Our federal and state governments provide them with the weapons for our defense.
These well-trained professionals don’t depend on the general public for their weapons (and how many gun owners belong to the National Guard and bring their guns to service?).
Our Constitution is a living document.
It has been amended and can still be amended.
Is it time to clarify the Second Amendment, since the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia has been achieved?
I believe that the right to own arms still has a purpose, home protection being paramount.
Other uses such as hunting and competitive shooting make sense.
But do these activities require military-type assault weapons?
Hunting even requires a license.
It is time to require thorough background checks and to eliminate carry permits which don’t have a legal reason.
Buy-backs for assault-type weapons and magazines can be legislated.
We did it before by eliminating submachine guns.
Requiring background checks and licensing doesn’t deny your right; it only qualifies you as a responsible citizen.
Mel Rudin,
Port Angeles