The discussions about guns always refer to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which, in its entirety, says: “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.”
Think about the other components of the Bill of Rights in conjunction with the Second Amendment. They deal with weighty subjects: freedom of religion, free speech, forcing people to house soldiers, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from being deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process, the right to a speedy trial, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
Does it make sense that a special right should be included to support the ownership of a device — a gun? That only makes sense if firearm ownership is tied to some weighty purpose, e.g., the need for “the security of a free state.” Since, at the time, there was little established force for the country’s defense, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” was for national defense, not for recreational purposes.
The Supreme Court, in its recent Heller decision, made a grave error that will someday be corrected.
Walt Thode, Boise