James Anderson took Joe Martinez to task in a Thursday letter (“Gun control”) for his interpretation of the Second Amendment, but James also got it wrong.
He wrote that the amendment is about “resisting government tyranny.” No Supreme Court has interpreted it in that manner.
Anderson gave several valid examples of citizen defense, but he missed the historical purpose of the Second Amendment.
It’s true that citizen soldiers and a revolutionary army defeated the British. But after the Revolutionary War, the citizen soldiers went home and the army pretty much disbanded until the War of 1812.
The Second Amendment wording that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” indicates that these citizen soldiers should keep their weapons in the event they are ever called upon to again defend their “free” country.
There is nothing in the amendment or subsequent Supreme Court interpretations that says we have the right to bear arms so we can rise up against our government when some of us feel it is tyrannical.
Dave Robinson, Fort Worth
It seems that many people misunderstand the Second Amendment.
It does not outline the number or type of guns that any person may own. It says that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
It is not the business of the government or private citizens to tell other citizens what they may or may not own.
Clista Hancock, Arlington
James Anderson spoke glowingly of the “ordinary citizens” who “held the Alamo.” Perhaps we should put some context to these “citizens” with respect to time, place and classification.
Texas in 1836 (the year of the battle at the Alamo) was part of Mexico. In 1830, Mexico had closed its borders to further immigration from the U.S. If memory serves correctly, several of our Texas icons, including Davy Crockett and William Travis, entered after that date and without permission. Using today’s vernacular, they were “illegal immigrants.”
Their status changed (again using a modern term) when these illegal immigrants took up arms against the rightful governmental authority of Mexico. You guessed it — “enemy combatants.” Donald Trump would have had these guys waterboarded and put on the first mule out of town.
When I hear folks talk about needing more guns “to resist government tyranny,” my first thought is not that government tyranny is threatening, but that conspiracy-minded arch conservatives may be the real danger.
David M. Sanderford, Granbury
I appeal to U.S. Rep. Kay Granger: Honor the lives lost July 1, 1992, when my former college classmate George Lott opened fire in the Tarrant County Courthouse.
Stand on the side of life by honoring the contributions that the young people massacred at Wedgwood Baptist Church would have made if Larry Gene Ashbrook had not walked into that church with 200 rounds of ammo and opened fire.
The contributions those teenagers were not allowed to make should matter more than the rights of a madman!
Show courage and join your Democratic colleagues in demanding gun sanity.
Faith Chatham, Arlington