Charles Devoe Jr. (letter, Jan. 6) seems to think that we ought to own firearms for the purpose of revolution, to overthrow tyrannical government. Mr. Devoe is not alone. I've read this argument many times and though I continue to look for nuance and some historical reasoning, there appears to be none forthcoming.
Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the levying of war against the government constitutes treason. Are Mr. Devoe and others in the gun-toting cohort suggesting that the Constitution both renders treason aid and comfort (in the form of a "well regulated militia") and makes it unlawful at the same time?
The Supreme Court has defined the Second Amendment as basically giving Americans the ability to defend themselves against personal attack. Fine; that is that, until otherwise defined by future court hearings. But to come out and redefine the Second Amendment as allowing treason is absurd. No American should further a line of reasoning — if that is what it can be called — that conjures up images of gunslinging fanatics taking aim at soldiers and police throughout our country. That is what these people are arguing for.
They have not thought through their peculiar desires for guns. They speak of "revolt" and "revolution," not knowing what they speak of. They seem more like boys trying to play soldier.
Jonathan Lloyd
Valley Falls