Some supporters of gun rights argue the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable citizens to oppose tyrannical government. Tim Connolly adopts this position in his letter ("Some politicians our real threat," Jan. 16).
It's not entirely clear whether Mr. Connolly's concern is overreach by individual agents of a legitimate government or the systematic usurpation of power by a tyrannical dictatorship.
If it's the former, Mr. Connolly's idea that we must be able to use guns in defense of our rights amounts to a claim that individual citizens have a right to kill, or at least threaten to kill, government officials deemed by those individuals to have abused their power. I don't believe any such right exists.
But if it's the possibility of an actual dictatorship Mr. Connolly is concerned about, and if he believes that citizens armed with Glock pistols and Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles would be able to mount an effective resistance to a Washington-based dictatorship, he's indulging in a fantasy. For that, we'd need to keep and bear arms equivalent in firepower to those possessed by government forces: fully automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, tanks, etc.
I am not aware of any organized support for the legalization of trade by ordinary citizens in weapons of modern warfare, but the zaniness of what comes out of the gun rights crowd makes me hesitate to predict that it won't happen.
MICHAEL HALLORAN
Troy