The Second Amendment reads: "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."
A narrow reading suggests the right to keep and bear arms is only a right to the extent that the state would require its soldiers to bring their own weapons when called to serve, as was the case during the writing of the Constitution.
Further complicating the amendment's meaning is the final phrase. Does this apply to the right of having a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms, or both?
Consider the implication of an absolute right. Citizens could freely own nuclear weapons, chemical warfare devices, bombs that could destroy city blocks, cannons that could shoot lethal projectiles hundreds of miles.
It is our government's responsibility to protect the welfare of its citizens while establishing reasonable regulations pertaining to the ownership of arms. We must no longer allow small special interest groups and zealots to control the formation of these rules and regulations.
Except as used in our military and by our police, I suggest:
Ban the sale and ownership of all assault weapons, of all high-capacity magazines and of all handguns.
Require all gun owners to be licensed and to register those weapons in a manner similar to those that require people to obtain drivers' licenses and automobile registrations.
Create greater criminal punishment for those gun owners whose weapons are used by others to intentionally or accidentally harm another person.
Too often we read of youngsters accidentally shooting to death a friend after getting a parent's gun. If someone chooses to own a gun, let them be liable for all of the consequences.
GARY MITTLEMAN
Loudonville