To the editor:
It seems we have too many people interpreting the Constitution according to their private beliefs. This would not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that the courts sometimes go along with these private interpretations as though they were trying to win popularity.Many people seem to agree that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not give private citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It could be interpreted that way if you choose to ignore the comma. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice how there is no further break in the final phrase, thereby tying it all together. The working at that point is quite clear, the right of the people.
This amendment was not written to protect the rights of sportsmen from future legislation. It was written for the express purpose of providing a check and a counter-balance against the standing army so that a renegade government or general could not use the army to take over the country, as has happened in many other countries of the world.
It is a key factor in the system of checks and balances that make up the backbone of our government. We may choose to argue over how this applies in our day but the meaning remains clear as ever, even through all the arguments of gun-control advocates.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution should be defended today more than ever against those who would destroy them and this country of ours.
Todd Sommerville
Taylorsville