<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Friday,  November 22 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
Opinion
The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
News / Opinion / Letters to the Editor

Letter: ‘Arms’ bear new meaning today

The Columbian
Published: November 30, 2013, 4:00pm

Many proponents of unrestricted gun rights also claim to be strict constitutional constructionists. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” was written in the context of 18th century arms.

The drafters and ratifiers of the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution were familiar with flintlock, muzzle-loading personal firearms that could fire one or two shots before requiring the arduous task of reloading. Those writers could not have imagined the array of weaponry now available. High-velocity semi-automatic guns that are easily converted to fully automatic and are fitted with multiround clips or magazines, assault rifles, long-range sniper rifles, laser-sighted arms, and many others are clearly well beyond the intent of the 18th century drafters of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Perhaps we ought to return to the intent of the Second Amendment with limited exceptions for those with a proven need and the fitness to handle modern arms.

Laurie Sturgeon

Vancouver

We encourage readers to express their views about public issues. Letters to the editor are subject to editing for brevity and clarity. Limit letters to 200 words (100 words if endorsing or opposing a political candidate or ballot measure) and allow 30 days between submissions. Send Us a Letter
Loading...