<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday,  November 25 , 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: Interpreting Second Amendment

By Gerald Armstrong, VANCOUVER
Published: November 17, 2023, 6:00am

I read in Stev Dieringer’s letter (“Second Amendment not a threat,” Our Readers’ Views, Nov. 9), that the Second Amendment “was incorporated into our constitution to curb central government.” I must have misread the Constitution.

In Article 1, Section 8 it lays out the powers of the Congress. Part of it says to provide for the calling forth the militia to perform three duties: Execute the laws of the Union; suppress insurrections; repel invasions.

That looks to me like a way to preserve a central government. In that light, the Second Amendment would ensure the militia would be functional and prepared to defend the state.

So reads the Second Amendment: “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.”

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...