‘Ris­ing’ un­likely in to­day’s Amer­ica

Albany Times Union - Sunday - - PERSPECTIVE -

In Lawrence Corbett’s com­men­tary (“What’s missing in the de­bate over gun con­trol,” Nov. 26), he notes that the Sec­ond Amend­ment was in­cluded in the Con­sti­tu­tion by the Found­ing Fathers “be­cause they had just con­cluded an armed re­bel­lion against what they con­sid­ered to be a tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment. They saw first-hand the value in a peo­ple ca­pa­ble of ris­ing up in arms if they deemed nec­es­sary.”

That cer­tainly was one of the mo­ti­va­tions for the Sec­ond Amend­ment.

Corbett goes on to say, based on that, the only valu­able dis­cus­sion to­day about gun own­er­ship should be based on the afore­said con­cept.

That con­cept may have been of use in the 18th cen­tury when any mil­i­tary had ri­fles, usu­ally front load­ers, and can­nons.

It hardly ap­plies to­day. Whether or not the gen­eral pub­lic has ac­cess to as­sault weapons is ir­rel­e­vant since to­day’s mil­i­taries have, let’s see, mis­siles, bombers, and, oh yes, atomic weapons. r. Beth Klopott, PH.D. Del­mar

Erin Schaff / The New York Times

An em­ployee han­dles a ri­fle for sale inside the Clark Broth­ers Gun Shop in War­ren­ton, Va., on Feb. 25.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.