Use logic to interpret the Second Amendment

In the commentary “What’s missing in the debate over gun control,” Nov. 26, Lawrence Corbett missed the important factor that is generally forgotten: that being the first part of the Second Amendment. The full 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.” This version was passed after months of debate and numerous revisions. The first half of this amendment was not written cavalierly and should not be ignored, as preferred by the National Rifle Association. To understand the original meaning of this amendment, we must consider it in its entirety. Corbett claims the Second Amendment was written to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government. However, this discounts the inclusion of the words “well regulated” and conflicts with the phrase “being necessary to the security of a free state.” A more logical interpretation arises when considering the debate at the time about what powers the federal government should have relative to the states. There were conf licting concerns about a federal government having the power to raise its own standing army and the need for a strong defense against an outside aggressor. A more consistent interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it provides an allowance for individual states to raise their own militias, either to resist an overly powerful federal government or to repel an invasion.

Jonathan Marr Schenectady