Second Amendment’s primary intent eludes most

The April 12 letter “Duty to care” typifies a general misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. It doesn’t exist to let us bag a deer head for our trophy wall, or limit selfdefense to protecting the homestead, so the selection of weaponry for those is irrelevant.

As former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opined in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, it is all about defending oneself, with arms, against all aggressors, from home invaders to a domestic government turned despotic. He termed it a “pre-existing,” “inherited” right, which the Second Amendment merely codifies, its primary intent being to prohibit government from infringing on it.

Scalia hearkened back to the English king’s unsuccessful attempts to disarm the colonists who resisted his tyranny. America exists because he failed. Later history saw the tragic consequences of nations (Germany, Cuba, Venezuela) that disarmed their people. Even today, defenseless citizens of Nigeria and Myanmar are being shot down by armed government forces.

Who would have thought a generation ago that one political party today, with only one tie-breaking legislative vote, would try to dominate our laws by eliminating the Senate filibuster; pack our courts; allow illegal immigrants to move throughout the country; and, yes, try to disavow our natural right of self-defense.

That’s why most concerned Americans stand ready, individually or banded together in a militia, to defend those rights, ourselves and our property against any aggressor, bearing arms appropriate to the task.

– John A. Lanzetta,

Miami