A welcome ruling

I was glad to see the Supreme Court finally make an intelligent ruling.

I'm referring to the court striking down the Washington, D.C., ban on private ownership of handguns.

Anybody with even a modicum of common sense should be able to see that the ban was a total abrogation of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, which says, "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."

Many anti-gun people have tried to claim that the phrase "a regulated militia" refers to the National Guard. This is absolutely not true. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789 and the National Guard was not even formed until 1879.

There were two militias at that time in U.S. history - the organized militia, which were military troops, and then there was the unorganized militia, which was defined as "all able-bodied citizens capable of bearing arms in defense of the country."

It should be obvious that this refers to the citizenry in general. Also, the Second Amendment states, "the right of the people, etc." In all the other amendments, everybody knows that the term "the people" means you, me, the guy across the street, i.e. the people.

Therefore, why should "the people" in the Second Amendment mean the National Guard? "The people" means "the people," period.

I tracked down the word "regulated" all the way back to an 1865 edition of Roget's Thesaurus to see what the word meant back in that time. I figured that the meaning in 1865 would be reasonably close to what it meant in 1789, as not that much time had elapsed.

I found that the word "regulated" at that time meant "well-equipped." It did not mean subject to regulation, such as military rules or law.
The citizens of the unorganized militia were expected to supply their own arms if they were called upon to defend the country. This meant they had to be well-equipped with their weapons.

The bottom line for the anti-gun crowd is that they want the people disarmed, as they believe that armed citizens are a threat to their agenda of making the U.S. a socialist country.

They are not interested in crime control, as they claim. If they were concerned about crime, they would control criminals, not guns.

It has been illegal to murder people since biblical times, but not a single law that has been promulgated since then has kept a criminal from killing someone, if he decided he was going to do so.

All the gun laws in the world will not stop a criminal. That is the definition of "criminal," someone who does not obey laws.

I find it interesting that 40 states, at this time, have passed laws making it legal for the citizens to carry concealed weapons. All 40 states experienced a drop in the crime rate for personal crimes such as murder, rape, muggings and robbery.

I also find it interesting that the states that have the most lax gun laws have the lowest crime rates and the states which have the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates.

Washington, D.C., which formerly completely banned the private ownership of handguns, and required rifles and shotguns to be registered, kept unloaded and locked up in the home, had the absolute highest crime rate in the nation.

I know this is a long letter, but people need to consider these things when they vote in the upcoming presidential election. The Democratic Party's official platform is anti-gun and anti-gun owner.

Barack Obama says he supports the right of people to keep guns for hunting and target shooting.

The Second Amendment doesn't say a word about hunting and target shooting.

It says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.

The Second Amendment should be the first amendment, as it is the only amendment that gives any teeth to the other nine amendments.
If the people of the United States are ever disarmed, as in England and Canada, and every socialist and communist country in the world, it will not be long until the U.S. becomes a police state. Then we are doomed.

Sandy Milner
Odessa