AZ - Right to bear arms is right to freedom (Letter)

[FWiedner]

Right to bear arms is right to freedom

Regarding "Purpose of 'bearing arms' is ignored" (Letters, Friday):

The writer says, "ask yourself whether your gun is necessary to maintain a militia."

First, when the Second Amendment was written and added to the U.S. Constitution, we had just gained our freedom from another country and the founding fathers wanted to be sure we wouldn't be overtaken by anyone using force. Furthermore, "militia" meant every able-bodied male.

Secondly, the courts have held that the "right of the people" refers to individual "unalienable" rights; all the rights listed in the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ruled to be referring to individual rights.

Last, but not least, the greatest freedom is that of self-preservation and, in this case, self-defense. If you choose not to exercise your right, that is the greatest freedom you can have. But your choice doesn't mean you can tell the rest of society what they can do with their right.

Barry Spinka, Sun City

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1002sunlets026.html

.

[PA-Joe]

I do not think the Second Amendment was intended for third-party invaders. It was intended to allow the people to protect themselves from their own government. Afterall in 1776 we were fighting our own government not an invader!