Second Amendment commentary shot balance in the foot

Katherine Letellier

Date published: 12/16/2005

I was extremely disappointed by your coverage of the Second Amendment as part of your Bill of Rights series ["Amendment II: Right to bear arms," Dec. 6].

As a government teacher, I was looking forward to a balanced essay that would highlight the diverse interpretations of this controversial amendment.

After reading the essay by Tom Moncure, former assistant counsel to the NRA, I looked for the piece that would complement his words by offering an alternate viewpoint.

Alas, I found none. Mr. Moncure's essay was allowed to stand alone, implying that his (and the NRA's) interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only credible one.

No space was offered for the argument that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to have guns, though this is a view shared by many, including federal courts, arbiters of the Constitution's meaning.

United States v. Miller (1939) was highlighted by Mr. Moncure to substantiate his arguments, but the same case is used by gun-control advocates to make their case.

Each side can cite Colonial history and quote from the Founding Fathers. Because both sides in this debate offer challenging and convincing arguments, both deserve equal time in your paper, if the intent truly is to educate readers on the Bill of Rights.

Trust your readers to think through the issues and decide for themselves. Informed debate is at the heart of democracy.

Spotsylvania

Follow us on

Date published: 12/16/2005