Second Amendment ensures against tyranny

In his letter, “NRA’s solution would cause more mayhem,” the writer says armed guards at Sandy Hook would not have prevented the tragedy. Perhaps not, although they seem to be a deterrent at banks and public buildings. He then accuses the National Rifle Association of failing “to admit culpability in creating the contemporary gun-violence culture,” while dismissing more likely factors, such as drugs, immorality and various other forms of cultural rot.

The writer says, “The tyrannical governments the founders feared then were an ocean away in Europe. We have no need to fear tyranny today.” Can this former teacher possibly not know that the founders, who knew history and understood human nature, included the Second Amendment to ensure against tyranny here? Is he unaware that the Constitution is our sole bulwark against tyrants? Doesn’t he understand that to regard the Constitution as a living document means it is subject to the whims of judges and politicians? Our present amendment process is far less dangerous.

Some anti-gun activists believe the amendment obsolete, in that armed individuals would never succeed against a modern army. Perhaps, but guerilla warfare can be quite effective. Other anti-gun groups interpret the archaic language of the amendment to mean that it is a state entity (militia), not the individual, that has the right to bear arms, but consider: of the original 10 amendments, did the founders intend nine to protect the individual, but reserve the Second Amendment to protect the state? It’s naïve to believe so.

I don’t think having armed guards in schools is a practical option, but demonizing the NRA and disarming a law-abiding populace are certainly not the answers. Rather, blame the violence on our evolving, soulless culture.

James Costa