Right to bear arms is not without limits
The April 6 letter, “Right to bear arms isn’t about hunting,” quotes part of the Second Amendment, but assumes that it is complete and absolute. The Supreme Court, in 2008, ruled on this question. It ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited. One can’t have any weapon, in any manner, or for any purpose. In addition, the court said that many long-standing prohibitions and restrictions are OK.
The example the writer talks about has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. If others had been armed at the time of the various massacres he cites, more people would have been killed because more people with guns (untrained in actually shooting at people) means more bullets flying around. As far as Hitler is concerned, the writer forgets that, aside from weapons being rare in Germany, the vast majority of the German people were wholeheartedly behind him.
Finally, the Second Amendment says nothing about condoning rebellion against the government. The Civil War seemed to settle that.
Paul R. Libby