I feel that it is necessary to respond to Peter P. Sirois’ Feb. 23 letter, “Constitution contains out-of-date portions.”

In the first paragraph, he writes, “If we are threatened in any way, our domestic tranquility is denied us.” Though he is absolutely correct in making that assertion, what he contends in his subsequent diatribe against the lawful ownership and use of firearms for self-protection seems contradictory at the very least.

The Constitution does, in fact, guarantee that one has the right to possess and use a firearm to protect oneself or one’s family and property against any aggressor, whether that aggressor is a stranger, a terrorist, a neighbor or an agent of an oppressive, dictatorial government. That basic natural right is paramount to the survival of our free republic, as well as to the individual, as much today as it was at the time of the creation of the Constitution.

The protection of our country, our freedoms, and the rights that each of us individually enjoys are just as much the responsibility of the individual now as it has ever been at any time in our nation’s history.

Finally, Sirois should remember that the “well regulated militia” was comprised of like-minded individuals who resisted, by force, a government that they did not feel should be allowed to deny them their personal rights, freedoms or property, or deny them the right to possess the means necessary to guarantee that the government, or anyone else, would be prevented from abolishing those rights, either individually or collectively.

I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I find that the Second Amendment is as necessary and important today as it has ever been, because it protects and guarantees the continued existence of all of the others.

David Small


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.