Why doesn’t the newspaper publish editorial responses to letters to the editor that are egregiously incorrect? Most magazines and many other newspapers do. Kids (some, anyway) read the paper, and allowing appalling misinformation to stand (we readers aren’t allowed to respond daily) is undermining our childrens’ educations.

A perfect example involves the recent letters by Peter Sirois (“Constitution contains out-of-date portions,” Feb. 23) and Charles Ferguson (“Scalia missed mark on Second Amendment,” Feb. 25).

I get so tired of having to explain continuously that the Second Amendment’s “well regulated” means well-drilled. Look up regular(s) in the dictionary. The framers didn’t just expect all able-bodied men and (older) boys to carry arms (excepting only a few conscientious objectors), they expected them to practice.

“A well regulated militia being necessary…” is known as the “exclusion (or restriction) clause.” Whom was it meant to restrict? Pretty much everyone but white men/boys (the typical constituency of a Colonial militia). There were no “Minutewomen” (except, perhaps, a few cross-dressers) and the Founding Fathers certainly had no interest in arming slaves. The 14th and 19th amendments did away with these restrictions. So who is still restricted from “the right to bear arms”? Convicted felons and certain categories of the mentally ill. Read the 13th Amendment in its entirety and also note that there is not (yet) any Constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on mental health status.

Kurt M. Linton

Richmond

Copy the Story Link