In a May 20 letter to the editor, “We need better enforcement of gun laws, not new laws,” the writer makes a shocking claim: “The Second Amendment is our most important amendment. Without it, the people would have no means to defend against a tyrannical government.”

Since the Second Amendment predicates the right of the people to bear arms upon a “well regulated militia,” several questions arise: a) What entity is to regulate a militia if not the government, which might presumably have become tyrannical?; b) Who within this “well regulated militia” issues a call to arms in defense against the tyrannical government?; c) What happens when there are competing militias making claims as to when a government has become tyrannical?

Here in Maine, many people seem to believe the current state government is becoming “tyrannical,” and at least as many believe the current national administration has already crossed that line. Does the letter writer think we should all join militias and arm ourselves to defend against one governmental entity or the other? Meanwhile, what about the “well regulated” part? The letter dismisses gun-safety measures as “feel-good laws.” Would the framers of the Second Amendment agree, or would they have intended there to be greater regulation of arms than this letter writer wants to see?

Michael Lee
Kittery Point