I would like to thank Richard Bell for his reference to the District of Columbia v. Heller decision (“Amendment has restrictions,” Reader Input, Feb. 8).
However, he should have gone to the Supreme Court of the United States website and read the real decision.
With regards to tyranny, the majority opinion did reference the purpose of the Second Amendment, as per William Rawle, to be to prevent the “flagitious” (criminal) disarming of the people “in blind pursuit of inordinate power.”
There are more references to suppression of factions through disarmament and protecting liberty.
With regards to the weapons protected, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute a bearable arm, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
They even mention the “M16” and the Miller decision, stating that the weapons protected are “those in common use at the time.” “But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the perfunctory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
They did not state that military-style weapons may be prohibited.
The subsequent McDonald v. Chicago decision is very appropriate with regards to current gun control discussions.
“In Heller, however, we expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing.” In other words, judicial infringement on the right is not allowed even though it may seem appropriate under the circumstances at that time.
I cannot help but wonder what type of person wants to give up any of his rights and also wants to convince others to do the same.
Walter F. Drysdale, M.D., Auburn