s teers all, to meet in locally controlled militia

teers all, to meet in locally controlled militia groups to repel danger to the Slate.

Third, the word “people” in the Amendment does not mean “the State,” as Mr. Warner correctly contends. The right to bear arms was conferred on the people, because they were the volunteers who had made up the militia in the colonies during the Revolution. The Columbia Encyclopedia informs us that, while the militia was a valuable force during the Revolution, it proved undependable in the War of 1812, and therefore, no militia was used in the Mexican War. During the Civil War, both sides resorted to the use of militias to supply their manpower needs, but after World War I, state military units were established under the term “National Guard.” Since the government provides all the arms required by National Guard units, the right conferred on the people in the Second Amendment would appear to be unnecessary. However, the men who drafted the Bill of Rights did not have a government-supported National Guard in their experience; they had locally controlled groups of volunteers, who furnished their own arms as they formed the militia.

Finally, where does the above discussion leave us? Is the Second Amendement a mere anachronism, in the face of the disappearance of a locally controlled, volunteer militia on which the Amendment was predicated? The right of the people to bear arms is most certainly not absolute, as contended by the NRA.

During the past year, the number of deaths by firearms in the U.S. has exceeded the number of deaths caused by the automobile. No one can reasonably object to the government licensing drivers and thereby having the means to hold them responsible for the destruction they cause as drivers. Why not license all firearms and users of firearms? Such action would fit in nicely with the purpose of the Second Amendment, to assure a “well-regulated militia.”

LEE^BIRD

Washington