Re: “,” July 17 letters to the editor.
Letter-writers Stephen B. Pacetti and Gary Montijo claim specific knowledge of precisely what the Founders meant in crafting the Second Amendment, rejecting out of hand any other interpretations. They proclaim the virtues of citizens rising up in armed rebellion against a government they perceive as unjust. This is precisely the rationale Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge assassin, promulgated when he killed three police officers. Believing the police to be unjust agents of an illegitimate government (see New Freedom Group), and likely viewing himself a member of a well-regulated militia, he did what the radical right would embrace as his duty. This is what your well-regulated looks like. Get used to it.
Kent Heyborne, Denver
Supporters of the Second Amendment argue that the framers of our Constitution believed citizens have the right to bear arms in the event that a government not to our liking must be overturned in order to protect the Constitution. This requires a militia, one with the right to own any number and type of weapon intended to fight a war. In Dallas and Baton Rouge, we are seeing the results of that thinking. Well-trained individuals taking up weapons of war to correct perceived injustice from a tyrannical government. In my opinion, actions such as these, which are permissible under this type of reasoning, are not what the framers of our Constitution intended when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Carl Douhan, Littleton
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
