The Globe (June 28) ran a front-page story on the Supreme Court decision (5 to 4) that verifies the constitutional protection to own a gun and keep it in a person’s household.

All of the randomly selected respondents concurred that this was a good decision. The only dissenting voice (which I assume the Globe contacted non-randomly) was a Pitt State professor of political science, who said the decision was “right-wing judicial activism.” And I always thought the “right-wing” supported “strict construction.”

He mostly focused on the opening clause, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” I am assuming that the professor concludes that this means only the military should possess guns. He then downplays the second clause, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

And who are “the people,” if not you or I? Many of “the people” at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights (1791) owned and kept a weapon at home for self defense and food procurement. The professor then went on to say that the court had read the Second Amendment in an “illiterate” way — my apologies to the unlearned justices (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). Thomas Sowell penned a book about liberal university professors entitled, “ The Vision of the Annointed.” As a fellow university professor, I will remain “unannointed and illiterate” concerning gun control. I am assuming that the “annointed and literate” professor is going to vote for the “annointed messiah” of “hope and change.” Once again, thank God for the electoral college.

Richard E. La Near


Recommended for you