Letter: ‘Well regulated’ isn’t government control
In his interpretation of the language surrounding the individual liberty to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment, Cyrus Won presented a common but inherently flawed argument in favor of “regulations” in a modern context that implies government control and oversight (“Second Amendment allows for regulations,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 2).
In the language of the day, the phrase “well regulated” was used to describe a militia that was to be fully equipped and capable of immediate deployment. Thus, to the end of facilitating the formation of such a force, individuals presumed to man its ranks were specifically granted the uninfringed right to bear arms.
The amendment has since been more broadly understood to legally grant the privilege for purposes of self-protection, rendering the issue of the need for a militia moot. But clearly it was not the original intent of the Founders to invite regulatory authority over basic individual rights.
Stephen Hinton
Waialua
EXPRESS YOURSELF
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.
>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.
>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813
>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter
