This artwork by Nancy Ohanian relates to whether Americans can objevctively consider gun laws.
Susan Hogan, Nancy Ohanian
Letter of the Day (Aug. 5): Guns
- August 5, 2012 - 7:01 PM
I always find it amusing when I see someone ask whether the founding fathers could have foreseen the use of assault rifles (Readers Write, Aug. 1). One could apply that debate to arguments for and against many amendments.
What about the Third Amendment? Did the founding fathers foresee all future wars on U.S. soil, and therefore decide they needed a law saying soldiers couldn't force the people to house them?
How about the Fourth Amendment? Did they foresee "unreasonable searches and seizures" from anything except their homes? What about automobiles? I don't think so.
I do believe, however, that they knew where they came from and what they needed to do to defeat a governing tyrant. Both the United States and Great Britain had the same main weapons -- single-shot musket rifles and/or pistols.
But all you have to do is read the many quotes from the day to realize that the founding fathers said exactly what they meant: The people should be armed, if for no other reason than to prevent tyranny in government.
Of that I believe we can be sure. And if they had fought the British with modern-day weapons, I suspect they would have written it the very same way.
BILL CORRIGAN JR., SPRING LAKE PARK, MINN.
© 2013 Star Tribune