ADLER: It says what it says

With considerable interest I read the recent report on Dr. David Adler’s presentation on the Second Amendment. Ah, I thought. A Ph.D. We ought to get some useful new insights into this topic. Instead I found the usual tired positions of an anti-gun zealot.

Let’s take a major aspect of his presentation — that the amendment applies only to a militia and not each individual person. If that is true then why doesn’t the amendment end with the words “…the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not. It goes out of its way to refer to the people. The constitution was not written by the three stooges. They might have used the words we know while meaning what Dr. Adler claims. I find it difficult to think of anyone else who might have done that. Oh perhaps Gracie Allen or those guys from the movie “Dumb and Dumber.” And why would a constitutional amendment be required for a militia to be armed? Would anyone seriously consider an unarmed militia? I find it impossible to accept Dr. Adler’s interpretation.

PHIL MEMBURY

Coeur d’Alene