Court followed original intent

To the editor:

I just read John Bierk's letter ("A case of judicial activism") concerning the Supreme Court's decision on the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, and must politely disagree. The Second Amendment was very clear: It is the right of the people (civilians) to keep and bear arms. The Framers did not want to restrict the people from being able to defend themselves. The militia part applies to allowing the people to join a militia to secure the free state. They did not make service the mandated requisite to being armed. If one wishes to be armed for self-defense, that is their right, provided they are law-abiding, mentally capable individuals.

Those who follow the "militia only" rule leave the law-abiding citizens at the mercy of dangerous criminals. And criminals like it that way. Criminals mock society's laws. Banning civilian gun ownership makes it easier for them to continue mocking the law. Would you want to be at the mercy of a violent thug who would kill you before you can dial 911 and do so without blinking an eye? If so, then you are a criminal's dream come true. I prefer not to be a victim.

The Supreme Court justices did not try to exercise their own opinions and prerogatives, but rather followed the original intent of the Constitution. They conferred a right of the people to the law-abiding residents of Washington.

TONY REDDICK, Cape Girardeau