Mr. Goldwin's mistake stems from his having confused a necessary with a sufficient condition. The Second Amendment, in its language and its history, makes plain that the need for a well-regulated militia is a sufficient condition for the right to keep and bear arms. Yet Mr. Goldwin treats it as a necessary condition, which enables him to conclude that Congress could deny an individual the right to own a gun if he did not join the National Guard. Mr. Goldwin makes this mistake, in turn, because he has misread Madison's original version of the Second Amendment, which exempted conscientious objectors from military service. Thus he says that "In this version, `bearing arms' must mean `to render military service,' or why else would there have to be an exemption for religious reasons? What right must not be infringed? The right of the people to serve in the militia." Plainly, any conscientious-objector provision would arise not from a right but from a duty to serve in the militia. Yet Mr. Goldwin believes the amendment means, as he later says, "that the right to bear arms meant the right to serve in the militia." Thus does he reduce the first of these rights to the second, when clearly it is much broader. Roger Pilon Senior Fellow and Director Center for Constitutional Studies CATO Institute Washington --- The militia is not the National Guard but rather the people of the original states. In Ohio, we have an Ohio militia that is not a part of the National Guard. The fear of standing armies and the control these armed men gave a central government was foremost in the Framers' minds when writing the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson moved to prevent this type of power in a few people's hands by the Second Amendment. He stated, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." The addition in the early drafts of a conscientious-objector clause was added for the preservation of religious freedoms, which the Colonists had not had in England. It is unfortunate today's "scholars" seem to spend their time picking apart history and the great thoughts of the visionary men who formed this country. In my personal celebration of this 200-year-old document, I have pledged the following: I will give up my freedom of speech when they cut out my tongue; I will give up my right to worship when they have slain my God and myself; I will assemble with the people of my choice even when they are imprisoned, and I will give up my rifle when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it. Samuel R. Bush III Cincinnati --- Let those who want guns join the National Guard, says Mr. Goldwin. Ah, the sanctimonious arrogance of it. What gives Mr. Goldwin the right to deny mine when I abide by the laws? He stresses the differences between the world of 1791 and today to suit his prejudice. He studiously ignores other major differences between 1791 and today. In 1791, punishment was swifter and surer. Plea bargaining was not epidemic; judges did not provide revolving doors on prisons. There was no army of drug dealers and junkies preying on the public. If anything, the reasons for citizens to own weapons for self-defense are more compelling today than they were in 1791. Let Mr. Goldwin show us how he would make us safer in our homes and we might understand his wish to strip away our only sure defense. Carl Roessler San Francisco --- Mr. Goldwin's article is a casebook example of convoluted logic. Consider that George Mason (1725-1792), the great Virginia constitutionalist, defined quite clearly the meaning of the word "militia" during a debate in 1788. "I ask who are the militia?" he said, and then answered his own question with the words: "They consist now of the whole people" (emphasis added). Mason's credentials are reliable: He is the author of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. {There is a debate about who actually drafted the amendments -- Mason or Madison}. Further, a 1903 U.S. law defined the militia as not only the National Guard, but all able-bodied males between 18 and 45. I, along with millions of other Americans, am not against sensible gun control, i.e., licensing, character searches, etc. What I resent is Mr. Goldwin's agenda, which is removal of all guns from American citizens through the implementation of total regulations; a direct violation of the Second Amendment through nefarious means. Edward F. Menninger Sterling Heights, Mich. --- Mr. Goldwin suggests gun control via enlistment in the National Guard. Swell idea. Updating the right to bear arms from 1791 to 1991, when I report for service I'll bring, as required, a few items consistent with the current infantryman's inventory: a Barett Light .50 semiautomatic sniper rifle, so I can reach out and touch people half a mile away; a Squad Automatic Weapon firing 5.56mm rounds at the rate of a whole lot per second out of 30-round clips or hundred-round belts; a 40mm grenade launcher . . . but you get the idea. Then, as a thoroughly modern, well-regulated militiaman, I'll take my weapons home, just as did Morgan's riflemen, and the musket bearers of Lexington and Concord, and the Colonial light artillerists. Andrew L. Isaac Canterbury, N.H.
Writers of " Letters to the Editor " of the Wall Street Journal , responding to Michael Gartner 's article " Tell Me a Good Reason for Handguns , " challenges the author to task for ignoring key laws . One writer comments that 99.6 percent of handguns are not involved in crimes . Clearly , says the writer , it is not gun control but crime control and further , that criminals ignore gun control laws . Another writer argues that congress is intent on removing handguns from society . A third writer suggests that Gartner rejects the Second Amendment when he claims that it refers to the arming of a militia .