MB Civic

To the Editor:

As a committed pacifist, I am no friend to guns. But I paradoxically find myself agreeing with the Supreme Court’s decision. This is because I believe the pivotal word in the Second Amendment is not “people,” “keep” or “bear arms,” but rather “militia.”

On first glance, the word may seem “quaint,” since organized militias, for the purpose of broader military service, are no longer needed. But an ancillary purpose for militias, which were made up of local citizens, was to protect their communities from the potential illegal actions of or incursions BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. [N.B. this phrase was italicized in the paper.]

In this regard, although much sport is made of modern-day militias as groups of Midwestern yokels who see “black helicopters” everywhere, they are actually functioning well within one of the original definitions and purposes of a “militia.”

While the Supreme Court’s decision may seem overly broad on its face, you note that it “left room for gun-control advocates to fight back,” and that there were many gun restrictions “that it was not calling into question.”

Thus, it is not the “victory” the “far right … has sought for decades,” nor is it likely to “turn America into a more dangerous country,” although gun-control advocates should certainly continue to fight “to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules,” among other things, “are all upheld.”

Rather, it was a difficult decision based on an archaically written amendment, a decision that preserves a certain long-forgotten — and critical — right while allowing for continued broad regulations to ensure the safety of all citizens.

Ian Alterman

New York, June 27, 2008