Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Second Amendment clearly says well-regulated militia, not individuals, may bear arms

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

It seems to me that the Supreme Court decision/s that have freed just about everyone to own whatever guns they want have been cynical and deliberately ignorant, and here's why:

As a (retired) high school English teacher who taught spelling, grammar and punctuation for over 50 years, I am pretty sure I know my English grammar - and know what the Second Amendment actually says:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The opening phrases clearly state that the authors of the Amendment were thinking about public safety ("well-regulated militia" and "free State") NOT UNREGULATED INDIVIDUALS. What became the National Guard is what the authors of the Second Amendment had in mind. Meanwhile, in the 18th century, because there was no National Guard yet, any "well-regulated militia" would necessarily be made up of local, voluntary, individual citizens - and so the authors of the Amendment logically and sensibly said that "the people" (not individual persons) had the right to keep and bear arms. Again: the Second Amendment is mainly about public safety - and gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms only for the sake of public safety. (Notice the staggering irony that it is precisely individuals' freedom to keep and bear ams that has unleashed public slaughters, in our country.)

To the short list of terrible decisions the Supreme Court has made, over the years, may be added this one - perhaps the most destructive and consequential of them all.

Richard B. Davis