LETTER: The Second Amendment and modern weapons

In her column published in the June 29 Review-Journal, Susan Estrich argues that the thoughts of the original writers of the Second Amendment concerning AK-47s and other modern weapons are unknowable. I contend that is not true.

Did you ever hear of the battles of Lexington and Concord? We all know the British military objective was to suppress rebellion by seizing a cache of privately owned arms at Concord. The militia at Lexington deployed to stop them, but the primary objective was privately owned cannons at Concord. Yes, cannons in private hands.

At that time there was no law prohibiting the private ownership of cannons. Most ship owners owned cannons; many private port facilities owned cannons; and some of the militia members at Concord owned cannons. There was absolutely no belief by the Colonials that private citizens should not be allowed to own weapons of war, only that rebels against the Crown should not be allowed.

Owning a 105mm howitzer today is the equivalent of owning a cannon then. This is compelling evidence that the Founding Fathers would recognize the rights of citizens to own any weapon that is held by a standing army.