Tom Owings’ June 2 editorial repeats several misstatements regarding firearms that are regularly disseminated by gun-confiscation advocates.

One of the most serious of these is the citation of the 1934 Supreme Court decision U.S. vs. Miller to support the notion that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard.

The Court indeed stated that the purpose of the amendment was to preserve the militia, but, in keeping with all prior usage of the word, defined the militia as “all males physically capable of bearing arms for the common defense.” (The Court has never claimed that the Second Amendment does not apply to civilians, nor that it does not protect an individual right.)

Since the purpose of the militia is to defend the citizenry against tyranny, whether foreign or domestic, it is relevant that another case (Perpich vs. U.S.) has established the federal government’s power to mobilize and command National Guard troops.

Thus, by the argument of gun-control fans, an amendment referring to “the people” actually protects only the rights of the very federal troops who might, under some future regime, be assigned the task of delivering some subset of the people to concentration camps!

We could as easily declare that the rights of free speech and of the press, formerly guaranteed to the people, properly apply only to government ministers of propaganda.

Wendy Applequist

Graduate student

Botany