Second Amendment

Matt Telleen’s Oct. 21 opinion column on the Second Amendment (“Loyalty to the Second Amendment is misguided”) is flawed. The term “arm” in the Second Amendment is intended as “firearm.” And as there are stealth bombers today, there was artillery in the 1700s.

I do not think you will find scholarly debate anywhere regarding the right to keep and bear cannons, then or now. Though modern weapon technology has indeed advanced, mentioning anything beyond a rifle in relation to this amendment is irrelevant.

And does Telleen recognize the current technology in media? I have a fairly good idea the framers of the Constitution did not envision being able to download pornographic videos from their computers. Does he suggest a change in the First Amendment? People may argue that pornographic videos don’t kill, but that is another argument altogether.

The idea of dipping into the Constitution and making changes to adapt it to today’s world can be a very dangerous path to go down, although I do feel in the post-Sept. 11 environment, we need to be vigilant and accept extra security. I, for one, will be very vigilant in retaining all my rights. They are difficult, if not impossible, to restore after they’ve been taken away.

Darren Erickson, Minneapolis