Matt Telleen presented many arguments supporting the case of limiting the power that the Second Amendment bestows on to the citizens of the United States (“Loyalty to the Second Amendment is misguided,” Oct. 21).

I was struck by his stance that overthrowing a government would be impossible to do with ordinary, civilian-style weapons. Had he read a little history before taking this position, he would find that for the last 2,000 years, battles have been decided by the will to win, and not, as he suggests, by technology or numbers.

Approximately 2,000 years ago, 300 Spartans held the mountain pass of Thermopylae against an invading force of 200,000 Persians for more than two days. Nearly 700 years ago, the Scottish armies under Robert the Bruce won the Battle of Bannockburn, although they were outnumbered 5-1 and the English armies were better trained and equipped.

More recent examples are the Vietnam War, where Communist forces accomplished their goals against technological and numerical odds, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Men on horseback fought the Soviet army to a standstill with little more than relics of weapons that were left over from World War II.

History clearly demonstrates that if the people of this country were ever to revolt against the government, they would triumph in the end.

Telleen also states that “the framers didn’t envision armor-piercing bullets.” This is true, but they didn’t envision the Internet, or mass media either. Is freedom of speech regulated because of this?

Our founders believed that we were endowed by our creator with certain, unalienable rights. The Second Amendment is the protector of every one of these, and the thought of surrendering any of them is unbearable to me and many others.