I am writing in response to the July 16 article by retired Lt. Col. Bo Rudzinskyj titled the “Real Purpose of the Second Amendment.”

First, I would like to thank you, sir, for serving our beautiful country. Please do not construe any of what I write to minimize that fact.

I agreed with your theory about what our Founding Fathers probably took for granted in the late 18th century – namely that owning a gun for protection and for hunting was a necessity for many. A hunting rifle, a shotgun – the expectation was that most people, especially outside of the cities, would have such a weapon. I think you are correct when you say that our Founding Fathers never gave restricting that right a second thought and although I am not a hunter myself, I have no problem with someone who wishes to hunt to feed their family.

I disagree wholeheartedly, however, with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately you, like many others, neglect to read the entire wording of the amendment, and in particular the first 13 words. To quote: “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 Second Amendment doesn’t say that anyone can bear weapons, it says that a well-regulated State militia may keep and bear arms. That is a huge difference.

Please think about the context of the Second Amendment. It, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, was written in order to have individual states ratify the U.S. Constitution. People were afraid of a too-strong federal government and wanted assurances that individual freedoms, such as freedom of religion and speech were protected, while at the same time that states’ freedoms, such as the right to have a militia that could carry weapons, was also ensured. The Second Amendment was created to ensure that states could protect themselves from an abusive federal government. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn’t get ratified.

Further proof of this intent was in the battle that you chose to reference – the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The reason that the British were marching there was to seize the cache of weapons that the colonists had stockpiled. Why was it in a centralized place? Probably because the Colonial leaders realized the inherent danger of many of the local citizenry storing kegs of gunpowder in their barns.

The Second Amendment, read in its entirety, clearly states that States have the right to have a well-regulated militia who may bear arms. Today that translates into our National Guard. Keep our heavy weapons in armories with them; if we need protection from 30,000 invaders we will know where the weapons are and will have a trained force to use them. We won’t have the danger of assault-type weapons in the hands of people who really shouldn’t have them.

Our Constitution has been the law of the land for over 225 years. It is a document that must be taken in whole, not in soundbites. The historical context and the exact wording of the Second Amendment leave little doubt: Our Founding Fathers would never have agreed to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to keep or bear any weapon of their choosing.

As you say, it is not that difficult.

(Dan Meserve lives in Contoocook.)