To the Editor:
The letter written by Mr. James Ritter, in the KDH of Saturday 30 March, left me somewhat confused concerning his rationale for saying that the Second Amendment has no application to modern so-called “assault weapons.”
When he posits that when the Second Amendment was written, it applied to muzzle loaders and rifled muskets, he ignores that such archaic weapons WERE the ASSAULT WEAPONS of the 18th century.
Since they were state-of-the-art weapons, the rights pertaining to today’s modern state-of-the-art weapons are protected by the Second Amendment, just as those old pieces were when the Bill of Rights was penned.
In addition, Mr. Ritter’s selective attack ignores the rationale that we so often see in today’s communications media that First Amendment protections are indeed afforded to modern communications devices to include the Internet.
Using his rationale, we would be led to believe that only penned words on parchment and speeches delivered in the town square should be protected by the First Amendment.
The same can be said of Fourth Amendment protections that are extended to tracking devices, tape and digital recording devices, and high-altitude photography.
If he is going to take issue with one amendment of the Bill of Rights being outmoded, for consistency of thought and argument, he should apply the same criteria to ALL constitutional amendments ... not just the Second Amendment, which seems to irk his thinking.
Retired Lt. Col. Conrad Novack
Retired KISD educator