Letters to the Editor - Feb. 18

February 18, 2013

Letter writer confused ‘military’ with ‘militia’

To the editor:

This letter is in response to one written by Jim Thompson of Chambersburg, Pa., that appeared in The Herald-Mail on Feb. 8.

Thompson started out just fine with his “dictionary.” But I would suggest that he do two things: Look up the word “arms” and read the Second Amendment. The first definition of “arms” is “weapons” — period. Secondly, the word “military” is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. A well-regulated militia at first pertained to “any military force.” Later, it pertained to an “army of citizens rather than professional soldiers.” Anyone not in the Armed Forces (military) constituted a “militia.”

Thompson also wrote that the chief justice of the Supreme Court said the dictionary interpretation of the word “arms” meant to supply the army with weapons. I wonder which case to which he was referring. I did not see the military mentioned in the Heller or McDonald cases.

Thompson also made a reference to the U.S. Air Force as “flyboys.” They have been called that, as well as the Marines being called jar-headed grunts, soldiers called ground pounders and sailors called sea-going bellhops.

These are inside jokes, and it behooves one to be military or prior military before making these sort of comments. In certain quarters, one might find themselves on the wrong end of an “arm,” as defined either of the two upper limbs, extending from the shoulder to the hand.

Steve Crist
Big Pool

Front-page ad wasn’t shocking to this reader

To the editor:

With all due respect to Amy E. Mason and her opinion about the recent front-page ad related to, I would like to comment.

First, the website advertizes professional training for law enforcement as well as the public. I, for one, think this is most appropriate for individuals to seek training if they wish to defend themselves against criminal attack. Proficiency with a firearm is extremely important and requires training if one has a need to protect their life and property. In my opinion, the ad is no more shocking than a driver education ad for automobiles.

Secondly, I think it wise to be one-up on the criminal element. Certainly, criminals aren’t the ones responding to such ads. If I’m correct, we could have more occasions similar to the New Jersey deli owner who thwarted a robbery and maybe saved his life by outshooting the robber. After all, law enforcement can’t be everywhere all the time.

Lastly, everyone has their opinions which naturally will differ. The Herald-Mail should be commended for not only advertising but openly printing these differing values on issues. It helps me better understand both sides of a story, and I hope Mason reconsiders her subscription cancellation.  

Al Boyer 

The Herald-Mail Articles