Letter: 'Shall not be infringed' seems pretty clear

Once again I must respond to Susan Paslov's opinion on the Second Amendment with what she will refer to as an "angry letter" as she did in February.

Over 3 million NRA members are interested in many aspects of firearm use, but they pay dues and contribute money for the work the NRA does to defend the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment says what it says. So the only questions are, "Who is the militia and who are the people?" The answers to both questions are the same.

Supreme Court Decision U.S. v Miller states, "The militia is composed of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

U.S. v Urquidez states the people refer to the national community and the term "the people" is the same in the first, second, fourth, ninth and 10th and the preamble.

In Texas, a federal judge ruled in U.S. v Emerson that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun.

She states the Supreme Court and every federal court rejects the Second Amendment as an individual right. The above shows different.

According to Ms. Paslov, if I disagree with her opinion, I have an "untutored mind." I suspect the word she should use is unindoctrinated.

As to whether this is an angry response to her opinion, you bet it is.

Once again, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

LARRY DILLEY

Minden