Faulty interpretations undermine amendment

I am writing in response to the letter by Richard Murdock in the April 1 edition, titled "Citizens and militia."

We should all be wary of abbreviated or edited dictionary definitions - the editing may be prone to cherry picking. While Mr. Murdock may not have cherry-picked from self-chosen definitions, there are problems in the wording he himself chooses. This is especially true of definition 2.

Definition 2, as presented, states a militia is "an authorized but unorganized force ... between the ages of 18 and 45 ..." It is illogical and incorrect to use this definition to support the Second Amendment since the Second Amendment explicitly states "A well-regulated militia ..."

Unorganized and well-regulated are polar opposites. Mr. Murdock also states that "ignoring the age limits ...," he is ready to be part of a militia. It is unfortunate that people are willing to disregard or ignore the actual Second Amendment, as well as their self-chosen definitions of the Second Amendment, all in order to support the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is a basic aspect of our Constitution, which is the bedrock of our democracy. We must support a truthful understanding of the Second Amendment, and not fake and falsified declarations and interpretations. It is fake declarations, such as Mr. Murdock's, that undermine the Second Amendment and our democracy.

Scott Minor

Lombard