Defining 'strict constructionist'

Don Westlake says some interesting things in his recent letter in the Herald. Here's one of them: "To a strict constructionist, therefore, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is limited to those weapons defined by the word 'arms' at the time the framers wrote the word." And what were those arms, Mr. Westlake? "The only such weapons available to individual soldiers of the Revolutionary War were smoothbore flintlock muskets with bayonets, long guns, pistols and sabers."

You forgot to mention that they were all "state-of-the-art" in weaponry in their day, so wouldn't a "strict constructionist" be justified in demanding whatever is state-of-the-art" today?

Also, if we are going to go down that path and support that mode of thought, then surely we must embrace it in all aspects of our lives, right? So shouldn't we then submit our letters to the Daily Herald, et al., via rather rough-surfaced paper (certainly not what we have today) and by using quill and ink pot for the actual writing, and then send these letters off in what we today call the "snail-mail" don't even think of email … if, that is, we truly are going to be strict constructionists regarding the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular? I won't even go into the cost of postage today vs. the 1700s.

I leave you with this bit of wisdom from the Father of the American Revolution (Samuel Adams):"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

John Babush

Big Rock