On Your Mind

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

X:\COX\21\DDLY 1-21\Manifest_01-21-16_Combined.txt\\192.168.5.222\Olive\E-pub\Daily\Profiles\Dayton Daily\ManifestSetting\ManifestSettings.xml
A lesson in gun ownership

Re: “Reader: Militia ‘is every able-bodied man’,” Jan. 13: For those who think that the Second Amendment is a God-given right to universal unrestricted gun ownership, it is instructive to read the Articles of Confederation. The letter writer interprets “A well-regulated militia” as every able-bodied man. What about able-bodied women?

One can get a better feel for what the founding fathers had in mind by reading Article Six of the Articles of Confederation: “No vessels of war shall be kept in time of peace by any State, except such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State or its trade; nor shall anybody of forces be kept up by any State, in time of peace, except such number only as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”

It is obvious that what the founders meant by ‘militia’ is equivalent to our National Guard, not every able-bodied man.

And none of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are God-given. God is never mentioned in the Constitution beyond the requirement that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The rights were granted by citizens assembled, not by God.

ALOYSIUS SCHNEIDER, CENTERVILLE

Columnist’s insight into Sen. Ted Cruz

David Brooks’ opinion, “Cruz’s agenda is to destroy, not show any compassion,” Jan. 15, is both outstanding and scary. It is outstanding because it provides so much insight into Ted Cruz, who could possibly be our next president. It is scary for the same reason.

The November presidential election will not be decided by die-hard Republicans or die-hard Democrats. It will be decided by people like me who want Republicans to nominate someone we prefer to Hillary Clinton. Anyone who bothers to do some research will recognize that Mr. Cruz is not that someone.

VICTOR PRESUTTI, BEAVERCREEK