If you were able to get past the insults of Diane Rudolph’s harangue, “Gun nuts misunderstand meaning of Constitution,” she actually made some points in need of response. We have been told on numerous occasions by the left that our Constitution is a “living” document that can be interpreted to meet “new” circumstances, which is essentially Rudolph’s argument. But that is foolish. If we can't rely on the original intent, what little hope we have left of government by, of and for the people is gone.

The Bill of Rights has an interesting history. The framers of the Constitution, primarily Federalists, rejected the idea. They had created a central government that had limited powers – provide for the common defense, regulate foreign and domestic trade and the authority to tax to finance these powers – so they reasoned it was not necessary. The anti-Federalists favored a stronger central government, and campaigned strongly for these provisions.

Ratification by several states was conditional on this being done. Some 100 different amendments were considered by the First Congress, which were eventually narrowed down to the 10 that were adopted. The Second Amendment was not directed at outside enemies, although it certainly helped in that respect. The primary target, as with the others that make up the 10, are directed against an over-reaching central government. Since that government has far exceeded the powers granted in the Constitution, that should still be our greatest concern.

We are a constitutional-republic, which means we are supposed to be governed by laws that should adhere to the set of rules established in our Constitution in their original intent. Word usage and meaning change over time. The best way to determine original intent is to go back to the writings of the men who made that determination.

Virtually every phrase, word and syllable was heavily debated and often changed a number of times before being finalized. They were very precise and frugal with the words they used, unlike the monstrous laws our legislators pass today.

If the majority of the people in this country believe the Second Amendment should be changed to restrict gun ownership, there is a lawful method for changing the rulebook. It is a somewhat cumbersome method, because changes to rules should be well thought out, debated and take enough time for passions to cool down. To date I haven't heard anyone suggest this method, but instead we get lectures on how stupid we are for not understanding the nuances of interpretation that people like Rudolph can so plainly see.

It is easy to fall into the trap of allowing our government to circumvent the Constitution to make changes when we agree with what they want to do, but there are many basic rights encompassed in the first ten amendments. The next change may involve something with which you passionately disagree.

Kenneth Laub

Rock Hill