I agree with Canadian lawyer Craig Martin's argument in his Oct. 5 article, "The fatal flaw in trying to impose a new interpretation on Article 9," that "reinterpreting" constitutional provisions to suit the political desires of the moment is unacceptable. But then he states: "Consider the issue of guns. Many Americans, and probably most of the rest of the world, think it misguided to have a constitutional provision guaranteeing an individual right to possess firearms in a country that has the highest homicide . . . rates in the industrialized world." It is this kind of thinking that leads foolish people into believing it's all right to "reinterpret" constitutional provisions.
First, "many Americans" really means 25 percent of Americans. Poll after poll taken in America indicates that a steady rate of 75 percent of Americans feel strongly in favor of individual gun ownership rights. If you doubt that, ask Barrack Obama if he supports gun control. He'll say "no" because he doesn't want to lose the election.
Second, the reference to "industrialized world" is another puzzle. What does industrialization have to do with the morality of criminals? In America, the highest crime rates occur in cities that have the strongest gun-control laws.
Martin also states "it is utterly inconceivable that the president or Congress could announce that it was 'reinterpreting' the Second Amendment so as to permit the legal prohibition of all firearms." He is naive. Corrupt judges and politicians have often tried to do just that! The fortunes of the human race often rest upon the vote of a single honest man or woman.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.