Ed Hum – 4/27/07

This page was last updated on April 27, 2007.

Cap-and-ball guns and Glocks; Edward J. Hum; Beaver County Times; April 27, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Gun control as practiced in World War II: After shooting 25 bullets at the firing range, you had better bring back 25 empty shells. It was a good idea, and it made the base safer for drill sergeants.”

[RWC] I know nothing about firing range protocol, but during WWII couldn’t the policy have had something to do with recycling and making sure the soldiers completed their practice? I have no idea how this “made the base safer for drill sergeants.” Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

“The writers of the Second Amendment were saying the government should not hire mercenaries but allow its own citizens to bear arms. They also realized there were civilian uses for firearms.”

[RWC] The Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How can anyone interpret that sentence to mean the “writers of the Second Amendment were saying the government should not hire mercenaries?”

“Incidentally, the United States has hired a lot of mercenaries in Iraq. Outsourcing is all around us.”

[RWC] The U.S. military has been “outsourcing” for decades.

“Let’s consider the Constitution in a very conservative way. What did the founding fathers mean? Obviously, they meant every citizen had the right to own and use a ball-and-cap pistol or musket. If you hit something at 40 yards with those weapons, you weren’t just a good marksman, you were dang lucky.”

[RWC] What’s “conservative” about Mr. Hum’s interpretation? A conservative interpretation of law, including the Constitution, generally means respecting what the law actually says. The Second Amendment says “Arms;” it does not specify the type of arms.

“But were the founding fathers thinking about Glock automatic pistols and AK-47s?”

[RWC] Yes, that’s why they used the generic term “Arms” and didn’t name specific weapons, like knives, cannons, muskets, et cetera. The Founding Fathers were a smart group of men and obviously knew weapons would advance over time. Therefore, if they had specified a type of weapon, the Second Amendment would have been rendered meaningless within short order. I believe they knew this and it governed their language.

“By the way, how do others countries regulate automatic weapons?”

[RWC] Using Mr. Hum’s “logic,” speech transmitted by telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, e-mail, the Internet, et cetera isn’t covered by the First Amendment because these communication methods didn’t exist when we ratified the Bill of Rights.

Regarding Mr. Hum’s last question, who cares?