In his interpretation of the language surrounding the individual liberty to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment, Cyrus Won presented a common but inherently flawed argument in favor of “regulations” in a modern context that implies government control and oversight (“Second Amendment allows for regulations,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 2).

In the language of the day, the phrase “well regulated” was used to describe a militia that was to be fully equipped and capable of immediate deployment. Thus, to the end of facilitating the formation of such a force, individuals presumed to man its ranks were specifically granted the uninfringed right to bear arms.

The amendment has since been more broadly understood to legally grant the privilege for purposes of self-protection, rendering the issue of the need for a militia moot. But clearly it was not the original intent of the Founders to invite regulatory authority over basic individual rights.

Stephen Hinton

Waialua

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter