To the editor: A well-written letter to the editor ("Letter: 'Well-regulated' an important part of 2nd Amendment," Eagle, April 23) pertaining to the Second Amendment of the Constitution was lacking one important fact.

The Second Amendment was submitted for ratification on Sept. 25, 1789, and the ratification was completed on Dec. 15, 1791, taking 2 years, 2 months and 20 days.

That’s 15 years after the revolution and many years before the Civil War. Neither of those conflicts had much more than black powder muskets.

Based on that knowledge, is it possible to assume that the same framers of the Constitution who forgot to include such an important item were never the less considered brilliant enough to foresee the type of weapons available today? How about the many citizens who voted for ratification?

In the late 1950s, after the Korean War, the standard weapon carried by the U.S. soldier was the .30-caliber M-1. Its capacity was nine rounds — eight in a clip and one manually inserted in the chamber. Nothing like those magazine-capable, rapid-fire assault weapons available today.

Support our journalism. Subscribe today. →

Was the well-regulated militia referred to in the amendment really describing the "Minute Men" of the revolution? Did America at that time have a sanctioned standing military presence, or was it the farmers, merchants and others who rallied to the defense of the nation when its existence was threatened from foreign invasion?

If reasonable people can interpret the word "arms" to include high-powered, multi-shot, magazine-capable assault weapons, then where does it end? How about flame-throwers, grenades, shoulder-mounted guided missile launchers, etc.?

Reasonable people should also be willing to limit if not completely ban the ownership of such unreasonable weapons by other than a completely well-regulated military.

Al Nadeau, Dalton