In rebuttal to John Williams’ recent letter to the editor (“Interpretation of amendment has strayed far from its roots,” Jan. 30), his literal and narrow interpretation of our Second Amendment is both misleading and uninformed.

In order to have a true understanding of what was intended when this amendment was adopted, you have to view it in the context of the recent history of the time. Fresh in minds of the framers was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. During the debates that preceded the adoption of the Constitution, charges were repeatedly made that the Constitution, as drafted, would open the way to tyranny by the central government. As a result, some demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. It’s apparent that they feared a government that would become too large, powerful and tyrannical. Having an armed citizenry was their solution to prevent this from happening.

The Second Amendment is not about maintaining an army. It’s about the citizenry having the ability to protect itself from a tyrannical government.

So, you have to ask yourself, what is the real agenda of the politicians who want to disarm us?

— John Cushing