Letter to the Editor: 2nd Ammendment needs to be redefined

OP-ED – The second amendment needs to be re-defined for the modern times.

It is my notion that the right to bear arms is very similar to the right to smoke; they both have a cancerous effect that contributes to the decay in modern society. We as a society can continue to ignore and look the other way with temporary fixes that give the appearance of seriousness; however, the reality is: there are too many guns in the US; and our too-many-guns are being turned on us.

I believe all the suggested legislation on the table as of now might make it difficult to sell certain weapons; yet, it does not address the ability to steal weapons and really determine what type of individual will snap and commit violence. In my opinion, unless the second amendment is re-defined for the modern times, all legislative attempts to reduce violence may be futile.

Alfred Waddell
West Dennis, MA

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • B Robins January 14, 2013 at 4:10 pm


    The right to smoke isn’t protected by the Constitution of the United States.

    There is a reason the founding fathers drafted the 2nd amendment, or for that matter, all 10 amendments in the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights was drafted for the sole purpose of protecting individuals personal freedoms. James Madison wanted to guarantee the Citizens “God granted rights of liberty and property could not be infringed upon by any government of the people”.

    The right to bear arms was guaranteed by the architects of our nation, as a protective measure for the Citizens of our nation; for the defense of their liberties. It is a guarantee that the Citizens can defend their property, their families, and their lives from ALL who might do them harm. This includes malfeasant individuals, as well as a governments that wish to restrict or remove their rights.

    The Bill of Rights was agreed upon by joint resolution of congress 223 years ago. The liberties the protect today are no different than the liberties they protected in 1789. It would be a mistake for the people of this nation to relinquish any liberty in this document. It would slowly erode the fabric of our freedom, and take us one step closer to totalitarian rule.

  • Sam January 14, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Are you serious? Shall we re-define the first amendment for modern times? how about the 5th amendment? Your ideas of good and bad baffle me as does your brainwashed rhetoric that you wrote most likley word for word from some other persons notion of how sophisticated we are today and all that was before us was crude and uncivil.

  • Dan Lester January 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    You give no clue as to how you would redefine the Second Amendment, but any “redefinition” would be a constitutional amendment itself. And the chances of getting such an amendment through Congress, much less ratified by the states, is so low as to be not worth messing with. Of course if you like tilting at windmills, good luck.

  • ken January 14, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Alfred what you been smoking?

  • Alvin January 15, 2013 at 9:40 am

    What would need to be re-defined?? It is very clear what it means to me. Does the 1st Amendment or the 4th need to be re-defined? I don’t think so. It appears that all 10 of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights and the wording in the Constitution is very clear and understandable. The only reason one would need to re-define them is because the current definition does not meet their agenda.

  • zacii January 15, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Before you go about demanding the redefinition of the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should educate yourself about what it is, and how it came to be.

    If you truly want to have it redefined, you would have to amend the Constitution. Writing a letter making outrageous statements about how inanimate objects somehow infect society with cancer, without so much as a theory to back it up, is beyond ridiculous.

    By the way, without guns how are you supposed to defend yourself? Remember, you are the 1st responder. The police cannot travel instantaneously, it will take time for them to get there. Not only that, but law enforcement is not obligated, by law, to defend you or even come to your rescue.

    What would you do in a natural disaster? How would you defend yourself against the gangs? How would you procure food for your family?

    Or did you just write this letter to get a rise out of the community?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.