Dear Editor:

The discussion most reasonable American want to have about the Second Amendment is one of finding a balance between what it means to maintain a well regulated militia and how this right should not be infringed.

As it is, this poorly worded and archaic Second Amendment as it is now practiced and applied is contributing to the needless deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Americans each year. Perhaps it is time to revisit this amendment to the Constitution as it is worded. The Constitution is a living document intended to be changed from time to time.

The Second Amendment was introduced at a time when personal arms were muzzle loaded muskets and swords. What is clear is that technology has outpaced the application of the law as sometimes happens with disruptive technologies. It is time to re-examine the utility of this law.

Whatever the intent and benefits of the Second Amendment that were envisioned over two centuries ago, this law ought to be viewed in the context and needs of today’s society and our way of life. As individuals we do not need weapons in the same way that they may have been needed in those wild and untamed times.

For protection of our lives, freedoms and property we have police, courts and a strong military. Today, hunting is a sport and not a mode of subsistence.

There are circumstances that civilian possession and use of a gun may be necessary to preserve life or property, but these are rare.  But the indiscriminate distribution of highly lethal weapons is resulting in disproportionately more deaths than freedoms protected.

The Second Amendment is part of a larger document about our Republic and the rule of law. In updating this law we can reduce the tragic number of innocent deaths and still protect our freedoms without this irresponsible and unnecessary proliferation of weapons in our society.

Fred W. Nehring