If the print dialog box does not automatically appear, open the file menu and choose Print.
Article published February 13, 2013
Militia Act not first
Rebecca Allison Donegal Township
Rick Devore’s Jan. 28 letter to the editor, “Ignore gun propaganda,” says the Second Amendment phrase “a well-regulated militia” has to do with the right of the government to call up a militia. He uses the example of the Militia Act of 1792 being the basis for quelling the Whiskey Rebellion. The Constitution was adopted in 1787, and the Bill of Rights, which contains the Second Amendment, was ratified in 1791. The Militia Act was based on the Second Amendment, which was written first. Since the Second Amendment was written first, Devore doesn’t have a premise on which to build his argument. Also, would quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion have been successful if George Washington would have had to train and arm every man of that militia? What if they hadn’t had their guns? What if they weren’t trained? The Whiskey Rebellion’s outcome would have been different. Washington was well aware that everyone he called up would have an arm and be able to use it. What if our citizens don’t have guns and a foreign power invades us? By the time we could re-arm and train them, we would be at the mercy of the foreign invader or yes, perhaps, our own tyrannical government, if that would be the case. Devore’s letter gives the false impression or interpretation that all terms of the Militia Act are the final say, when it was the Constitution that was written first and supersedes, overpowers and overreaches the Militia Act.