Fact check on the 2nd

I write not to respond to the position taken by Mr. Butters (“The South and the 2nd,” May 6), just to comment that putting forth false claims in support of one’s cause is no more impressive when performed by someone on the left than it is when someone on the right does it. Every one of Mr Butters’ five lettered points is either flat-out wrong, misleading, or very incomplete. Most seem to lack any connection with Second Amendment issues at all.

For example, the Texicans revolted against Mexico (independent since 1822) in 1835-36, not Spain. That revolt had several causes, the outlawing of slavery (1828, 1830) was one - but hardly the whole story. But what that has to do with the Second Amendment is a puzzle to me.

To fully and properly rebut each of Mr Butters’ points would require a longer answer than is allowed but his point D is particularly egregious. In the early years of our republic, the militia enjoyed mythic status — think Minutemen — but standing armies were viewed with deep suspicion as a threat to freedom. This in spite of the failures of militias in both the Revolution and the War of 1812. The Second Amendment was to empower the state militias as a check on federal power. It is a dead letter since state militias have been replaced by the National Guard.

Mr Butters’ last, and unlisted, point is, however, well-taken. People with a questionable knowledge of gun safety and/or grip on reality wandering around with weapons of any kind is indeed something to make one nervous. That is more involved with common sense and with the current arguments about the Second Amendment than his earlier points.

David Henry Tiffany

Cheney