To the editor:

I am happy to see that “constitutional originalist” Dan V. Johnson (Journal-World letter to the editor March 15) has given us the actual meaning of “arms” in the Second Amendment. This clears up several things I have been studying for the last half century.

I was under the impression that the 10 articles of the Bill of Rights, a condition for ratification by Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, were about the nature of governments and politicians, which has been the same since the corruption of Athens.

When I had dreams of being a soldier before being determined to be unqualified because of multiple medical conditions I aspired to the “profession of arms.” I now realize that the term “arms” means only muzzle loaders and swords, even though a mid-1850s court case referred to “musket and cannon” and a 1939 case determined that mere shotguns had no military utility. That latter argument does not apply to semi-automatic weapons as I found out up close and personal when required to drill with and service an M1 rifle in a high school military science course.

As to the comment that I must be a lousy shot if I prefer not to face home invader(s) with my .38 or 9mm pistol if I have the option of a 20- or 30-round magazine in a rifle or carbine, I suggest he consult a venue that discusses actual shootings involving trained law enforcement personnel.