Mr. O'Brien pronounces himself "surprised'" at "gun folks" who think the Second Amendment applies to all citizens instead of to "citizen soldiers," which is Mr. O'Brien's opinion ("Shotgun politics,' Patrick O'Brien, letter to the editor, the Register, Nov. 16). I would like to suggest a reading list for Mr. O'Brien, who seems to have missed the history of the Constitution despite his 68 years. He could begin with Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Andrew Jackson. There, in chapter 5, he would find that the "militia" consisted of all males between the ages of 17 and 45. The supporters of Jackson, denied the presidency in the "corrupt bargain" that elevated John Quincy Adams to the office, were the militia. This was the beginning of the Democratic Party. It is ironic that their successors are now on the other side. O’Brien could also consult an article in the Duke Law Journal in 1994 that confirms this impression. Why would the right in this amendment be restricted unlike those in the First and Fifth? One possibility is the fact that, in 1793, black slaves were not members of the militia. The militia at the time of the Constitutional Convention and during the 1824 "stolen election" consisted of the voters. Thus, the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is that anyone eligible to vote is eligible to own a gun. That did not include slaves.

Michael Kennedy, M.D.
Mission Viejo