Peter Lawson, Valley Ford, CA:

On your essay of July 25: It has already happened. The gathering of militiamen in defense of Cliven Bundy caused the agents of the Department of the Interior to back off. I'm sure that they had in mind some history, namely the assault on the Branch Davidians and the subsequent revenge bombing of the Murra Federal office building in Oklahoma City ... It's all just another sign, of the deep Doo Doo sweeping over the nation.

Frank Joyce, Grosse Pointe Park, MI:

Another good essay. My comment: As with the whole Adam and Eve yarn, the creation myth we learn about the founding of the United States isn't exactly, how to say "accurate." In particular it puts lots of emphasis on "freedom and liberty," and very little on the United States as the first ever apartheid state. Historian Gerald Horne has recently published the brilliant The Counterrevolution of 1776, illuminating this dirty-little-secret in compelling detail. The relevance here to this most excellent essay is in understanding the context in which the Second Amendment has much to do with the legal status and justification for the slave patrols, a/k/a militias, necessary to combat slave rebellions and capture runaway slaves. It is fundamental to understanding the genesis of the gun worship culture in which we live today. Given the ongoing politically potent obsession with "crime" and disproportionate mass incarceration of African-Americans, it's clear that virtually universal gun ownership cannot seriously be offered as serving as deterrent to crime. We have zillions of guns and apparently lots of crime. So much for that argument. As for the "other" rationale: mass gun ownership obviously doesn't protect us from tyranny either since it didn't prevent Dick Cheney from becoming President.

Donald Worrell, Troy, MI:

"Guns and Jesus" -- sums up a significant portion of the America electorate quite succinctly. Oscar Wilde once wrote (later rephrased by Winston Churchill) that "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without any civilization in between." Perhaps this is the more precise definition of "American exceptionalism."

Patricia Frederick, Ashburnham, MA:

Articles in some alternative (reader supported) news media have explained that in this Corporatist, deregulated Capitalist nation, the gun manufacturers have poured huge amounts of money into lobbying Congress and controlling the NRA, to promote the lie that "Obama wants to confiscate your firearms!" And "These are Very Dangerous Times! You need a gun to defend yourself against (the Other)!" This, despite the very obvious fact that no one's firearms were confiscated after any of the horrible gun rampages of the past few years of the Obama presidency. The gun manufacturers need to sell their product, so their goal is to make sure every American owns a whole arsenal. If sensible gun legislation were passed, whatever would become of the firearms industry and their shareholders? My Taoist husband's theological argument: Both gun ownership and fundamentalist religion are responses to fear and feelings of insecurity. You need a gun, or Jesus, or both (hedging your bets) to protect you against the evil that is out to get you in this sinful world.

Hannah Provence Donigan, Commerce, MI:

This essay is so pertinent and necessary when our country is being held hostage by "patriots" who control Congress. These ideologues are racist, far right conservatives who allow emotion and fear rather than reason and knowledge rule their lives and decisions. Because equality for all does not exist and the 1% control, U.S. Democracy is in jeopardy. In fact, it is on life support.

Larry Chevalier, Dearborn, MI:

This was a very good essay. It is also a very good wake-up call. As you know, I am a gun advocate. However, I would only use my firearms while standing my ground. I'm opposed to self-appointed militias such as faced off a federal agency out West recently. I would only use lethal force other than for my own protection, if I were ordered to do so by a legally appointed authority. Still I honestly feel that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Tom Hall, Foster, RI:

Once again you are right on the money: the twin cancers of self-ordained militias and "open-carry" laws call to mind Carl Jung's warnings about the human tendency to project on others the nastier urgings of our own unconscious fears.

Marion Frymire, Spokane, WA:

I live in militia country, which is why I am using my maiden name that nobody around here knows. You were careful about how you said it, but I think it is correct that the militia-open carry movement have coalesced around the fact that our President is black. We're still fighting the Civil War in some ways. Do keep on keeping us honest.

Michael Howard, Palm Springs, CA:

In our complex and uncertain times evidently there are many who have decided that primitive violence and the threat of violence is a favorable way to deal with life's problems. The focus of these folks is "me and mine" as opposed to "us and ours." It is private advantage versus the common good; greed, fear, and ignorance versus compassion, hope, and understanding. This dark perspective, the vicious demagoguery that fosters it, and the tragic acts it produces are indeed frightening. But, it seems to me, and I believe, that there is enough human decency, at least in first world countries, to not let society descend again into a feudal morass or the nightmare of irrational totalitarian regimes. Let us see what happens in this autumn's federal elections. In the meantime, I am supporting the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.

Connie Blakesley, Omaha, NE:

You quote the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. What do you think he was spreading the alarm about? He was calling his countrymen to rise up against tyranny -- which is exactly what militias in this country are doing. They are fighting for our freedoms just as much as our soldiers overseas.

Rusty Hancock, Madison Heights, MI:

I have three comments re: the last two essays: I received: 1. Pardon me if my bias is showing, but equating Fox News and MSNBC as equal opposites, or opposite equals, does not strike me as quite right. If there were such a thing as an unbiased observer, by that I mean just simple fact checking, if nothing else. Morality aside, you really cannot have your own facts. There are such things as statistics and history. Somewhere there has to be a particle beyond which things cannot be reduced, at least for the sake of intelligent argument, even if that is bad physics. We must at the very least define terms the same way. For example, you cannot simply assert that rich people, or company owners, are automatically job producers. Some people own companies that exist to buy up, tear down, and resell as parts. Tax cuts are not automatically good stimulus measures. The CAN be, but you must define them further than that, i.e. TARGETED tax cuts given to companies that actually -- wait for it --CREATE JOBS. Tax cuts that turn into stockholder dividends, executive bonuses, CEO salary increases, and the buying of rival companies do not, by definition, create jobs. They simply enable the status quo to continue. Also, I do not believe a corporation can claim to be a person and a nonperson at once. If the owner receives special protection for being a corporation, he cannot then claim his rights AS A PERSON at the same time. He has to be one or the other. If he wants to protect his physical assets by claiming corporationhood, he gives up his rights to have the religious protection due to any individual. Pick one. 2. I do not consider Al Sharpton a leftie psycho, although I do wish he would moderate his volume. I always have to turn down the TV when his show comes on. He simply refuses to be cowed by rightwing posturing and sometimes does a bit of it himself. 3. I believe the extreme right wing has come to equate everything it believes in --religion, politics, economics -- with the salvation of the immortal soul. It is all of a piece. They cannot differentiate between difference of opinion and heresy. Therefore they cannot allow themselves to compromise, which means they cannot govern effectively, if at all. Therefore they should stay home and become preachers and stay out of politics, where they can do nothing but obfuscate and obstruct. And drive the rest of us totally nuts.

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

Thank you for reminding us of the growing threat of a nation without sensible gun control laws. You "wonder why the U.S. Supreme Court's originalists are unwilling to affirm what was so obviously the founders' intent in the Second Amendment." The Court has become politicized. The decisions of today's "originalists" clearly contradict the assertions made at their confirmation hearings about fidelity to the "founders' intent." The first and most urgent reason why we must elect another Democrat as President in 2016 is that she may appoint as many as three new members to the Supreme Court.

John Bennison, Walnut Creek, CA:

In answer to your first question, guns can't talk and (like corporations, and contrary the present Court's interpretation) are not people. So their free speech rights cannot be infringed upon. And the answer to your second question with the screwy and convoluted rulings the Court has come up with is 'Yes.' We should be more than a little worried. The Second Amendment is not written in stone. That's why it's called an amendment. We hold this truth to be self-evident, that the Constitution is inherently open to interpretation, and it's long past time to amend the Second as necessary.

Dewey Barton, New Smyrna Beach, FL:

I'm with you. Even for a former U.S. Marine, it is quite disturbing!