Matthew Bergheiser's closing sentence ("How Can We Protect Our Children in Their Schools," Letters, Jan. 9) misinterprets the historic meaning of the words "well regulated." When the Second Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well practiced." At the time, it was considered impractical for citizens to become well practiced with firearms, unless they had recourse to firearms in their daily civilian lives. Readers of American military history understand references to "regulars" and "irregulars," the former being practiced and regularly assembled militias (in some ways similar to our National Guard or Army), and the latter referring to less-practiced, ad hoc assemblies of combatants. "Well regulated" did not refer to the presence of regulations governing their activities.
Further, we should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment forbids government from abridging that right. This is a subtle but very important difference.
With respect to protecting our children: In other areas where we intend to create a "weapon-free zone" (courts, airports), we have locked doors, metal detectors and multiple armed guards. Any "weapon-free zone" that lacks these is little more than an imaginary bubble where predators may be assured of the lack of armed resistance. It is no coincidence that the most notorious mass killings (including the one in Norway) occur in such imaginary bubbles of protection. A less costly option is to allow responsible adults to be legally armed on campus.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: Those who think they can trade away essential freedoms in order to gain a bit of additional security neither deserve, nor will long possess, either.