History doesn't change significance of our country's Bill of Rights

This letter is a response to the opinions expressed by Mr. Rosen in last week's Opinion section relative to the upcoming interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Rosen points out that AK47 rifles and similar military rifles didn't exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. He doesn't make the statement outright, but he implies that the framers of the Bill of Rights never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to apply to such weapons.

Mr. Rosen also doesn't state it, but he's operating on a much larger premise that's held by many others who find their desire for control blocked by the Constitution. That premise is the guarantees of the Constitution only apply to the conditions and technology that existed at the time of its signing.

Under the same premise, one could argue that the First Amendment that includes freedom of speech is no longer valid. When it was ratified, the only avenues for expressing an opinion were speeches in public, newspapers and handbills.

Again, the framers of that amendment could never have anticipated the existence of radio, television and the Internet. There is an abundance of opinions expressed on those media that many would suppress if it weren't for the First Amendment. William Vietinghoff Thousand Oaks