Second amendment proves to be freedom of past
February 17, 2018
The growing trend of gun violence in today’s America is simply unacceptable and cannot be ignored. America’s history of mass shootings is a history too plentiful, from Virginia Tech in 2007, Sandy Hook in 2012, and the most recent: Parkland, Florida on February 14. That is not to mention the thousands of other gun-related deaths that do not make the front page.
The right to bear arms, though certainly not the cause, has facilitated much of this violence. It is time to reevaluate this constitutional right that has inflicted more harm than good.
The rationale behind the second amendment has simply outlived its relevance. The thirteen colonies ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791, during a foundational period when America was still recovering from the Revolutionary War. The Bill of Rights was added to establish provisions to protect “We, the People” against an oppressive government. However, the U.S. Constitution has upheld for more than two centuries now, and shows no sign of tyranny. A strict interpretation of a document incepted two centuries ago should not hinder society from being a safer place.
Yet, proponents of gun rights argue that the second amendment should not be evaluated in a historical sense, but as a fundamental right to self-defense. While self-defense is an established civil liberty granted in almost all constitutions around the world, the right to bear arms is not. “It is not easy to understand why the second amendment, or the notion of liberty, should be viewed as creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes so directly to the shocking number of murders in our society,” said Justice Powell.
Lastly, the power of the second amendment produces consequences that are ungovernable. The gun market available today is far more technologically advanced than the capabilities of 18th century muskets. Today, ordinary citizens can get their hands on military-style killing machines. In the Sandy Hook incident, Adam Lanza killed twenty first-graders, six adults, and himself with a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle, when there is no reason a citizen should be able to own that caliber of weaponry in the first place. Regulation today is substandard: 40% of gun sales are done outside federal regulations and without background checks, according to the New York Book Review’s article, “Facing the Real Gun Reality”. The government is not capable of responding to the detriment, tragedy, and unstable politics that the Second Amendment brings forth. America should unite under one uniform policy: to be gun-free.
At its essence, American democracy thrives on the ability to live a life full of opportunity, liberty, and security, which the second amendment is no longer aligned with.
Sullivan O'Rourke • May 25, 2022 at 9:32 am
I disagree. It is a part of American culture to own firearms, and the Amendment was made so that if our government ever became tyrannical, the people could rise up to stop it. While I agree there should be a universal background check, I think any American in their right mind should be able to own any firearm or rifle.
Panayiotia Navas • Feb 28, 2018 at 12:55 pm
The gun laws should depend on locale. In Chicago, a low caliber weapon is necessary outside of wealthy neighborhoods. I think gun laws should be up to local governments (town, cities) to account for factors in their community. However, there should be a law at the national level against the trade of military-grade weapons.