As always, the build up to the presidential election in the United States of America brought up many controversial topics, ranging from abortion to the war in Ukraine. It seemed like the 2 candidates could agree on almost nothing. However, a topic that may have been the most argued over, (as well as throughout most of modern politics) is the 2nd amendment and its potential alteration.
Looking at the mass tragedies that occur in the USA, it would be easy for an outsider to just say, ‘Take away the guns.’ Forgetting the logistical nightmare, this could only happen if the bill were ever passed (and that would be one hell of a big if) it would also go against the 2nd amendment, which was written for exactly that reason. Some people call it outdated, but others argue it is the cornerstone of “being American.”
But what exactly does the 2nd amendment say? And did the Founding Fathers ever intend for this, or should it have been scrapped once weapons became automatic?
The 2nd amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was the cornerstone to guarantee freedom in the eyes of the Founding Fathers: they had just won a revolution against an oppressive regime and weapons - mainly guns - were the reason they beat the British. Without the common citizen being able to access weapons, they would not have had a chance at independence. That is the reason why the amendment was made - to guarantee that if a tyrannical power ever took hold of the country again, the people could easily overthrow them as they would have the same types of guns that the military had.
Now, did James Madison (the man that proposed this idea, and later the 4th President of the United States) ever think that guns would advance from single shot muskets to 950 round per minute rifles? We have no idea, but I can almost certainly assume that when people create a country, they expect technology to advance as time goes on, and the country along with it. Does this suggest that the Founding Fathers did know guns would get more lethal, and still included the amendment anyway? What I do know is that they would have had to allow people to be armed, lest a worse force takes over and there be nothing the people of the US could do about it.
However, the constitution was written in 1787, making it 237 years old, as of writing. This suggests that the unmalleable spine of the “New World” is maybe a bit outdated.
But where do you draw the line?
Maybe it’s at the (depending on the definition) ~650 mass shootings in America in 2023, the same place where 188 school/campus shootings took place between 2020-2021 - a terrifying statistic that should never even exist. That alone would persuade many people to either heavily restrict guns, or outright abolish them. But on the other side of the argument, people say that “It’s not the guns that kill people, people kill people.” Although this is true, it is also true that guns make killing a lot easier. For most of human history, you had to be determined to kill a person - to get up close and physically harm them. Without requiring a bladed weapon, killing has become faster, more efficient and deadlier, and it could be argued that untrained civilians shouldn’t be able to access this kind of destruction. Weapons like Rocket Launchers are not available to the general public, so why should automatic, high fire-rate killing machines be allowed?
This leaves us with the question of whether the rights of the individual are greater than those of the collective: should the American Citizen have the right to bear weapons of destruction, with the ability to harm a larger society, or should they be banned or limited, infringing on the rights clearly outlined to them by the constitution? And what about weapons used for hunting/animal control - should they be hit with the same bans, potentially losing farmers millions of dollars, or do we keep things exactly as they are? Sadly, due to all these intricacies, I am not sure if we will ever have an undivided American opinion when it comes to gun control.
Overall, it is an immensely difficult issue to solve. On one hand, people are calling for boosts to mental health services to prevent shootings from occurring, and on the other, people are campaigning for tighter restrictions on firearms. With the supreme court hesitant to approve of any legislation limiting guns (depending on their makeup at any time) it seems that the 2nd Amendment will remain a deeply contentious issue.
Comments