Second Amendment should not deter gun control
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2013
Updated: Thursday, January 17, 2013 01:01
When President Barack Obama issued a proposal Wednesday for stricter bans on assault weapons and more stringent background checks, opposition was expected.
But the amendment used to prop up the argument against the proposal is foolhardy.
In 1791, our forefathers signed the most important document in American history that included the list of our inalienable rights. Included is the highly debated second amendment, or the right to bear arms. This right has been misconstrued, misidentified and misinterpreted
over the course of the U.S.’s short history as the technology of firearms has escalated to levels that the authors of the Bill of Rights could have never imagined.
The country needs to rethink its allegiance to guns and the amendment that is believed to grant unregulated rights to any type of firearm.
The language of the Second Amendment has a level of inherent complexity that makes it easy for those who believe that universal gun ownership is necessary to argue that it is our constitutional right.
The amendment states, “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.”
What exactly this sentence stands for is still debated today and likely will never be unanimously understood.
The problem is that the necessity of a well-regulated militia held such prominence over a government trying to avoid becoming tyrannical, that they made sure that a militia of the people would not be infringed upon. Such was the case in 1791 and has not been an issue for quite some time.
We tend to forget that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was not created with a lens that could predict the future.
Throughout history we have made improvements to the Constitution that have led to a better America. But when anyone questions the necessity of guns, he or she is marked as a tyrant or oppressor by the special interest groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The NRA claims it is a defender of American freedom. But the NRA does not apply logical reasoning to support its beliefs that run on appealing to the fear and insecurities of Americans. They blame the violence found in video games and in movies for atrocities in Sandy Hook and Aurora.
While guns can be used for self-defense and other legal purposes, these are not the individuals whose rights are being “targeted.” It is easy to deviate from an already misinterpreted amendment, but common sense strides should be made to make sure that mass shootings are, at the very least, less likely to occur.