In the midst of mass shootings and gun violence, the right for Americans to even own guns has become a national issues. The second amendment guarantees United States citizens the “right to bear arms” and for states to have “a well regulated militia.” When people talk about repealing the second amendment they are usually focusing on the personal liberty of owning guns. This is stated in the constitution to prevent tyrannical or oppressive governments to take control of the people. At the time that idea did help preserve America’s freedom, but is it still relevant in our modern live?
When the second amendment was added to the constitution the military only had cannons and muskets.
There was little difference between the types of weapons the people and military were able to arm themselves, but today an incredibly large rift has formed. The people of the United States are at most, legally, allowed to own semi-automatic weapons, while the military is armed with automatic weapons and significantly more powerful weaponry and technology. If the people tried to revolt against the government, the government would be able to quickly and decisively suppress them.
The military of the United States of America is one of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced militaries in the world. They are well funded, more than most other nations including our allies, and prepared to fight against any threat to the American people. It is important to note that the military exists to protect the citizens of the United States, not necessarily the government. If the government tried to use the military as a tool against the people, they may find the military to be non compliant.
As a tool to protect against a tyrannical government, the second amendment has become completely obsolete. However many argue now that they need it to protect themselves from threats to them or their families. Do arms really help protect people from criminals and murderers? There are many that would argue it does, but guns have been a major source of deaths in america. In 2013 alone roughly 33,000 died to causes related to firearms, and in countries that have banned personal firearms a massive decrease in firearm related deaths have occurred. Furthermore the United States has one of the highest mass shooting rates in the world. If people are concerned for their personal safety then they should be in favor of banning firearms. It’s just as easy for criminals to obtain firearms as it is for the regular american citizen putting everyone at a greater risk.
The last commonly argued point is that a well regulated militia is needed in order to protect the people of the United States. There isn’t much dispute over this, but many have said that it’s enough of a reason to leave the entirety of the second amendment in tact. This argument fails to take into account that to ban firearms is not necessarily to repeal the second amendment. Another amendment can always be added that cancels out a certain part of another amendment. So should we repeal the second amendment? No. We need to preserve the necessity of a state militia, however we also need to protect citizens from gun violence. Only a certain part of the constitution has been made obsolete by time and new technology, and we as nation need to adapt. We need to follow in the
footsteps of other nations that have faced high gun violence rates, and in response have banned personal firearms.
21st Century Citizenship 