The various
political debates discourse and conversations which currently surround the definitions
and limitations of the Second Amendment is just one complication of the United
States Constitution. According to the
United States Constitution, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms,
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”. Recently, the debates of pro and con gun
control have been so fierce precisely because the definition of the Second
Amendment has never been modified and individuals are considerably qualified to
interpret the amendment freely.
However, the
Second Amendment is not nearly as much as a personal liberty as it is a common
right for individuals to form armies (militia) in defense of the country in
instances of crisis or intervention. Guns
and firearms have one exclusive purpose- to kill, and in instances where the
country is under a real and imminent danger, the use of firearms is required
and valid. Essentially, the Second Amendment and use of firearms should
exclusively apply to miltia, as stated in the amendment, and law enforcement
officers.
Yet, many
firearm enthusiasts and their supporters assert that private gun ownership is
constitutional right and individuals should ultimately be in control of their
own security. However, continuing interpreting the Second Amendment this
candidly will potentially result in an alarming increase in national crime,
murder and suicide rates. According to Jill Lepore, a correspondent for The New
Yorker, “The United States has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in
the world. . .[we] also have the highest homicide rate of any affluent
democracy, nearly four times higher than France of the United Kingdom. . . in
2008, guns were involved in two-thirds of all murders”.
Furthermore, according to the American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention, “83 percent of gun-related deaths in homes
[where a gun owner lives] are the result of a suicide, often by someone other
than the gun owner”. Considering these statistics, the Second Amendment and the
regulation of firearms needs to be modified to prevent these contemporary
dangers.
While the notion
of self defense is credible, it is no less murky in definition than the Second
Amendment itself. Nevertheless, protection
of one’s own wellbeing, family and property is a necessity for many Americans
and there are numerous methods to ensure this safety. For example, stun guns and related
electroshock weapons are highly effective in ceasing an attacker and, most importantly,
they are not lethal.
I am so glad you posted this. The second amendment is taken advantage of way too much in our country. Think about the Trayvon Martin case, or the more recent case, also in Florida, where a man shot and killed a teenager over loud music. I both situations, the shooter claimed "self-defense" and claimed that it was their constitutional right to have a gun on them.
ReplyDeleteThere really is no other point too guns other than to kill, and I agree with you that civilians should not carry lethal weapons- in many cases, they are not trained to properly use them.
This is such a good point. Yes, we have rights, but there needs to be and extent to how far these go. We shouldn't have to worry about being shot at the movies or a store. There have been many recent times in the past few years where innocent people have been killed. We don't need anymore people to be killed to spread the message that a change is needed.
ReplyDelete