Should the Second Amendment be a right?

Ben Stock
Equinox Staff

Since the beginning of this country, the constitution has been an essential aspect of what the American society represents. The commitment to freedoms and liberties that at the time of the late 1700s and even in the present are a privilege and a commodity to have. The constitution is upheld in such regard  that the U.S. Supreme Court is entitled to use it  as its basis of principles during the trials that they have to oversee.

However, with the 27 amendments that have been proclamation and adapted into the constitution, the one that stirs the most controversy in our modern times is the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms.

From what I have determined, the founding fathers of this country could not foresee the future and advancements in the modern weaponry that we have today. High powered fully automatic weapons and other present day armaments seemed like it would have been a far-fetched fantasy to the primeval weapons of their time. Single action muskets and pistols took time to load and prepare in order to use properly. When compared to today’s weaponry where a high powered rifle has the capacity to shoot 30 or more ammunition within seconds. In the last decade, the United States has seen a rise in popularity with mass shootings carried out by individuals with military grade weaponry, leading to death tolls and injury that would have shocked our past ancestors.

While this is a current issue and controversial one to say the least, the Second Amendment needs some kind of reform as intended by the founders of this country to do so.

Some individuals in the United States have the opinion that nothing should change and if there is in any way a change to the Second Amendment, it shows that the government is taking away their right to bear such armaments. Some Americans are of the idea that we should ban firearms completely in this country in order to stop violent atrocities from happening such as school shootings and civilian terrisom. As the issue stands, this is not a primary goal in the 21st Century government of America. Many are knowledgeable enough to know that the constitution is amendable, yet it is hard for the process to be enacted. Some even swear that nothing should change as if the constitution was a set in stone. There is a compromise that lies hidden between these two radical opinions. In a statement by Thomas Jefferson, he explains the importance of change to our constitution and what that means for future generations. “Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every 19 or 20 years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.”

The solution lies not in abolishing the amendment but incorporating reforms like firearm control and properly educating individuals on the safety of guns, as well as limiting the type of weapons that can be distributed.

There needs to be advanced background checks for any individual wanting a firearm; these are both weapons and tools. I feel that gun licences of some kind would be a better alternative than banning them. Just like a driver’s licence, there should be training and proper education on these weapons. Many individuals use firearms for hunting, sport and even just for fun on shooting ranges. Firearms are tools and while they are dangerous, they can be properly owned by the public in safe and manageable ways.

Banning something is not going to change the context of the deranged individuals who carry out terror and acts of violence against the American public. Just as it is with drugs, if they are banned those who really want a firearm wont stop to find and get one just because it is illegal. With more government interaction, gun control reform, safety trainings, and education for the public, I feel we can compromise to keep the Second Amendment from being completely dismantled and changed without banning firearms completely from the general public.

Ben Stock can be contacted at:
bstock@kscequinox.com

Andrew Chase
Opinions Editor

Within the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, there is a specific amendment that has been incredibly controversial in recent years. The amendment that I am talking about is, of course, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.” I firmly believe that the Second Amendment is a profoundly important right for all citizens in the United States.

I believe that the Second Amendment is an extremely essential right to our country’s democracy because it gives the people the ability to defend their freedoms and liberties against an unjust and tyrannical government. When a government becomes completely twisted and corrupted by taking away its citizens’ unalienable rights, then it’s the job of the people to put an end to the tyranny by fighting against the government. A crucial aspect of fighting against the government is having access to sufficient resources which includes firearms.

Many people say that our government has a whole variety of weapons they could use to easily destroy any sort of uprising that comes up within the country, which is true for the most part. Despite the United States government having the capability to wipe out any attempts at a rebellion, there have been numerous times throughout history where smaller and poorly equipped forces have won battles and even wars against a much larger army. Two prime examples of this situation are the Vietnam War and the Revolutionary War. In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese forces were incredibly out gunned by the South Vietnamese forces and the United States Military. Although the North Vietnamese forces were incredibly outmatched by the South Vietnamese forces and the U.S. military, the NVA used a ton more primitive tactics. These primitive tactics that the North Vietnamese forces used included hit and runs, using underground tunnels for transport, and biological warfare. Since the South Vietnamese forces and the U.S. military were not prepared to counteract all of these tactics, it allowed the North Vietnamese forces to gain the upper hand in the war. The North Vietnamese forces gaining the upper hand with these tactics eventually allowed them to win the war. The fact that a very poorly-equipped army could beat the might of the United States military by using primitive tactics, is a crucial example of why allowing all citizens the right to own firearms is very important to the security of our country.

Another reason as to why I believe that the Second Amendment is a profoundly important right for all citizens in the United States is because some firearms have an important historical significance. I absolutely believe that citizens should have the right to own a firearm if it is an important piece of their family’s history. I believe that passing down a firearm because of its historical significance in a family is no different than passing down a vase that is significant within the family.

For example, if a piece of silverware has been passed down throughout a family for generations, then how is it different from passing down a firearm that has been in the family for generations?

Recently mass shootings have become more prevelant in the U.S. and I believe that the Second Amendment is an effective way to help stop these situations quickly. My reasoning behind this belief is that in an active shooter situation, a law abiding citizen will be able to defend themselves and the others around them by neutralizing the shooter. Although the number of mass shootings is increasing, many of the shooters accessed their weapons via both legal and illegal means.

Despite the means that they accessed their weapons, the majority of them had some sort of mental issue which was a big cause for them committing their atrocities. I firmly believe that the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is the best way to address this issue since a gun without a person’s finger on the trigger isn’t going to do anything. The issue arises when someones, who shouldn’t have access to any firearms, finger is on the trigger.

Yet I absolutely believe that the Second Amendment is one of our country’s most important rights due to its ability to help protect our liberties.

Andrew Chase can be contacted at:
opinions@kscequinox.com