“So far in 2018, the number of U.S. students killed in school shootings is greater than the number of U.S. military personnel who have been killed on active duty” (Patel). Let that sink in for a second. Thoughts and prayers are simply not enough this time. It is time that we scrutinize the law that dictates the matter of arms: the second amendment. The original second amendment says, “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” (‘The Constitution of the United States,’ Amendment 2). While I can agree with the fact that this amendment is causing controversy and needs change, I do not think it needs to be repealed. I think the process of attaining guns should be better regulated, and as citizens, we need to truly understand the meaning of the words “militia” and “well regulated” and put the meaning into the perspective of modern day.
Let’s start by thinking back to the times of our founders. Picture the word “militia.” What do you see? Historically speaking, the militia during the 1780s were the Minutemen who joined forces to fight the British. The “militia” today is defined in the U.S. Code as everyday American males of the ages seventeen and up who are not in any formal National Guard (U.S. Code). It is true that in present days we do not need a fully functioning militia to protect us from sudden attacks of the British, but this militia’s real purpose is for citizens to have a way of protecting themselves from an overpowered and corrupt government. However, as we have all seen in the news, that is not what is happening. Why, you may ask? Poor regulation.
The Second Amendment calls for a well regulated militia, and the present day shooters are simply not “well regulated.” A recent statement by researcher Rakove, a historian at Stanford, suggested that the term “well-regulated” in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, and well-disciplined (Rakove). Were the shooters in Columbine well-organized? Was the Sandy Hook shooter protecting his town? Was the Parkland shooter well disciplined?
127 our experts are availableright now
Furthermore, it is not the gun doing the shooting, it is the person. The gun alone does no harm, tragedy happens when the person pulls the trigger. Strict background checks and psychological exams should be in order. While many argue that background checks are already in place, “The federal government only requires criminal background checks for sales by licensed gun businesses. Those who buy firearms at gun shows or over the Internet in many states are legally allowed to skip background checks…22 percent of gun sales occur without a background check” (Giffords Law Center). Many states do not even implement any system of background checks and with the rise of online sales in today’s digital age, the security of many people is at risk. Currently, New York is one of the few states that require background checks and permits. By no coincidence, in New York, only 4.4 deaths per 100,000 people are firearm related which is the 48th lowest in the United States (Frolich).
The argument that the Second Amendment should be repealed states that due to frequent school shootings, the right to bear arms should be taken away completely. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does not stop crime or gun violence. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on every amendment. For examples, the restriction on the first amendment stating that people need a permit to protest was integrated into society and is considered reasonable. The same type of restrictions can be implemented into the second amendment. Simply banning guns will only make the situation worse, such as what happened with probation. When alcohol was banned, the illegal smuggling of it only increased. The ban of guns by repealing the Second Amendment would be ineffective and could leave people defenseless and vulnerable. However, the Second Amendment still cannot be left to its own devices since online transactions are becoming more common, and require no background checks posing a severe threat to communities across America.
This leads to my proposed two part solution which will call for more restrictions and protocols in the purchasing of guns. We need to start by regulating the selling of these weapons with greater attention to the profiles of potential killers who are likely to demonstrate pre-shooting anger, depression, and get in trouble with school authorities. For starters, we might exclude those who have been known to get into fights. Secondly, we need to implement a gun ownership training program similar to obtaining a drivers license. Buyers should have to attend a week long seminar in which they are taught how to use a gun and how to appropriately respond in a situation that requires a gun. Once we can regulate and train this present day militia, we can ensure guns are being kept out of the hands of unqualified individuals.
Overall, not every regulation of gun ownership violates the Second Amendment, despite what many contend. Restrictions and checks have been implemented before and need to be implemented now; it is not the gun that should be held accountable, it is the person. What needs amending is collective knowledge and appreciation of the Second Amendment, not the words of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment needs to be followed by its original intent, and additional protocols need to be added to meet the needs of the 21st century. Guns were originally meant for militias and defense, but have grown to be harmful and responsible for mass shootings on a scale our forefathers would have never imagined. People have the right to their guns, but they also have the right to their lives.
As high school AP Lang students and citizens of the US, it is our duty to actively participate in politics to make sure our opinions are heard. Protesting for additional restrictions and regulations is a great way to get our voice heard. However, accompanying with our duty as constituents, being informed about our representatives’ views and making sure we agree with their views is key to bringing about change. If the politician representing us has different views than us, it is our duty to vote and make sure that a new politician is put in charge and is truly representing us. As students in the age range of 15-17, we should scrutinize political views and not be afraid to communicate with our representatives. I urge you to read about our future governor’s and mayor’s views and write letters to them. Also, attend congressional hearings to make whatever impact you can. Eventually, when we are old enough to to vote, we can vote for who we believe best represents our views, and bring about this much needed change. This is our life, our country, let’s make an impact today.
