Fire Arms today are very different than they were almost 250 years ago when the Bill of Rights was written. At the time the idea of a "deadly rifle" was a single shot gun that took a well trained soldier anywhere from 10-15 seconds to load, meaning he was firing around 4-5 rounds per minute. Compare that to today where we have a wide range of fire arms, all of which can be deadly, with guns that can fire 60 rounds per minute.
With all of the mass shootings that have happened recently I think it is time to step in and ask the major question that has divided our country for many years now. Was this law written to accommodate modern day guns?
Some would argue that it doesn't matter if it was meant to accommodate modern guns, because as gun technology develops, people need the newer guns to protect themselves from them. A common counter to this though is that if all guns are banned, then you will not need the newer gun to protect yourself because you wont be in danger of anyone having a gun to put you in danger in the first place.
This is were I believe we have to go back to the context of this law being written. Being in 1793, the United States was still weak. In fear of another great power attacking, it made sense that the people be armed since they were the ones that made up their state Militias. It was also thought that if the government turned tyrannical, the states could use their Militias to rise up and reinstate democracy.
Now that we are way beyond this stage in our history and in no fear of being attacked by a super power, or having our government turn against us and rule in tyranny, does this law really continue to be valid or do we need to look at it again and maybe adjust some of its parameters?
Sources:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992
I think that the 2nd amendment needs to be looked at again. Because the future has changed a lot when that amendment was create. people have high power guns that could kill thousands in minutes. but back then, guns are weak and slow.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is that a decent percentage of Americans have guns for protection, but living in a house with a gun actually increases your chance of death. Having an accessible gun makes homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths more common. So, I believe having guns for protection can do more harm than good. Looking at these statistics along with statistics about the daily mass shootings in our countries, guns should be better regulated. I saw a CNN video a couple of months ago where a 13-year-old boy tried to buy alcohol and cigarettes. Of course, they turned him away. Next, he walked to a gun show and legally bought a gun with no problem. I think it’s a major problem that firearms which can kill people are more regulated than a can of beer.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very valid point about reviewing the 2nd amendment. While many of the aspects of the Constitution remain applicable to life today, technology continues to evolve, as does its relevance in our society. However, I also believe the problem lies with the NRA. The NRA is an extremely influential lobbyist group within the U.S. government, spending 3 million dollars each year to prevent possible solutions from having a chance in Congress. Not only do they have vast amounts of money, the group also has the means of mobilizing a large group of ardent supporters. While they should have the right to voice their opinions, other lobbying groups on different sides of the debate do not possess the power the NRA has, giving them little chance of going against them. Until both sides are given an equal opportunity to discuss the issue, the debate will likely continue to escalate with more frequent mass shootings each year.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/taking-on-the-n-r-a
I think you bring up a very valid point. I believe the second amendment definitely needs to be re-looked at. I think a good example for our nation to look at is Japan. Following world war II Japan banned the ownership of guns. They have now loosened regulations where people can buy guns but first must pass extensive fire arm mental health and background tests. They now see less than 10 gun deaths a year which when compared to the 39,773 gun deaths in the US this past year is a drastic difference. For this reason I really think some change needs to happen and the path Japan took obviously is showing very positive results.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/