How Does the Second Amendment Apply to US Today?

The Second Amendment has been one of the most hotly debated political topics of recent years. It reads, “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 wording of this creates a lot of gray area for lawmakers today to decide gun control regulations. What constitutes a well regulated militia? Do the people have a right to keep and bear all types of arms or just some? Do people have to the right to bear arms everywhere they go?

With new records for mass shootings appearing in the United States every year now, the current gun laws in our country seem like they are not working the way they should. From Los Vegas to Orlando to Sandy Hook, more and more mass shootings are happening, but little has been done in response. The graph below shows just how much the number of mass shootings in the U.S. has skyrocketed in recent years.

Mass shootings in the US are on the rise. What makes American men so dangerous?

Many argue that if more gun control laws are passed, it will violate the second amendment. So the question then becomes, if not all Americans are given the right to keep and bear arms, does that violate the second amendment?

I would argue that just because not all individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment is not being violated. I think of the first amendment and how not everyone has the right to absolute free speech. You cannot yell, “fire” in a crowded theatre for example. You cannot make public threats upon someone’s life. Children under the age of eighteen and convicted felons do not have the right to vote. These examples of restricting freedom of speech are widely accepted, but it seems completely illogical that there are more restrictions on what someone gets to say than if they can own a device that has the capacity to almost instantaneously kill other people.

Those convicted of previous violent crimes and those with severe mental disabilities could be stoped from purchasing legal firearms, but background checks preventing those individuals from purchasing ultra-dangerous weapons are still not required. Perhaps most startlingly, the vast majority of guns used in these mass shootings were obtained legally.

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Just because a five year-old, a person with Schizophrenia or severe depression, or someone convicted of an armed robbery is not allowed to purchase a gun does not mean that the Second Amendment is not being upheld as well as other aspects of the Constitution. Just because a normal citizen should not be allowed to openly cary a gun down into a preschool does not mean the Second Amendment is lost. If we as Americans want to end are mass shootings and horrific violence that appears every week on the news, lawmakers are going to need to make changes. Background checks on firearms purchases, restrictions on the number of firearms a person is allowed to own, and more limits on who is and who is not allowed to own a gun in our country need to happen. We have to bring our gun restriction laws up to where they need to be in 2018, not in 1791.

Mass shootings in the US are on the rise. What makes American men so dangerous?

11 Responses to "How Does the Second Amendment Apply to US Today?"

Haley Overlander says:

January 29, 2018 at 11:05 pm

Thomas, I appreciate your post on the 2nd amendment. I feel that in today’s day in age, though we discuss the right to bear arms in the media often, nothing seems to be actually happening in regards to this issue. Yes, the right to bear arms was granted in our constitutional rights, but those rights were also written in the late 18th century, while we are now in the 21st century. The constitution, as stated in our textbook by scholars, should be described as a “living constitution, one that changes with the times and the needs of the United States.”

In this modern day in age, we must realize that technology, the internet, and modernization has led to an entirely new world that we live in. The internet for example has opened up a whole black market on weapons, leaving our society in a situation where it is at a loss on where to even begin regulations. Today, a gun is seen as a weapon, not a material of defense. Growing up in an age where mass shootings are incredibly relevant and gun regulations are seemingly nonexistent, we begin to question our Nation’s right to bear arms. Though our constitution is built ‘by and for the people’ it must also take into account that we the people, have changed and adapted to this modern world we live in, which means that the words of our founding fathers must be understood in a way that is relevant to today’s society.

In 1791, there was no deep understanding of issues such as mental illness, but today, we have endless amounts of research that has shown us the effects different illnesses can have on individuals. Therefore, in regards to your comment on mental illness I feel as though we also must also take into account that many people can be diagnosed with mental illnesses later in life, perhaps after they’ve already purchased a gun. Therefore, I believe that along with background checks before the purchase of a firearm, there should also be annual checkups on the owner of the gun, in whatever capacity seems legally just and safe for the individual him or herself and all of those living in the surrounding society.

The main questions that popped up in my head while reading your post, as well as structuring my own comment, were how do we as a society distinguish between the safe and unsafe use of guns in our modern day? How do we adjust the words of the second amendment to not only secure the safety of our people, but also to secure the safety of their original rights? Most importantly, I would like to ask, why is it that this conversation is still occurring and no action has taken place while we sit around and watch more innocent lives being taken in part due to weak gun regulations?
Holden Powers says:

January 30, 2018 at 4:53 pm

Thomas,

Your post does a very good job talking about some of problems we have seen recently in regards to the second amendment. In recent years, we have seen lots of mass shootings and some terrible tragedies due to people having access to weapons when they clearly are not using the weapons for recreational or protection purposes like the fathers of our constitution envisioned.

When it comes to the safety of our country and its people, I believe that the federal government should start implementing more serious and stringent background checks which will supersede any background checks given by the states. This will allow agencies like the FBI gain and share access to information which some states might not have the availability to retrieve when deciding to approve or dismiss someone’s firearm application.

However, I disagree with your argument regards to the amount of firearms a person can have. There should not be a restriction on the amount of guns an individual can have. It does not matter if an individual has 1,2,5,10, or 100 guns. Each one is deadly and needs to be in the right hands. Even though the number of mass shootings have increased recently, it is still a very small portion to the amount of gun owners the U.S. has.

Should we tolerate these mass shootings? Absolutely not! However, we need more strict background checks to make sure individuals who obtain firearm permits are actually qualified just like you mentioned.
Andrew Griffin says:

January 30, 2018 at 8:10 pm

Thomas,

I found your post to be insightful. The question of whether the Second Amendment is being violated by new gun laws is one that is constantly brought up by pundits in the modern political landscape. I do have a few points I wish to express about this issue.

As you state early in your post, the Second Amendment is prefaced with “a well regulated Militia.” What the founders say here is that because of the need for local militias, citizens have a right to bear arms, in case of a time of emergency. Because the United States no longer has local militias, one could reason that the Second Amendment is no longer applicable, as its preface no longer exists. If it is true the Second Amendment has no bearing, it then does not matter whether it is being violated by limits on weapons or background checks.

Additionally, the question of mentally ill people purchasing weapons raises many problems. First, while I am by no means an expert, mental illness is a blanket term to describe a wide variety of mental conditions that people may have. For example, someone who has OCD does not have the same condition as someone who is bipolar. Should people with those disorders be allowed to purchase firearms, but not people with schizophrenia? Further, there are varying degrees to which a person may be affected by mental illness. How severe must a condition be to prevent someone from purchasing a firearm? Even more troubling, a person may show no immediate signs of mental illness, get cleared to purchase a weapon, and commit a mass shooting. My point here is that while restrictions of purchasing firearms for mentally ill people sound good in theory, they in fact would be a deeply complicated policy that may not even be effective.

Overall, a good post that provoked thought into perhaps America’s most important issue.

-Drew
Cassandra Martin says:

January 30, 2018 at 8:40 pm

Thomas,

I found your post to be very thorough with excellent evidence to support your claims. I also appreciated the additional insight in the other comments. To me, it is very evident from the number of mass shootings taking place that there needs to be tighter gun control legislation. I am definitely not for stripping everyone’s 2nd amendment rights away, but as you mentioned before, when not exercised properly, this amendment has very dangerous implications. Increasing background checks is not taking away people’s guns– it’s making sure weapons end up in responsible, trained hands.

I grew up in Central New York where many people own guns not to protect themselves, but to hunt. In my region, venison is one of the cheapest meats to consume, and hunters will make sure to utilize every part of the deer, so it isn’t wasteful, or even a game for many hunters. Governor Andrew Cuomo (a democrat) proposed a 7-point plan for gun control in New York, and while his goal was to remain respectful of hunters’ needs, many people in CNY began raging that Cuomo was going to take their guns– they made bumper stickers, shirts, etc. However, all that was proposed were pretty standard things such as a more stringent federal background check, mental health checks, etc. Therefore, I believe that both sides on this issue need to be better at attempting to understand the other side’s point of view. Perhaps if more people really took the time to understand the other viewpoint (in this case, it probably would’ve helped to know Cuomo is even a gun owner) there would be safe gun control, where weapons are used for proper reasons.

As for the mental illness point you and Andrew touched on, I think there needs to be drastic changes in mental health and gun control. As of now, the standard in many states is still whether a person has been voluntarily or involuntarily admitted for psychiatric treatment. Unfortunately, stigmas surrounding mental health continue to cause many to go untreated, and many people who do suffer from mental health conditions may have less concerning illnesses at first, but then they are never addressed and become much bigger issues, as we see in cases of mass shootings. Therefore, I believe that introducing better, more standardized gun control would ensure that rights aren’t infringed upon, but that people are also safe.

Sources:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Andrew_Cuomo_Gun_Control.htm
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/why-mentally-ill-have-guns-legally-background-checks/
Santiago Rivas says:

January 30, 2018 at 11:12 pm

Thomas,
I really liked the idea that the wording of the second amendment is vague and severely outdated, and I think it is very important to understand that the purpose for holding these weapons and the weapons themselves have evolved through time into very dangerous and not essential instruments for every household.

Along the lines of this evolution of needs and tools comes the tricky part of “amending” the wording of the constitution. as to what extent are the people of the US are willing to let part of their culture be absorbed by legislation. I find this very difficult to do, since it is very likely that people will not be willing to change the constitution very drastically, even after horrible attacks have happened. I think that this debate will continue to exist amongst US citizens, and if there is any aim as to solve this issue it will have to be proposed gradually and through a long period of time.
Langley Crisp says:

January 30, 2018 at 11:50 pm

Thomas,

I completely agree with your post and I find the points that you bring up very compelling. I think your discussion lends itself well to the debate between loose and firm interpretations of the constitution.

My biggest issue with the second amendment is how much technology, specifically firearm technology, has changed since the 16th century when this document was written.

I would bet my life that the second amendment would look a lot different if Thomas Jefferson wrote it today, knowing what we know about semi-automatic weapons.

In cases like this where a significant change has occurred that so closely affects an amendment, I believe that a loose interpretation must be taken and change must be affected. The second amendment must be altered in order to protect the security of Americans; it baffles me how Trump has travel bans on Muslim countries but won’t push for altering the second amendment when the latter causes infinite more death and destruction in this country.

Great argument, great points, and I agree with you fully. Hears hoping that we as millennials will make a change one day.
Akshit Sharma says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:27 am

Thomas, I enjoyed reading your post, it was very informative. I do however have a somewhat different opinion. As an outsider and keen observer, I have come to believe that the Second Amendment is more harmful than it is helpful and that gradually it should be done away with.

Here is why I believe that should be the case –

1. In countries where crime and violence rates are lower than the United States, access to guns is limited and not every national has the right to ownership. Let me give you an example of a developed country and one of a developing country. In Canada, the crime rate is 43% lower than in the U.S. and the murder rate is less than half. In another part of the world, India has a crime rate 17% lower than the U.S. and the murder rate is almost half of what it is here. In both countries, gun laws are much less liberal and there is great control over who can own firearms, how many can a person own, etc. That I believe is a significant factor in determining the crime rates. I would go even as far as saying that most of the shootings that you have mentioned in your post – Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook – could have been avoided had gun laws been stricter.

2. I have often heard the argument that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Fair enough. I agree with that. But the question then is if people kill people, why are we giving them a right to bear firearms and making it easier for them to carry out such executions? I am yet to come across a compelling argument that makes it justifiable to bear arms with mass shootings frequenting America more than Trump frequenting his golf courses. Another argument that I have come across but do not find reasonable enough is the idea that the founding fathers wanted Americans to have the right to bear arms for the safety and security of their loved ones and themselves. If the intent behind this was to ensure the safety of citizens, then I must confess, American society has failed to do so and in fact has gone the opposite way by allowing mass shootings to take place and people to live in fear of being gunned down in public places.

Doing away with the second amendment, or at least modifying it so it suits modern times seems to be the best thing to do in order to avoid such issues.

Sources –

(http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/India/United-States/Crime)
(http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime)
Katherine Breed says:

January 31, 2018 at 1:25 pm

Thomas,

I find your post very interesting and engaging. I think you do a good job in discussing some of the current problems with gun control. I do agree with you, that it does not violate the Second Amendment because, as you mentioned, there are certain restrictions of freedom in the First Amendment that are accepted.

Today, with so many mass shootings reported in the media something needs to change. It shouldn’t be so easily accessible for people to obtain a gun and create the deadliest shooting in the United States like what happened at the gay nightclub in Orlando. That horrible event was the nation’s worst terror attack since 9/11. With ISIS as an everyday threat, now more than ever do gun control laws need to be stricter. Our safety is at risk. I do believe certain people should obtain guns, such as people who work in law enforcement and the military.

However, I still believe that there should be extensive background checks on those people as well and there should be constant checks on those peoples mental health. The problem with your argument of giving a restriction to the amount of guns an individual can have still doesn’t get rid of the existing issue. All guns are dangerous and have the ability to hurt anyone no matter what. I think having stricter background checks for those who jobs require guns will help prevent some of the catastrophizes that have been happening. With new legislation being passed in 2018, such as “People will have to purchase ammunition through licensed vendor. Even those ordering online will have to have it shipped to an appropriate vendor and then pick up their purchases in person,” it should help prevent online purchases.

Overall, I really enjoyed your post! You definitely sparked an engaging conversation.

-Kate
Kelly Gough says:

January 31, 2018 at 2:25 pm

The second amendment is definitely a topic for frequent debate, and something that people have very opposing views on. The point you brought up discussing the irony between the amount of exceptions there are for the First Amendment as opposed to the Second Amendment was eye opening.

I haven’t really thought about it but it is ironic that it is illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded space, likely because it could cause chaos and lead to injury but it is not illegal (or strict) to purchase guns that can inflict even more injury or death.

The most interesting part of your blog post, to me, was the graph displaying the mass shootings in the US and whether or not the killer obtained the weapons legally. Prior to seeing that illustration I probably would have made the argument that if someone wants a gun and to cause damage, they will find the gun. If it is not sold to them online, they may go to the black market or resort to other means to obtain one.

I agree that stricter regulations are needed. I think it would make complete sense for people to have a background check before purchasing a firearm. More concerning to me though is the things that would not turn up on a background check. If someone is suffering from severe depression or bipolar disorder and they are not seeking proper treatment, this ease of access to purchasing a gun is very troublesome. I take mental health very seriously and think it is in the best interest for the people suffering from mental health and general population to have to complete both a background check and restrictions put into place.
Everett Harper says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:15 pm

Thomas,

This is very well written and brings up a very good argument dealing with the 2nd amendment. I very much agree that something needs to be done about the number of mass shootings in America. Although I am not certainly sure what the answer to this daunting societal problem is, I believe that something can be done. I believe that if a change were made to the second amendment, which made it more difficult for citizens to purchase a firearm, that someone who truly wants to commit mass murder will find a way to get a weapon in their hands. Simply put, I believe that there are already enough guns in America to where stricter regulation would not prove to be very effective. In a perfect world, I believe that more awareness of mental health problems would prove to be more effective, but I understand that is a tall task. I know that this problem is ongoing and widely debated but I hope that America can find an effective, fair solution.

Great work.
Michael De La Cruz says:

February 4, 2018 at 1:08 pm

The second Amendment and gun control are two very relevant topics when it comes to modern America. It seems that almost every month there is a new mass shooting somewhere in the United States. Citizens on both ends of the political spectrum are trying to eliminate these tragedies with new legislature, but are they headed in the right direction?

In most of mass shootings, the perpetrator almost always used fully automatic weapons. This has lead to legislature that has tried to regulate and even ban fully automatic weapons. However, I don’t believe this will lead to a considerable decline in mass shooting because legally-owned fully automatic guns have only been used in three crimes since 1934.

I believe mass shootings are the result of individuals living in a toxic household that fosters their violent, impulsive, and angry emotions. They use guns as an outlet for their emotional energy, and maybe one way to help subdue mass shootings is to provide free, accessible counseling services in every city. While this approach might seem trivial, it would provide these impulsive individuals with a place to let out their pent-up energy while providing a laboratory from which valuable data could be collected.

Article on mass shooters: http://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11

Comments are closed.