The Second Amendment: A Threat to Civilized People?
Gun control has recently created a massive uproar throughout the United States because of the recent, and sincerely unfortunate, Sandy Hook school shooting that occurred last December. In response to this tragedy, Democratic leaders have been attempting to capitalize on the incident and push forward their respective agenda of limiting gun rights. As one can imagine, there are a surfeit of opinions on the subject, but despite this fact, I have come to affirm that I am strong believer in strengthening gun control. Although the right to bear arms should continue to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment, our nation’s need for heightened security in school classrooms and other public places is something that should no longer be ignored. The Gun Problem: Why an Unlimited Right to Bear Arms is Bad
Since becoming a staple of American society, guns have been instrumental in altering contemporary warfare. The dangers of these weapons are not a secret; it is simply their mere nature. Some argue that guns were created to protect, while others suggest that they were built to destroy and cause the death of one’s intended target. Frank Zimring, a University of Chicago Law scholar, stated in his piece The University of Chicago Law Review, “The rate of knife deaths per 100 reported knife attacks was less than 1/5 the rate of gun deaths per 100 reported gun attacks” (Zimring 722). This statistic expresses the sincere lethality of guns compared to other forms of weaponry. One of the main reasons for this data stems from the misuse of guns, which unlike other weapons, can cause death to the user and those around him or her even on accident. If this unfortunate probability can be decreased, how can we stand around as the leader of the free world and let nothing be done? In the American political system, gun control has been a debate for many years; however, recent shootings have forced it into a large spotlight. The problem that splits gun control proponents from their opposition is the language of the second amendment of the constitution. The founding fathers of this nation believed 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” (U.S. Constitution). This multifaceted sentence from the Bill of Rights brings many quarrels to life with its simple diction. It is very open to interpretation, which is what causes both sides of the debate to have “legal stances” on the matter. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which is the nation’s largest gun advocacy organization, is led by the philosophy that it, “[hosts] a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.” What gun advocates in the NRA often fail to understand, however, is the conscionable limits to the Second Amendment. As 27-year serving Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated in the majority opinion of the District of Columbia V. Heller decision, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Scalia). This lead Scalia to also state that, “it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” These sanctions are legal proof that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate the distribution, ownership, and use of weapons. On top of that, Scalia, regarded as the most conservative justice, clearly highlights that gun control is useful and at times necessary. Legislation is Necessary to Reduce Gun Violence
Past and present governmental action of this nation proves that the danger that arises from the use of guns is so high that it values the general security of citizens higher than the individual rights of gun owners. The proof of this higher need for security is presented in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document