Second Amendment outdated, NRA wrong

“The right to bear arms.” Five words that people like Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, live their entire life by. LaPierre and his colleagues believe that this statement has so much to do with the liberty and protection that America stands for, they chose to be a part of an Association that fights for those very rights. This right has been the cause for 16 mass shootings and over 80 deaths in the United States in 2012 alone. The victims in these mass killings include high school students, college students, wives, husbands, and even 20 children under the age of seven.

So how is it that well-educated Americans still allow, and even fight for, guns to stay legal? As stated before, because of five words written by the fourth U.S. president, James Madison in 1787. Would Madison have written those words if he knew it would eventually apply to guns that were capable of shooting 900 rounds per minute and required only a few seconds to reload? The truth is, even back in the 18th century, Madison didn’t just write those five words. “ The right to bear arms,” is just a fragment of the Second Amendment. This is what it truly 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.” It can be inferred that Madison only believed firearms should be used by state militias if absolutely necessary. It is impossible to know exactly what Madison meant, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the opening words, “Well regulated Militia.”

Now the real question is, how can we stand by words written over 200 years ago that potentially harm our society today? The answer is simple, we can not and we should not. Personally, I do not own a gun and do not see a reason to. There are many advocates of the NRA who believe that guns are necessary to protect the innocent from harm. Small business owners, protective fathers, hunters, are some of type of people who believe they need weapons to defend themselves.

But isn’t that what we have police officers and security guards for? Why do we need small business owners to carry weapons on them when they can hire a screened and trained security guard? America would be a lot safer if civilians did not own weapons. If the Founding Fathers did not trust everyday civilians to vote without an electoral college, how are we suppose to trust those same people to carry weapons?

If security isn’t a solid enough plan for protection, why not use non-lethal weapons. If you were a fan of NBC series Chuck, staring Zachary Levi as a computer nerd with CIA and NSA intelligence implanted in his head, than you know very well about the success of using non-lethal weapons to defend yourself. Although Chuck is a fictional character who uses dart guns to put his enemies to sleep, American’s today can also take down attackers by using non lethal weapons like tasers and pepper spray. The point is, if our society has created effective ways to provide for self-defense without having to kill, then there is no reason not to use them.

Within the past 200 years, the United States has developed and transformed so drastically that, in my opinion, it is irrational to stand by words written so long ago.

5 thoughts on “Second Amendment outdated, NRA wrong

  1. Just think how many lives would have been saved if Newtown principal/teachers had access to firearms. He would not have killed so many innocent people. How many lives would have been saved in Colorado at the theatre if someone inside had a firearm to shoot back. In Norway, as well. no guns is not the answer. Bad things happen, and will always happen. I think if the amount of money given to education today, was given to help mental illness, then maybe these random shootings would occure with much less frequency.

  2. We should arm the teachers. Then when the criminals get bigger guns, we should give the teachers bigger guns. Soon enough, every schoolchild will be packing a bazooka and every school will have it’s own SWAT team. Every movie theater and mall should have its own tank just in case the criminals come in with heavy artillery. THIS is the utopia the Founding Fathers dreamed of. Yes, the solution is definitely MORE guns.

    It’s funny, when a major shooting occurs in Norway, everyone there freaks out because it’s so rare. In America when a major shooting occurs, we just keep eating our cereal.

  3. This coming from the same publication who’s contributors say we should “blame society” for “making us addicted to cell phones”?

    http://www.oswegonian.com/opinion/staff-editorial/7587/no-cell-phones-no-life/

    I’m concerned with the types of people that my Alma Mater is turning out these days! It sounds like people are starting to think that nobody needs to take responsibility/accountability for their own actions anymore… We should just go out and hire our own security? Next thing you know, someone’s going to advocate that we hire someone to wipe our own butts. Bummer! (pun intended)

    And let’s not forget the little portion of the constitution that comes before the 2nd amendment. You know, that part about us being allowed to say whatever we want to… Is that antiquated? Is the 1st amendment somehow outdated and obsolete? Or is it just the 2nd amendment that no longer applies because you “do not own a gun and see no reason to?” So now you can pick and choose which parts of the constitution YOU think applies to society? WOW!

    And for the record, there’s no such thing as “non-lethal” weapons. “Less Lethal Weapons” as they are known, can still be lethal. So, you’re idea of using tasers instead of bullets only holds up as long as the ‘criminal’ doesn’t have a heart condition…

    Did you REALLY stop and THINK about what you were saying in this article before you posted it?

    One last observation – Guns don’t shoot “rotations” as you mention above in the line “…apply to guns that were capable of shooting 900 rotations per minute…” So I pose this final question – as a STUDENT at a COLLEGE, did you do any RESEARCH prior to posting this article?

    OSU Alum, Class of ’07

  4. Just for the record, the US Census Burea reports that approximately 35.9 million people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2009.

    Why not ban cars? Because they have their purpose.

    Why not ban guns? They also have their purpose.

    There is a law against murder. It was broken in Newtown. Would a law against guns have changed the young man’s mind and have shown him the error of his ways? I rather doubt it.

    Banning guns would make them considerably harder to obtain, yes. However, banning drugs hasn’t exactly gotten the dealers off the street. Banning an item — whether it be drugs, guns, whatever — merely keeps that item out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Through the epic failure of drug restrictions, we have consistantly proven in our country that bans do NOT keep such items out of the hands of those who are determined to break the law.

    Therefore, if our country becomes a country where guns are banned, only the criminals will have access to real weapons. The rest of us may follow the stellar example of an NBC TV show, and pepper-spray our would-be murderers as they aim their machine guns at us.

    Golly, I hope it works.

    Christina
    Class of 2014


    **Sincere apologies for any typos. My browser won’t display the comment box correctly, and I can’t see what I’m typing.

  5. I’m hoping I can get far enough past the immense frustration I feel at the ignorance expressed in this piece to write an actual educated and researched response. However, I am not sure a writer that uses the phrase “rotations per minute” in reference to firearms even deserves a thoughtful response.
    You express perfectly one of the major problems with the gun control debate in this country, in that many of those so adamantly against my Second Amendment rights have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

Comments are closed.