Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment

Back to Article
Back to Article

Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment

Provided by Sonali Narayan

Provided by Sonali Narayan

Provided by Sonali Narayan

David Shen, Staff Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






 The Second Amendment was created for the intent of allowing the common citizen the opportunity to defend themselves. So naturally, it baffles me, being perpetually politically oblivious, why more thought wasn’t put into the conception of seemingly simple assertion. Originally, it must have seemed childishly simple: locked in almost a decade of combat with the British regime, a universal means of retaliation would seem very attractive to any resident of the Thirteen Colonies. But time complicates all things and now it seems the greatest threat to America is America itself. With numerous reports of troubled individuals – mind you, most of them being American citizens –  opening fire on the innocent, it only seems natural that these tools of violence are only capable of creating more violence. I believe that the choice is obvious: one cannot commit firearm-related crimes without a firearm. Perhaps in the infancy of the United States, violence was a thing of rebellion, of pride, but in the United States we live in now, violence is a reminder of our mistakes as individuals and as a nation.

But should we heap all the blame on the founding fathers? Obviously not, for who in their right mind could have expected the profound impact technology and progress could have wrought upon what was once a simple musket? Before the days of America’s rise as one of the greatest nations in the world, the belief that an individual should have the right to defend his loved ones from external threat was one to be praised. Now, the presence of a peacekeeping tool is danger in itself, a reminder of the countless tragedies executed by a piece of articulately crafted steel. There is no looming threat to rebel against, no heinous overlord to exert dominance over the citizens of a downtrodden nation, for America has grown large and prosperous enough to find itself at odds with a particularly resilient adversary: itself. With the dominant side of our government firmly for the right to bear arms and the other increasingly opposed to it, the Second Amendment will endure, in spite of the tragedies consistently devastating the citizens of the United States.

Provided by Bridgit Jung

Provided by Bridgit Jung

There’s a dilemma here: to let go of what Americans proudly define as their past, or to reject a deeply ingrained cultural ideal. Either way, someone loses, and as this issue begins to run rampant in political discussions, it seems that there is no certain way to find compromise in this increasingly divisive climate. Like it or not, the world is a dangerous place, and the natural inclination is to make it less of one. Some people believe in the immediate, obvious solution: to arm themselves before disaster inevitably strikes in the form of an unstable individual. Others choose to believe in the pipe dream: without firearms, how can there be murder committed via firearm? With so much infighting inside our own government, progress toward a mutual agreement has slowed to a crawl, and with daily reminders of the lethal power of guns featured prominently in our news, a solution is needed now more than ever. It seems that remaining open minded is crucial to reaching this distant compromise, as change seems to be approaching America at a rate unseen since its inception.