In the parlance of our times, with the insurgence of technology and automatic weapons, the ever-growing presence of the media, and foreign relations inciting a proclivity for fear-mongering/racial profiling, it can be said that the nation is stuck in a reciprocal relationship between fear and violence. People are afraid: afraid of terrorists, afraid of those who have economically struck-out in the recession coming and raiding their home – and it is fear that seems to parallel the purchase of guns for home and self-defense. Some argue that self-defense, safety, and protection are all undisputed reasons to leave The Second Amendment be for now – however, statistics purport that for every time a gun is successfully used in self or home defense, “there are four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides”.[4]

Mass shootings have recently replaced automobile accidents as the #1 killer of people under the age of 19. Furthermore, in one day, an average 33 Americans are murdered through the use of a firearm, 53 take their own lives, and 2 die accidentally. This surmounts to over 32,000 gun related deaths in one year.[5] These numbers display that “People under the age of 40 are more likely to die from gunfire than from any specific disease.” [6]

So, if society has evolved into one who would rather see a “body full of bullet holes over any change in gun legislation” (Ben Carson), then it can be claimed that adherence to the Second Amendment has turned nearly religious, without taking into account its original purpose nor the fact that the ability to own guns without being tied to the military was only recently established in 2008. It has turned into a falsified concept of “Nationalism”, and any form of gun control is viewed as an assault to the foundations on which this country was built, and as a gateway to more liberties being taken away. This viewpoint does not take into account shifting social paradigms and how these paradigms require evolving laws to accommodate them. Even one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, supported the reevaluating and changing laws in the face of a changing society:

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As [the mind] becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.” (1816)

This quote from Thomas Jefferson very specifically warns against zealously adhering to past laws in the face of new trials – yet when even Republican Primary Candidates are stating that to take away the right to bear arms would be the equivalent of Fascism, it becomes chillingly obvious that no logical or historical argument will be able to suade them in their inoculated views.

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights remains a largely misunderstood portion of our constitution, and I am going to discuss how the outdated ideologies which had originally produced its content, while relevant at the time, can no longer be an adequate platform for deciding current Firearm policy.

The Second Amendment was originally enacted as a way of “protecting citizens from any future regime that would hold a monopoly on violence and use that to oppress them.” [1] It was written and decreed at a time when the Nation was emerging from a Revolution against an oppressive governmental regime – thus they wanted to document that the practices performed by Great Britain would not develop in the United States. To do this, the Founding Fathers believed that a limited form of government was the best option, that the Rights of the people were to be the fueling mechanism of society, and so they granted the right to bear arms so that the people could stage their own revolution should those in power turn tyrannical.

The Second Amendment remains a big ol’ hubub in the Constitution and the history of the United States of America, and should thus continue to be implemented – however, its original purpose has been redefined with the landmark court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. This decision struck down the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which stipulated gun ownership was to be relegated only to Federal enclaves, and created a provision within the Second Amendment allowing individuals the right to possess a firearm for “lawful purposes”. This decision tilted the hemispheres of gun accessibility, and “from that moment on, gun policy had to reckon directly with the Constitution.”[2]

Hindsight on District of Columbia v. Heller would suggest that the gravity of this court decision had not been fully realized in the Legislative process. The analysis and enforcement of the Second Amendment lacked specificity, and more importantly, lacked contingencies on those allowed to own guns, i.e. the mentally ill, those with previous violence streaks. The Court had not been willful in any attempt to draw lines across just exactly this decision  would mean for the future of guns in America, instead focusing their energies on quelling any “disagreement concerning the people’s ability to account for the danger of unregulated guns .”[3] In essence, the Supreme Court placed their decision under the guise of “Nationalism” and “Individual Rights” without forming any protocol should a Nation where every citizen has a firearm lead to something less than ideal – less than ideal being the subsequent number of mass shootings in the United states.

At this juncture, the re-evaluation of gun laws should not only be considered a possibility, but should be deemed a necessity. Far too much innocent blood has been shed and far too many numbers exist detailing just exactly what is going on during an average day in this country. The USA currently holds the first-world frontrunner position for number of mass shootings occurring, and it is during these times that it would be advisable to look to foreign gun policies in order to form accurate hypotheses on the potential success rate of harsher gun laws. This is not to say other countries do not have violence or death, and it is not to say they have not had mass shootings or terrorist attacks – but what does differ are their responses to mass shootings:

On April 26^th 1999, Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people and wounded 23 others in Tasmania, Australia. The massacre shocked Australians, yet their government reacted within 12 days by initiating the National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, which banned numerous types of firearms and made the process of purchasing one much harder. Australia immediately responded to national tragedy, and the success rate shows. A 2012 a study concluded that, a decade after the law was implemented, the firearm homicide rate had dropped by 59%.[7]  Yet the United States, which has been on the business end of hundreds of mass shootings, has done nothing to remedy the situation. Granted, due to the media and large cast of Government characters, the nation is very quick to discuss potential gun control, but the lack of education and belief prioritization has led to a policy impasse that will likely see thousands of deaths before any sort of reform is implemented.

[1] (Stout, 2014)

[2] Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz (2014: 155)

[3] Tribe and Matz: 155

[4] Rowen: 2012

[5] Hemenway: 4

[6] Matthew Miller, 2013:3

[7] Leigh, Wilfrid and Neill