The Second Amendment to the US Constitution: Is it Relevant in the Twenty-First Century?

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states “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.” Various interpretations have been read into the amendment; with some people holding the view that it is the right of people of all walks of life to bear fire arms. Others aver, the law was meant to put guns in the hands of a regulated militia to maintain peace and order in communities across the nation. The debate peaked in recent times with the gruesome mass murder of innocent citizens by individuals wielding guns, most of them in public arenas. These trigger happy individuals often blame their actions on “snap,” with a significant proportion of those who commit these gruesome acts invading due process of law for victims by simply ending their lives. In the light of these gruesome murders, I intend to argue that it is time the law is reviewed to reflect the culture of the twenty-first century.
The signal of December 14th brought with it a resurrection of a debate that was dying down, a similitude of all mass gun related killings in America. It is my hope that this time round, the debate does not evaporate into thin air without action. I have listened with rapt attention the current debates on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution vis-a vis the recent massacre of twenty-seven innocent lives by a lone gun man in a school in Newtown, Connecticut. One such debate that caught my attention and really fascinated me was moderated by Piers Morgan of the “Piers Morgan Show” on CNN after the Newtown massacre. From all indications, his position was the law is outdated and needs review, and most rational thinkers just as Piers certainly opted for his views on gun control laws. People who support the amendment took a swipe at Piers and rational thinkers for being critical on the issue. They howled because it is a long held tradition that should not be subject to review in the face of sporadic mishaps across the nation. Certainly, the law had good intent at the time of enactment; but we are in the twenty-first century and laws passed about two centuries ago may not align with current trends, for which the Second Amendment is no exception. In any case the law was ratified by people, and all humans are prone to errors; it is also a fact that laws passed by humans are amenable to change. Technologies as we know are subject and in some instances have undergone rapid changes; particularly in the last half of the twentieth century to date. Technological changes have been swift and fast in all fields including fire arms development. Thus guns used in the early parts of the twentieth century cannot be compared to guns of today in terms of speed, spread and impact, hence the need for change in policy direction so as to reduce, if not eliminate the impact these lethal weapons have on innocent lives.
Advocates of Gun Control (AGC) hold the view that guns are and continue to do more harm than good in the face of the right to bear arms by all civilized citizens as implied in the Second Amendment. The AGC has indicated that most guns related crimes and fatalities are caused by people who most often assume insanity after committing such crimes. In most situations, misunderstandings between parties warrant the use of guns to resolve issue at stake. Accordingly, in many occurrences guns are not used to protect lives as the Founders of the nation intended it to be. The AGC also opines that in the modern age where federal and state governments have assumed the responsibility of providing law and order; and not militias, as contained in the Amendment, fire arms should be the preserve of well-regulated federal and state bodies such as federal law enforcement agents, state troopers, county and city law enforcement bodies.
Counteracting the AGC, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their cohorts contend that putting in place policies that will ban or curtail the use of fire arms across the US will be an infringement on the constitutional right of citizens—prevent citizens from owning fire arms for protection and self-defense. The NRA may be justified for its stand, but will it be morally right to have a statute that has rather or seemingly worked to the benefit of people who have ill-motives? For the NRA, the solution to avoiding the mass massacre of innocent citizens via guns is to put armed security personnel at all public schools. To them, killing citizens via guns only takes place in schools. What a simplistic way of thinking! The NRA seems to be oblivious of the fact that killing of citizens have occurred in all sorts of places—the streets, cinema theater, shopping malls, etc. Instead of looking at gun violence holistically, it has restricted itself to just a segment of the entirety of the issue. The solution to gun violence and fatalities in America should not be restricted to providing security at schools by way of placing armed guards at schools, but rather a comprehensive overview of the Second Amendment if innocent deaths via fire arms are to be avoided throughout the US.
The culture of the twenty-first century is at variance with the culture of the time the Second Amendment was enacted. At the time of the enactment, various societies were protected by militia groups; therefore the need to have allowed such private military groups to own fire arms so as to execute their duties well by way of protecting communities. Guns at the time of the enactment were simply muskets—took longer period of time to load and fire. In fact, guns were sold and bought from person to person within communities. Thus, sellers and buyers new themselves hence the chances of selling weapons to “wrong persons” were very minimal. Same cannot be said of the twenty-first century: fire arms are sophisticated, with the push of a trigger, more bullets are released compared to muskets of the early twentieth century, making guns of today more dangerous and fatal when not used for right purposes. Populations have grown over the years across the US, making it difficult to track down people who possess guns. In some instances guns legally acquired fall in the hands of criminals who use them to perpetuate wrongful and selfish deeds. More importantly, the US has grown over the years with respect to institutional structures to deal with social issues; so are its law enforcement agencies. Federal, state, county and city law enforcement personnel are well trained and equipped to handle issues that confront societies thereby making less important the Second Amendment that is variously interpreted to mean citizens have a right to own guns including sophisticated lethal fire arms.
Following the December 14th mass murder of innocent Americans, the debate that seems to be raging in most if not all American communities is whether the Second Amendment should be outlawed. Members of AGC and other rational groups who abhor guns in the hands of civilians are of the belief that the law has outlived its usefulness, and needs to be expunged from the law books of the nation. Supporters of obliteration of the law attest to the fact that in the twenty first century the institutional structures at the federal, state, county and city levels are well resourced to take care of the security needs of citizens, thereby negating the various connotations individuals and bodies read into the Amendment. Indeed the committee put up by President Obama to look into how best to resolve the American gun issue could not have come at a better time, it is the cherish hope of most gun victims and, relatives and friends of victims of gun related violence that something meaningful will come out of the current group put up by the president to possibly review the law so as to curtail and reduce gun violence across the nation. Congress is also encouraged to get its act together to enhance the reduction of fire arms in the hands of people who will use them to perpetuate crime in the name of the Second Amendment.