The Gun Debate

Aliza AbarbanelCulture EditorThe Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows: “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.”Since the Constitution was created, the content of this framework for our government has been used to uphold laws. Most notably, many gun rights activists use the second amendment as evidence for lenient gun laws. However, it is dangerous to use a two century old document as strict guidelines for a modern nation.In 1791, when the Constitution was formed, a highly trained soldier could shoot 4 rounds per minute. According to the Tar Heel Junior Historian Association of the North Carolina Museum of History, the most popular weapon was a muzzle-loaded single shot musket, which were time-consuming to fire and far from accurate.When Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in December of 2012, he did not have a single shot musket in hand. Lanza did not kill twenty six adults and children with the kind of weaponry that the Second Amendment was designed to protect. Rather, Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 caliber rifle with a high capacity 30 round magazine, a Glock 10 mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun to kill.The Constitution was not created to be an unyielding document. It is for this reason that the amendment process was created. When irrelevant amendments, like the alcohol ban enacted in the 18th Amendment, are no longer deemed necessary or realistic, they are changed. While the amendment process is lengthy, it is not impossible. After all, the 21st Amendment has returned the United States to the bosom of alcohol and legal drinking. If the original Constitution was upheld as a sacred document in its first form, we would live in a nation with slavery and without, among other things, women’s right to vote. These changes were necessary for the good of the United States, and the Constitution was created to reflect those needs. If gun rights activists wish to adhere to the original constitution, they forsake 200 years of the development of the United States. The founding fathers of this country were brilliant men, and their ideas should not be forgotten. However, in 2013, weaponry technology has advanced beyond the scope of our founding fathers’ imagination. While the right to bear arms was designed to include single shot muskets, I can’t imagine automatic weapons were considered during its creation. While a well-regulated militia was necessary during the American Revolutionary War, there is no need for a standing militia to exist in the United States today. It is dangerous to place the Founding Fathers and the entirety of their ideals on a pedestal. The majority of the Constitution has been amended to reflect the growth of this nation; the evolution of the rights the Second Amendment protects should be considered when referring to the amendment itself.Today, the national debate over guns has reached the international stage, and it seems that everyone has an opinion.  While a solution for our nation’s surge in violence may not be reached, it is time to weigh our past with our future, and consider our options.aabarbanel@thesamohi.com