The Gustavian Weekly

The Limitations of the 2nd Amendment | The Gustavian Weekly

By Megan Bertrand - Opinion Columnist | November 20, 2015 | Opinion

The intepretation of the 2nd Amendment and its implications in law is one of the most contentious and popular debates in America.

The intepretation of the 2nd Amendment and its implications in law is one of the most contentious and popular debates in America.

We as American citizens have 27 amendments to our Constitution that shape the foundation of our very nation.

Some are longer than others, some apply to today’s world, others are moot points. The amendment that I believe is argued about the most, and also happens to be the shortest, is the second amendment: “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.”

People say ban guns because guns kill people. Other people say keep guns, and will quote the second amendment religiously. Yet, those who quote the amendment leave out the first half. I believe it is most important to read the phrase as a whole.

Keeping in mind this amendment was made when Britain tried to snuff out the fight for independence. The second amendment was made because they believed the populace needed to defend their liberties if the government overstepped their boundaries; they needed men to take up guns and form a militia to defend citizens.

Re-reading the amendment I take it to mean that the states have the right to not only maintain a National Guard, but the citizens have the right to keep guns. I believe that as a citizen I can own a gun. I also believe that there should be way more restrictions that determine if I can own a gun, and how many bullets I can own.

Different states have different rules, some more strict than others. Yet, it’s not enough to leave it up to states. If states don’t practice very similar policies, and actually enforce them, then there is no point to having and maintaining these laws. For example 18-year-olds can buy shotguns, yet you have to be 21 to buy handguns. I think we should change this now.

Why are the age requirements different when it comes to purchasing different types of guns? I believe that they can do the same amount of harm, the bullets still tear through flesh.

It makes no sense to have these age limitations, if at the end of the day, the guns do the same damage.

It makes no sense that underaged citizens can’t purchase alcohol, yet they can buy guns. Raise the age, because most 18 year olds still aren’t responsible enough to handle that kind of power. If we aren’t trusted to be responsible with alcohol, we shouldn’t be allowed to shoot a gun. Currently, those of age can show their ID, buy the gun they want, and walk out. Again I ask, why is this so?

I believe that citizens worldwide in any country should have to answer a series of questions that can determine if we are allowed to buy guns. The most basic questions such as: Do you have a criminal record? Do you suffer from some form of mental health? I don’t think this is infringing upon any rights.

These questions get asked when applying for a job, or renting an apartment or even buying a car. Regulation is so little that there is also no basic limit to the types of guns we can own, how many we can own, how many clips or bullets a gun can have. It’s appalling to read about the number of deaths by guns, and the fact that not much is being done about it.

So for my safety, and the safety of others, I believe that we should have stricter policies when it comes to guns. It would be stupid to get rid of owning guns all together, and I think owning guns without limitations even more so.

Making guns illegal won’t do anything, people will still find a way to buy guns. The amendments are meant to be edited, they aren’t written in stone. Guns don’t harm and kill people; stupidity, ignorance and lack of control do. Yet, I think owning guns should come with very strict rules that we, as citizens, need to follow. Anybody who wants to argue gun control infringes upon their second right, I ask, what is a life worth to you? In the end I believe these rules can do more help than harm.

4 Comments

Comments are the sole opinion of the visitor who submitted the comment and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author of the article, its editors, or The Gustavian Weekly or Gustavus Adolphus College as a whole.

  1. Dan H says:

    So to you “shall not be infringed” means “I also believe that there should be way more restrictions that determine if I can own a gun, and how many bullets I can own.” is acceptable?

    I don’t. Next issue.

  2. Richard Hawk says:

    This article should be called, “The Limitations of Left Wing Critical Thinking.”

  3. Boston Terrier says:

    The first shots of the Revolution were fired at Lexington Square, MA (19 April 1775) BECAUSE the British were trying to CONFISCATE Guns, shot and powder (Ammunition).

    The Brits won at Lexington but lost at Concord and then went into retreat back to Boston. During the entire retreat Minutemen (farmers with rifles) would snipe at the British.

    Let’s recap this: The first shots of the war were fired over Gun Control.

    At the end of the second Amendment are the words: …”shall NOT be Infringed”. I would like to ask the author: what part of “shall not be infringed” is he having difficulty in comprehending?

    As for the author’s cowardly assertion in regards to the safety of his own skin, and limiting civil liberties such as the 2nd Amendment; I believe there was a certain framer of the constitution and former revolutionary by the name of Ben Franklin who once said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” (11 Nov. 1755) written for the Pennsylvania Assembly in it’s “Reply to the Governor”

    Think about it