![Wayland High School Class of 2019 alum Devin Wong is the new assistant coach of Harvard University Nordic Ski Team. "I’m excited to be a part of a new team and coaching staff am motivated to learn from [head coach] Cate Brams and grow as a coach and wax tech," Wong said.](https://waylandstudentpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/09-27-24-NSKI-Wong-Announcement-1920x1080-1-e1730466291327-1200x704.jpg)
Opinion: Save the 2nd Amendment
January 17, 2018
What happened in 1789? There were the births of famous painters and religious leaders such as William Turner and Edward Hawkins, the occurrence of the French Revolution and many more events. However, few people remember that 1789 was also the year that Congress accepted the first 10 amendments that we now live by.
On Sept. 25, 1789, 12 amendments to the Constitution were proposed to Congress, and 10 passed. Since then, the number of amendments has jumped to 27, yet they still serve the same purpose: to act as guidance for every American. From outlining our rights of privacy to determining righteous bails, the Bill of Rights has it all. Within this lengthy document, there is one amendment that many people have been arguing about since the day it was written.
Currently, the second amendment has caused extreme conflict all around the United States. There are primarily two types of views when referencing the second amendment. One view is that the people should not have the freedom to bear arms, while the second group of people believe that it is a right to bear arms by law.
We believe that it is a basic human right to be in possession of a legal firearm. It is a privilege to carry a weapon that can harm others, and it is our job as the people to make sure that those weapons end up in the right hands. Too many times this year and in previous years have there been incidents in which those who have fired a weapon have not obtained it legally. The issue is not the fact that we as a country are allowing people to bear arms, but that we have inadequate security regarding where or how they are obtained.
Therefore, it is easy to see that the destruction and distortion of the second amendment has lead to no good outcomes. Typically, the laws that restrict guns or that ban firearms actually bring up the demand, and therefore the price, for them. Banned weapons become popular on black markets, thus making most sales illegal. These bans often end in guns–even more dangerous than those banned–in our own towns and cities.
A prime example of what happens when firearms are restricted occurred in the city of Chicago, IL. Chicago faced a plethora of gun violence issues. Until 2010, the sale and purchase of firearms was banned, and although the ban has since been lifted, it is still quite restricting. According to The Daily Wire, 4,368 Chicagoans were killed by shooters, an enormous increase from even 2015, in which 2,988 people were killed. The Las Vegas shooting, although viewed as one of the most tragic gun-related incidents in modern times, still does not match up to the death rates in Chicago, as 59 people (the death toll of the Vegas Shooting) were killed in the city in Sept. 2017 alone. In months prior, death rates reached even higher, with 84 deaths in June 2017. We as American citizens need to understand that banning guns will actually do more harm than good in the long run.
In the end, gun violence still exists. And at the rate we are going, it’s not slowing down anytime soon. What can we do to protect ourselves? The solution is simple: arm yourself. If everyone has a gun then nobody has a gun. While it may seem counterintuitive, it shows promise. The more citizens that carry a firearm with them, the less violence we will actually see. Mass shooters will be halted faster. Stick-ups and personalized crimes such as theft will see a decrease, as everyone would have a means to protect themselves by. It’s time we ditch the silly intuition that guns are dangerous. In the right hands, a gun can be a hero.
Opinion articles written by staff members represent their personal views. The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent WSPN as a publication.
Gladeys Whisnant • Jun 10, 2022 at 4:52 AM
I just feel as if it is the agenda of the left to disarm us .The 2nd amendment was put in place so the people would have a way to protect themselves against a government that has become tyrannical. I for one have very little faith in our government. The second amendment rights need to be upheld and in no way obstructed. It should be completely legal to conceal carry in all states and no restrictions or regulations allowed that would place undo hardship on gun owners
.
bobby • Jan 13, 2020 at 1:21 PM
i feel that we shouldn’t have big guns on us but instead have hand guns i still feel that people should be able to go hunting and to shooting ranges but we should not be able to buy big guns used in the military its just very dangerous and it could prevent from deaths caused by guns so we still can have hand guns that is still saving our 2nd amendment but not big guns that can kill a lot of people.
, BOBBY
Hunter • Oct 26, 2022 at 11:39 AM
I’m inferring that as you stated “big guns” are referring to rifles, and i can see what you mean. But, concealed carry is typically are a lot more dangerous than that of an open carry of a rifle, rifles can deal a lot more damage but the concealment of such rifle makes it less viable- if a man is spotted with a rifle he will be spotted by other gun owners as a possible threat and the rifle carrier would find it quite difficult to commit a crime.
Achtung Boughton • Feb 15, 2018 at 8:43 AM
No, no, no, no.
Hmmm • Jan 23, 2018 at 6:45 PM
I personally think that if everyone has a gun…then everyone has a gun…
Scrappy Doo | "Lemme At Em Scoob!" • Jan 22, 2018 at 11:20 AM
This article is some nonsense. First of all, the argument against gun control is rooted in faulty comparisons and out-of-context facts. Secondly, I think WSPN needs to cool it with the exploded moments that begin every piece. Superfluous openers don’t draw me in. Talking about irrelevant painters of the 1780’s doesn’t do much for an article on gun control. Let’s give WSPN some integrity.
Big Man Shaq • Jan 19, 2018 at 8:53 PM
Guns are not like variables in an equation: They do not cancel each other out. Two guns ≠ Zero guns. That is highly false. Zero guns means Zero deaths. Two guns means a limitless potential for deaths. Quick maths. Man’s not in favor of guns. The ting goes pop pop pop and causes death death death. Big sad for big Shaq.
Anonymous • Jan 19, 2018 at 12:47 PM
“If everyone has a gun then no one has a gun” is probably one of the most common misconceptions surrounding gun violence. If everyone has a gun, then everyone has a gun. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows that carrying a gun makes you LESS safe. Just thinking about it logically, what good does carrying a gun do? In what situation could you actually be a hero with a gun? In reality, the likelihood your gun will help you is slim. The times it hurts you far outnumber the times it helps you. The truth is that if someone wants to kill someone or execute a mass shooting and they have access to a gun, how are you going to stop them? It’s just too easy to kill people when you have this concealable weapon that can kill people with bullets going hundreds of miles an hour from long distances. Add bump stocks like CJ mentions and you’ve got yourself a weapon of mass destruction in the form of a handheld device. The idea of equipping the entire population with one of these things cannot be good for humanity.
And other than for hunting, what is the point of owing a gun? To protect yourself? From what? Other people with guns! That’s what you’re protecting yourself against! If no one has a gun, this problem doesn’t exist. But oh wait, that can’t happen, people have the right to bear arms. Well, too bad about the mass shootings, gun violence, and murder of over 10,000 people each year in our country from guns; but we’ve still got our guns in case we need to start a violent rebellion against the United States government!
Cassandra • Apr 14, 2018 at 11:11 PM
The idea that nobody will have a gun is simply not true. By taking away the 2nd amendment, you ensure that only those with ill intentions have firearms, besides our military. If the 2nd ammendment is taken away, law-abiding citizens, like yourself I assume, will not be able to protect themselves against these people who obtain firearms illegally with the intention to kill, rob, or commit other crimes. Also, if the 2nd amendment is taken away, all of our other “God-given rights” become fragile. All of a sudden, the government has the ability to take any rights that they desire from Americans, and we have little in hand to stop it. The idea that our government will always protect us is simply absurd. If you don’t trust the government, even if only slightly, I believe that you should rethink your stance on this issue.
Rishi • Dec 15, 2021 at 3:41 PM
even then, like Mr. Anonymous said, how often do you actually find yourself in a situation where you do need to protect yourself from someone with a firearm? thats what the police are for. to protect us when we cant ourselves
Anonymous2 • Oct 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM
While Rishi you are correct in saying that the police are here to protect us from violent crimes brought about by those who wish ill intentions upon the law abiding citizens, most of them won’t make it to the scene until after everything has taken place which then only makes them good for finding the person who committed the crime. On the off chance that an officer is nearby or already at the scene of the crime as it is happening then there is no better way to protect yourself then to be able to freely own a firearm as well. Lastly, there are hundreds of corrupt cops in the US and you can never be sure of which ones are good and which ones are bad. While not all cops are corrupt there certainly are those that deal in illegal distribution of guns and drugs alike.
Thoughtful Reader • Jan 19, 2018 at 9:49 AM
On December 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were injured in the San Bernardino attack. Watching the news, we see another wave of fervent gun control activists making their case, while proponents of gun rights attempt to push back. Although, it is surely going to be a harder push for gun control advocates due to the newly elected Trump administration. Every so often this cycle repeats. However, in the heat of the moment, people will often ignore the 44% of American households that lawfully hold a gun, whether it be a handgun or an automatic weapon. The gun debate has been active for decades, ever since automatic firearms were regulated in 1934. Two recent Supreme Court cases begin to give us a clear explanation of the seemingly arcane Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment claims, “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.” The Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny. They had experienced tyranny first hand, and the only way for them to escape it was through the use of guns. Had the colonists not had access to guns, they would have been slaves to the British government. This led to the creation of the Second Amendment when drafting the constitution. There have been questions emerging regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. One interpretation claims that only militias have the right to bear arms. Others claim that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” has the emphasis in the sentence, meaning everybody has the right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment is commonly understood to guarantee the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. However, this right is not unlimited. Citizens who have undergone extensive background checks and are permitted by local law enforcement should be permitted to carry a concealed handgun, as long as they consistently are recertified and can capably and responsibly use firearms. The Second Amendment protects citizens from violent criminals and can help prevent mass shootings. However, military style weapons and large ammunitions magazines should be banned, as they are more suited for killing than self-defense. There are several steps that should be taken to prevent criminals from getting guns, including universal background checks.
As the United States has modernized, obtaining a firearm has been harder. Gun control efforts began in 1934, following an assassination attempt of Franklin D. Roosevelt with a handgun in 1933. Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulated the sale of automatic firearms, and required an FBI background check and local law enforcement notification. In 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration passed a law that forbade importing foreign semi-automatic weapons that did not have a “legitimate sporting use.” In 1994, the Brady Law was passed, which required background checks for everybody purchasing a gun. Also in 1994 (under the Bill Clinton administration), nineteen types of semiautomatic weapons and ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds were banned. Gun possession was banned for anybody under eighteen. However, these prohibitions of semiautomatic weapons expired on September 13, 2004. The Brady Law expired as well, and the federal government has largely stayed out of gun restrictions, leaving it to the states. Over the past decades, two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions have favored individual gun ownership. Democratic legislators have been pushing for universal background checks, to no avail. This will only be harder in the years to come due to the election of the Trump administration.
Two Supreme Court decisions have given a more specific meaning to the mysterious Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court struck down the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 in the District of Columbia, which prohibited the use of any firearms besides those owned by police or guns registered before 1976. It also required guns at home to be “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” This marked the first time the Supreme Court had ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment, due to its vague wording. This ruling confirmed that the Second Amendment referred to an individual’s right to bear arms. Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority opinion, confirmed the right to own handguns, but failed to address what Americans did have the right to bear. He argued, “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court ruled that the “Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” This case struck down two restrictive handgun laws in both Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois. This ruling seemed to be even more extreme than the DC v. Heller case in that it required all local gun laws to be in accordance with the Second Amendment. This is particularly concerning for advocates of gun control. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, claimed, “It is clear that the Framers [of the Constitution]… counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” However, the Court’s majority deemed that the states were allowed to prohibit the mentally ill and felons from owning guns, and they could restrict their use in sensitive locations (e.g. schools). Both decisions have moved gun rights advocates across the country to bring attention to gun restrictions in the states.
Even if the Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of gun rights, it is critical that there are reasonable restrictions on guns. The San Bernardino shooter obtained their guns through somebody else, who purchased them legally. Since it is difficult to restrict criminals’ access to firearms, whether the guns are stolen or bought through somebody else, it is imperative to implement a ban on semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines. The recent shootings and attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, and Orlando have all been perpetrated using both of the two. Furthermore, universal background checks implemented by the federal government will prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.
In addition, there should be more extensive training for gun licenses and promoting gun safety. From January 1st of 2014 to June 30th of 2016, information from the Gun Violence Archive showed there were over 1,000 accidental shootings involving children 17 and under. Three year olds were the most common of these shootings, and states in the South had the highest number of these accidental gun deaths involving minors.
Too often we see the mentally ill irresponsibly use guns. The most prominent example of this was the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, perpetrated by a mentally ill man. It is important that in background checks it should be known whether or not the candidate is mentally stable, and if they would be a threat to society. If someone wouldn’t be able to become a police officer, they shouldn’t be able to bear arms. Anybody who is considered mentally unstable and can be considered an immediate threat to society should not be granted a gun.. It is more unconstitutional to put citizens’ lives at a definite risk than it is to deny somebody a right to bear arms.
In the state of Massachusetts, a felon’s right to vote is restored once they leave prison. In 1965, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act was amended, and it now allows felons to possess a gun if they can convince the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that it would not be a threat to public safety. This should be upheld because in some cases it can be necessary to bear a firearm in order to protect yourself. However, if the felony is a violent or gang-related crime, it should be near-impossible for the candidate to be allowed a firearm. Once somebody commits a violent crime, they have lost their privilege to carry a gun, as it would be extremely dangerous to society.
A major piece of legislation that Democratic legislators have been pushing for is universal background checks. Currently, there are only federal laws requiring that licensed gun dealers run background checks on customers. However, this only accounts for 60% of gun sales across the U.S.. Guns sold at “private” events such as gun shows can be transferred without a background check, which is obviously of great concern. Universal background checks are incredibly important, and Missouri is one example of why. After a law passed in 2007 that required handgun buyers to pass a background check was repealed, there was a 23% increase in gun murders as of February 2014, according to the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and research. There was also a 40% decrease in gun homicides in Connecticut after a law enacted in 1995 required handgun buyers to go through a background check. Furthermore, the Brady Campaign found that as of 2013, the ten states with the highest gun death rate also have the weakest gun control laws in the country. In contrast, most of the states with the lowest gun death rates have some of the most strict gun control in the country. In order to prevent firearm homicides in the United States, a federal law must be passed that requires all gun customers to go through a background check, eliminating the so-called “gun show loophole.”
Although there should be common sense gun regulations in place, this shouldn’t totally undermine the Second Amendment. Two recent Supreme Court cases — Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago — both struck down handgun bans in Chicago and DC. This proves the Supreme Court’s belief that a fundamental right to own a handgun exists.
Guns are a fundamental means of protection for millions of Americans. Gun ownership has gone up by seven percent over the past two years. Handguns are a fundamental source of protection for 44% of Americans. In a survey conducted by Pew Research Center, 61% of men and 56% of women agreed that stricter gun laws would “make it more difficult for them to protect their homes and families.” Executive Vice President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, supports this by saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
That philosophy is what has caused concealed carry laws to rise in popularity in the United States. As of 2013, all 50 states had may-issue or shall-issue policies, and some had unrestricted access. May-issue gives local authorities discretion to give licenses, and shall-issue requires local authorities to give a license if the candidate follows a set criteria (residency, minimum age, etc.). As of 2017, Massachusetts is a may-issue state. A benefit of these laws are what Wayne Lapierre said: they have prevented several mass shootings. In 2007, a man with a concealed handgun shot an attacker who opened fire in the New Life megachurch. When states passed concealed carry laws between 1977 to 1995, mass shootings declined by 84%, and deaths from these shootings on average went down 90%.
As we move into the future, it seems as though gun control laws in the U.S. will become more lax, as President Trump was elected. Trump claims that the numerous gun deaths in the U.S. is mainly due to mental illness and harsh city conditions:
“The way I look at it, you take Chicago, you take Baltimore, you take various other places where you have tremendous gun violence and death, right? The strictest laws in the United States — in the world — for guns happens to be Chicago where they have a lot of problems. Baltimore, a lot of the places where you have the biggest problem is where they have the strongest laws. So I don’t think it’s about laws… It really is mental health problem.”
President Trump also had the full backing and endorsement of the NRA, the National Rifle Association, during the election. The NRA is the largest pro-gun lobby in the United States. Furthermore, Trump was strongly against assault weapons bans, one of the features that gave him the support of the NRA. He has also pledged to undo Obama’s “modest gun executive orders,” and call for the elimination of “gun-free zones” according to TheIntercept.com. The NRA also praised Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Adam Winkler, a gun rights expert, claimed, “Judge Gorsuch reads the Second Amendment in a very broad way, to protect even people who have been convicted of felonies.” He continued, “He doesn’t have a lot of cases, but the cases he does have very much fall in line with the NRA’s view.”
Everybody deserves the right to defend themselves from armed criminals. At least 44% of Americans use guns as a means of protection for themselves and their family. However, as firearms become more advanced and potentially lethal, they must be restricted. This will include the banning of semiautomatic weapons and large magazines. This also entails keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, including felons and the mentally ill. Encouraging more gun safety and implementing universal background checks — to keep guns out of the wrong hands — will help to make our communities a safer place for all.
Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. “Supreme Court Affirms Fundamental Right to Bear Arms.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 29 June 2010. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
Beckett, Lois. “Antonin Scalia’s Death Calls Supreme Court Gun Rights Stance into Question.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 13 Feb. 2016. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
Burke, Alana. “Can a Felon Own a Gun? 5 Loopholes in Federal Law.” Newsmax. N.p., 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.
Cook, Philip. “Gun Control-where Do Criminals Get Their Weapons?” Newsweek. N.p., 12 May 2016. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
Garrett, Ben. “The Background, History and Impact of D.C. v. Heller.” ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo, 26 Feb. 2017. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
“ID Check Repeal Prompts Spike In Murders, Study Finds.” NPR All Things Considered. NPR, 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
“A Lot More Kids Killed in Gun Accidents than Gov’t Says, Study Finds.” CBS News. CBS Interactive, 14 Oct. 2016. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.
Lott, John R. “Gun Ownership Is up in America. So Why Isn’t the Media Telling You about It?” Fox News. FOX News Network, 8 Sept. 2016. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
“One Year After Newtown, States Lead the Way on Gun Violence Prevention According to New Analysis of State Gun Laws.” Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Brady Campaign, 9 Dec. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Ritchie, Donald A. Our Constitution. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. N. pag. Print.
Rudolph, Kara E. “Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides.” American Journal of Public Health. American Public Health Association, 4 Apr. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Selby, Gardner. “Donald Trump Fully Flip-flops, Lately Opposes Ban on Assault Weapons.” Politifact. N.p., 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.
Toobin, Jeffrey. “So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 03 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
“Universal Background Checks.” Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
“Voting as an Ex-Offender.” Nonprofit Vote Voting as an ExOffender Comments. Nonprofit VOTE, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2017.
Weeks, Linton. “The Second Amendment: 27 Words, Endless Interpretations.” NPR. NPR, 09 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
Whitney, Craig R. “Arms and the Men.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 June 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
“Why We’re Still Debating Guns in 2016 (Opinion).” CNN. Cable News Network, 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.
Zhang, Baobao. “McDonald v. Chicago.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 30 June 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.
Beckett, Lois. “NRA Cheers Nomination of Neil Gorsuch, Seen as Gun Rights Defender.” The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 Feb. 2017. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
Donald Trump, Oct 4, 2015. NBC Meet the Press Interview moderated by Chuck Todd.
Going down this road called logic • Jan 18, 2018 at 11:20 PM
“Stick-ups and personalized crimes such as theft will see a decrease, as everyone would have a means to protect themselves by.”
Oh my god! This guy is stealing my stuff! Lemme just whip out my gun that I obviously carry with me all the time and shoot this guy to protect myself.
Agreed!!!11!! • Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46 PM
I like your car
Okay • Jan 18, 2018 at 8:28 AM
“The more citizens that carry a firearm with them, the less violence we will actually see. Mass shooters will be halted faster. Stick-ups and personalized crimes such as theft will see a decrease, as everyone would have a means to protect themselves by. It’s time we ditch the silly intuition that guns are dangerous. In the right hands, a gun can be a hero.”
Seriously? You have genuinely no evidence this will work, and logic would prove you completely wrong. If you honestly believe that if everyone has a gun less violence will occur, you are an ignoramus. A recent study from 2013, led by a Boston University School found that after controlling for multiple variables, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level.
Oh Baby!!! • Jan 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM
I agree with these sentiments!!!! Well expressed, Audrey. If everyone has a gun, no one has a gun! Amen.
I especially liked the downplaying of the Las Vegas shooting incident. You’re right, it was ONLY 58 deaths, and compared to the thousands that died in Chicago, that number is insignificant. If you think about, there are over 7 billion people on this earth!!!! 58 divided by 7 billion yields approximately .0000008% death rate. Essentially 0.
Wow wow!!! • Jan 17, 2018 at 10:05 PM
Huh, wtf?????