The Second Amendment was written in 1791, a time when three round-per-minute muskets were the only tools available for protecting your family from criminals and your homeland from the British. It was a time in which guaranteeing a “well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,” allowed a revolutionary new nation to be born. Our struggling homeland’s only means of defense were state controlled civilian militias, which allowed this nation to continue.
Today, however, is a different story. No longer are we hindered with the archaic technology of yesteryear. In the modern age, where fire rates have increased a thousandfold, magazine lengths rival those of the their barrels, and where in some states, guns outnumber people, practices need to change.
Strictly interpreted, the words of the Second Amendment would hold that firearms in the hands of the everyday Americans are unnecessary today, as the United States’ defense no longer lies in the hands of the citizen militia, but by a well-trained, expansive military which Americans taxpayers spend nearly one trillion dollars on every year, trusting that they carry out the duties necessary for national security. Aside from sport and, arguably, self defence, there aren’t any legitimate uses for guns. This alone should take semi-automatics out of the equation.
It shouldn’t take a few tragedies to start the gun control debate, and it really hasn’t, at least, not amongst the American people. There has been overwhelming support among Americans in favor of banning extended clips and semi-automatic weapons, and for requiring all potential buyers to register with a background check, even at gunshows.
In Congress, however, we see something different. The representatives in Washington are not acting as the voices of the American people. As always, it’s all about the money, Lebowski. We have highly influential interest groups like the NRA spending millions of dollars every year in campaign contributions in to keep the manufacturers rich. They issue the talking points that get tossed around by Republican Party and their pundits: Arguments like “If we ban guns like drugs, criminals will still find ways of getting them.” The only difference is, anyone can make or grow drugs in his own backyard, whereas building a firearm requires the labor of thousands of factory workers and ammunition makers. And Then there’s the old adage, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Maybe, but they certainly make it a heck of alot easier.
It has been recently expressed that some faculty members have brought up the topic of arming teachers with firearms in order to improve security at St. Ignatius High School. Unfortunately, this is not the best way to handle security. “More guns,” oddly enough, isn’t the solution to reducing and preventing violence. In the chaos and confusion of a shooting, having more guns would cause more harm than good. Shootings happen without warning, and no one can prevent the first shot, but following proper lockdown protocol and alerting the authorities is the right way to handle the situation.
Arming every teacher will amount to nothing but permanent fear and panic among the students, parents, even if they are given training, and even the teachers themselves would feel nervous with their new responsibility. Despite our trust in the faculty and our fellow students, we can never be too sure of what might result, accidental or intentional, when over 100 people in one place are armed 5 days a week.
