Second Amendment - Opinion
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 most significant amendment written in the Bill of Rights is, I believe, the Second Amendment, where it 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." This is an incredibly relevant issue for a multitude of reasons - it determines how people vote in political elections, whether it be on a local or national scale, since many politicians use their stance on the Second Amendment as a platform to gain voters from a particular political party. Additionally, modern policy is being passed in relations to the Second Amendment, causing riots and unions to rise in protest. There's been much debate on what the Founders meant when writing this specific amendment. Understanding the historical context of when the Second Amendment was written and being able to critically think through how US citizens and politicians can combine both the preservation of the foundational rights in the Constitution and the security and protection of all citizens is significantly important.
Before applying the significance of the Second Amendment to the 21st century, understanding the historical context of the Second Amendment. At face value, it seems that the Second Amendment can only apply to muskets, a weapon largely used at that time.
Additionally, the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the advancement of weaponry to be at the heights that they have reached today. Thus, why should the American people be over-applying this amendment to other weapons? Steven Crowder, a conservative political commentator, stated that, "to accept this premise, you would have to believe that the founding fathers were so stupid that they never...anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s).
Both sides of the issue fall into a trap - first, it can't be assumed that the Founders didn't foresee the advancement of technology - just because the Founders didn't know that the iPhone or TV would someday exist doesn't mean that the First Amendment can't be practiced through those mediums. However, just like in the First Amendment, where there are "time, place, and manner" restrictions, the Second Amendment would need restrictions as well. Just as someone can't yell "fire" in a theater without justification, someone can't just obtain a firearm with such ease.
Additionally, assault rifles existed during the Revolutionary War, and thus before the Constitution was written. The Founders were aware of such firearms, such as the Belton Flintlock, "which was created during the revolutionary war and can fire twenty or so rounds in the pull of one trigger in about 5 seconds. Or the Girandoni air rifle where a 22 high-capacity round magazine could be fired in about 30 seconds. Again, this was created during the revolutionary war and was actually later used by Thomas Jefferson to famously outfit the Lewis and Clark expedition" (Crowder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= CquUBWHU2_s). The Founders included the Second Amendment, which fully encompassed military grade weapons. Even the musket was a military grade weapon, which many private citizens owned. When deeply understanding the context of the time when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, one can see how the Second Amendment didn't solely apply to one type of firearm.
One must ask, however, what was the motive to include this amendment in the first place?
Thomas Jefferson, a Founder, stated that, "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." The Founders fought the tyrannical power of the British government and wanted to provide a pathway for citizens to overthrow such a government in the future if there was a time in which citizens were called to do so.
To expand, Thomas Jefferson includes the use of firearms in everyday protection, contending that, "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Jefferson points out that forbidding the use of firearms in its entirety, getting rid of the Second Amendment, simply disarms the law-followers. In the modern world, we have all witnessed despicable acts of people using firearms, sometimes obtained legally, in committing the worst atrocities seen.
These people who have committed mass shooting are criminals. Placing more restrictions may logically work for those who follow the law. However, it is a leap to assume that a criminal who already breaks the law, will follow a more restrictive law. The point of acting criminally is to break laws. Criminals will only act with "greater confidence" when committing atrocities against unarmed people who will follow laws. Ryan Cleckner, a former sniper and current firearms attorney, stated that, "The definition of a criminal is somebody who doesn't obey a law. Banning an inanimate object will not solve these problems. For example, the Maryland shooting...didn't involve an AR-15. Virginia Tech used pistols. Hood Massacre used pistols. 9/11 used box cutters. The tool is not the problem...Bombs are already illegal, it doesn't stop the bombings from happening" (Cleckner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk).
This touches on the crux of the issue - this is a "people" problem, not an "inanimate object" problem. To use an analogy, if someone wanted to lose weight, they wouldn't throw out all their spoons and forks with which they use to eat. They would start by changing certain habits, buying different foods, hiring a personal trainer, and becoming knowledgeable in maintaining health by reading books and taking in expert opinions. If the spoons and forks (tools) were to be thrown out, the person would find other means from which to continue their lifestyle, whether it be solely eating finger foods or eating out for every meal. In the same way, simply throwing out firearms (tools) without including other factors in the equation, such as better background checks and placing certain restrictions when legally buying a firearm, might just cause criminals to go through different avenues through which to continue committing crimes.
One must note, however, that such a problem as this will never be 100% solved, mainly because of the untraditional nature of the crime. This crime is committed by a person with their own agenda. To take to an extreme level, the US government treats terrorism differently compared to other crimes because it's not predictable - threats can be valid or a hoax. In the same way, mass shootings aren't guaranteed to be predictable. It takes people by surprise and shock, where everyone, at the end of the day, asks, Why? Why would someone do this? Why would something like this happen? Some point the blame to the Second Amendment, saying that it allowed these dreadful mass shooting to happen. Many can't comprehend how people can righteously protect the Second Amendment in these shocking times. We must all understand, however, that no one side can accuse the other of not caring during those times. Just because someone might disagree with a set of policies doesn't mean that individual doesn't care about a significantly damaging event in the US or is unable to grasp the horrifying truth of what happened.
Thus, I believe that the most significant amendment written in the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. It is significant to understand the historical context of the times when the Founders wrote and drafted the Bill of Rights, including the amendment. It is imperative to realize the motive behind such an action, and how it applies to today's world. Being able to step away from the agendas with this issue, understanding the history of the issue, and critically thinking through how today's events apply is significant, if only for yourself. The amendment wasn't written to allow criminals to run roughshod, but it was written to both preserve rights found in the Constitution and to insure the protection of all citizens.