A Case for the Second Amendment
DISCLAIMER: Before we start, I want to be very clear that I am not advocating nor making calls for violence. The last thing I want is for someone to use this blog post as part of the reason why they enacted some heinous act. Not to say that I have that undue influence, but I would rather be safe than sorry.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution calls for “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 Second Amendment has also been a topic of debate for decades. It was brought to the forefront of the political conversation after the Columbine school shootings and has continually made headlines every time there is a mass shooting at a school. Here in the United States, these mass shootings are usually met with Republicans sending their thoughts and prayers and Democrats wanting to enact some type of gun control, but in the end, nothing is done. Whether that is because the NRA has that much of an influence on politicians is a conversation for another time. Nonetheless, the conversation of guns was brought to the headlines yet again, but this time for a different reason: the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Now, this event is of particular interest because Charlie was an adamant defender of the Second Amendment and even claimed that the loss of life is a small price to pay for this God-given right. I highly doubt he expected himself to be part of that price.
Anywho, while I do believe that implementing common-sense gun control is the least we could do given that these mass school shootings are very much a U.S.-specific issue, I do believe there is a case for the Second Amendment that is currently being played out. Since the start of his second term, and even more prevalent now, Donald Trump has been sending the National Guard and even military forces to “protect cities from crime”. I discussed this in my last blog post about how this is an ineffective way of controlling crime, and yet still, Donald Trump has been sending and threatening cities to send the National Guard, even with the opposition of the mayors and governors. While he continues to say he is sending it under the guise of crime control, having a standing army patrolling was very much the reason why our founding fathers maintained the Second Amendment. Again, I want to be very clear that I am not advocating or insinuating that we should be currently using our Second Amendment right now against the national guard that is currently being sicked on the American people, specifically those in blue states. We still have the rule of law, which the states have been using to sue the Trump administration to stop and remove the National Guard from their states, and I feel that as long as we have this rule of law, we should be fine. While we do have Trump’s lackies in the Supreme Court who are rubber-stamping pretty much anything that Trump sends their way, I don’t believe we have reached the point where there is a loss of the rule of law. It has definitely gotten close, as we see the bounds of separation of powers being tested constantly by the Trump administration, and they have ignored judicial orders numerous times.
With all this said, there are two trains of thought here: the Second Amendment has its place in our democracy, and we need to have common-sense gun laws. No matter how difficult the NRA makes it or how much our politicians push back on it, these are not mutually exclusive. I believe that the gun control debate between the left and the right has always had a straw man argument in which the right believes the left wants to ban guns, and the left thinks the right wants to get money from the NRA. In my opinion, one is more true than the other, but I believe we as a nation need to maintain the Second Amendment for times of authoritarianism.
