From 1791 with Regret; America’s Second Amendment Problem

Photo by alexkich/iStock Brașă Smith/ December 5 2021 (5 min. read) November 2021 has been turning out to be a difficult month for the United States. On 3 November, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (NYSRPA II) was argued before the United States Supreme Court, and with implications from the 6-member conservative majority on the court, there is a lot at stake in American Politics. No matter how you lean on the Second Amendment debate in the U.S., it’s impossible to forget how the Second Amendment has been affecting the politics in recent years. During the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic, armed, mask-less protesters fought against the government-mandated restrictions. Flexing their right to own and bear firearms, many stood in front of State Capitol buildings with semi-automatic weapons, military-grade ammunitions, and even bullet-proof vests. Regardless of the left or right viewpoints on the right to bear arms, it was an unsettling sight. And it was one we saw months later in Washington, as armed, angry insurrectionists breached the Capitol Building, leading many of us on the left of the debate to question; “What does the Second Amendment actually allow?” But as we watched on television, many of us couldn’t help but remember Kyle Rittenhouse with his AR-15, Ahmaud Arbery being murdered on video, and so many other incidents. And with verdicts in both cases out now, it’s time to talk about what it will mean in this racially charged America. With a Not-Guilty verdict, Kyle Rittenhouse is a free man. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, Kyle Rittenhouse, in 2020, crossed state lines with an AR-15 at 17 (which is illegal ownership in most states), and went to Kenosha, where protests were ongoing following the death of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse, at this protest, shot three people, killing two of them. Despite many judicial statutes which should have negated his ability to claim self-defence, he did. The jury agreed, and so, the 17 year old with an assault weapon can once again walk the streets. But many of us left-side critics are now concerned with the implications it could have for the future of Black Lives Matter protesters, and for anyone who disagrees with a man with a gun. If Kyle can walk free, can anyone who killed unarmed protesters trying to protect other people’s lives go free also? There’s probably no clear answer, the political culture of the States is so divided and unclear. So divided in fact, that three men who were involved in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery were all found guilty, and face life in prison. But, even with this guilty verdict, we still have to ask what the Second Amendment really should allow. And now, the Supreme Court will be deciding again. NYSRPA II asks which is more important, the guarantee of the Second Amendment, or a state’s right to regulate the means of ownership. But giving concealed-carry permits to anyone who asks for one, as the case requests, is a dangerous business. Don’t get me wrong, most of my family members own guns, some of them even have concealed-carry permits. They rarely utilise them, and I continue to criticise them. In fact, I received a bi-bi gun as a Christmas gift when I was 12 years old. Yes, 12. However, I am not here to argue whether or not they should have the right to own firearms. The Second Amendment does exist and it is the legal precedent of the United States. But with the wording of “well regulated,” I can only wonder why so many people are so afraid of regulation. I, and many liberals like myself, would love to see the sweeping gun legislation that happened in Australia after Port Arthur, or in New Zealand after Christchurch. But despite it having been written in 1791, when loading and firing a gun could take upwards of a full minute for one round, America’s connection to the modern application of the Second Amendment is too strong. Namely those assault-weapons and concealed carry permits. Most Americans only know three of the twenty-seven Amendments, the first (broadly speaking, freedom of speech and religion), the second, and the fifth (freedom from self-incriminating testimony). I’ll admit, I myself couldn’t name most of them. But the American obsession with the Second Amendment is rooted so deep in our culture, it’s not likely to change any time soon. Even in our children’s cartoons, many characters wield guns as though it’s not a weapon. Elmer Fudd in Looney Tunes has his hunting rifle, which Buggs Bunny turns against him, often. Tom and Jerry occasionally battle each other with guns, and even Despite the wishes of many a liberal-minded critic, the protesters at state capitols in the early days of the Pandemic could legally own, carry, and bear those weapons. Their presence at state capitols despite lockdown rules is another matter, but that isn’t the issue at hand. Whether or not you agree that the Second Amendment is a “good” thing, I think we all need to agree on one thing, America has a real problem with the Second Amendment; it’s too broad, far overexercised, and we desensitise our children to its very real, and very tangible consequences. Listen, when it all is said and done, there are a few simple truths in this debate. Guns don’t kill people. But People do. So, what then, does our future hold? What can we say will be in out future if we cannot regulate who has access to deadly weapons? What can we think we will do in the future if killers continue to walk free? The Arbery murder verdict and the Chauvin guilty verdict can give us a brighter vision of what could be. But, if you ask me, that doesn’t include AR-15s, Concealed-carry permits, and not-guilty verdicts for people who misuse their weapons.

Web: Il Ponte - BISLA Student Journal
Aktualizované: 17.9.2023

prejsť na článok

From 1791 with Regret; America’s Second Amendment Problem

Notificare

Motivation How To Build Trust At Work

Nine Features Of An Advertising Flop

Train Your Brain This New Years

Motivation S Effect On Mental And Physical Health