17 Lives. 1 Sentence.

17+Lives.+1+Sentence.

Written by Juliana Heritage, Guest Writer

Note: This argument was written during a in class argumentative essay for Mr. Haggquist 4th Period AP Language class.

17 Lives. 1 Sentence.

The right to bear arms is the most beloved amendment in the Constitution. Bible-belters bless their children with fully loaded glocks while Tomi Lahren crows out the ever reiterated phrase , “…Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” When the shroud of toxic nationalism and veiled racism is pushed away, the only reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment is left behind like the casing of a bullet. Consequently, the Second Amendment must be reformed, focusing on a clear definition of gun usage in today’s technologically advanced society in order to prevent future massacres.

Gun-toting republicans and centrists carry the Second Amendment around in their pocket using the words of our founding fathers as a shield against the mourning of a nation. The old, Caucasian men let the rolling words of a Constitution written almost 300 years ago sing them to sleep as countless parents are staring at the wall, waiting for the ghost of their child to come home. However, if the aforementioned gun-supporters actually analyzed the words of the second amendment, they would be shocked by the phrase, “…well regulated Militia…”. A militia, by definition, is an informal army resurrected by towns or villages in need of protection. A militia receives training under the guise of an individual with extensive combat experience and moral fiber. A militia was necessary before the advent of police, security guards, and the military. A nineteen year old boy with several semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, and a penchant for violence, is not a regulated militia. A volunteer security guard, with mental health issues and insatiable anger projected onto young black men wearing hoodies, is not a well regulated militia. The NRA, or the National Rifle Association, has been using a document that contradicts their own beliefs to defend their bloodthirsty supporters while satisfying the NRA’s own thirst for cash. Due to the unlawful chasm between the proposed gun owner and the actual, average gun owner, the Second Amendment must be rewritten in order to strike the words “… a well regulated militia… ”, because the only militia that exists in the 21st century are those created by crackpot cult leaders trying to force their Kool-aid down the throats of unsuspecting Americans. Those cult leaders are getting a lifetime supply of Kool-aid from the NRA, who is either unable or unwilling to consider the ratification of the Second Amendment. As a result, the Second Amendment must be reformed, clarifying that those who have the right to bear arms are those under the supervision of federal state governments.

In the developed world technology is ever expanding ever growing, and ever changing. The introduction of the internet has lead to the creation of third party companies who are able to view the information of a consumer using a related product. The introduction of third-parties lead to the establishment of the third-party doctrine, which protects the privacy of consumers and holds third-parties to standards defined by the FTC, or federal trade commission. If Americans are willing and ready to accept changes to legislation as technology improves, why has society not recognized the need for a ratification to the Second Amendment? The truth is, Americans are ready for proactive, progressive gun reform, because the one thing that humans care for more than freedom is family. The events of Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, Columbine, and countless acts of  domestic terrorism have injected a strain of fear into the hearts of every parent across America. Americans are ready. When the Constitution was written, the thought of a fully automatic weapon equipped with a silencer was not yet conceived. The Constitution was written at a time when wars were still fought with bayonets and rifles. Society has changed, technology has changed, and weaponry has changed. The old rules no longer apply. The Second Amendment must be ratified to hold additional sub-clauses that outline the difference between weaponry that a civilian should hold, and weaponry that a trained soldier should hold. If civilians are truly using weapons to either protect themselves, or hunt for wild animal, bumpstocks silencers, and semi-automatic machinery are unnecessary.

An individual could make an argument for how “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Factually those belligerent persons are correct. Guns do not load themselves, aim for the head’, and pull the trigger. The person whose fingers release the clutch and fire round after round into a school filled with defenseless children consciously make the choice to kill. The argument presented by the NRA raises a flagrant red flag: where is the legislation protecting against illicit weaponry deals, and where is the national database that prohibits persons with mental health disorders and prior actions of violence from purchasing a weapon? While there may be a database, people are slipping through the cracks, buying guns on Craigslist from private dealers.  The NRA has previously stated that there is no way to abolish the black market but they are wrong. Australia banned several types of guns 20 years ago due to a mass shooting and there has not been a single act of massive gun violence since. If people do kill people, then additional clauses must be added to the Amendment in order to prevent guns from reaching civilians who commit these atrocities. The Second Amendment must be ratified to protect humans, not guns.

In a perfect world, guns would not exist. America would not need police officers or a military. Sadly, the children of Parkland do not live in a perfect world, and neither do you. If guns can not be abolished as a whole, the next best thing is control. Ratifying the Second Amendment to have stricter guidelines for the usage and sale of guns will prevent another series of senseless killings from occuring once again. One sentence can not fully represent the interest of Americans. One sentence can not explain the loss of 17 lives.