Changing the Second Amendment



Changingthe Second Amendment

Nameof Student

AChange to the Second Amendment

Citingthe Newtown,Conn massacrethat led to the loss of grammar school children in December 2012, isbut one of many tragic incidents that creates the need for we as anation to stop the use of high-powered rifles in killing innocentvictims in public. Stevens (2014) mentions that the US records morethan 30,000 firearm-related deaths on a yearly basis. In addition, headds that many of these deaths involve hire-powered handguns. I findit hard that as much as we condone these killings, little is done toamend the second amendment. In my essay, I will address the areaswithin the second amendment that I perceive to be in need of change.

Anyrule or change to the second amendment that might lessen the numberof deaths at the hand of firearms ought to be of primary concern.Both the federal and the Legislatures have an obligation towardaddressing the menace and ‘power’ to kill that the secondamendment has handed to the Americans. I believe that theLegislatures have the ability to assess and amend the secondamendment better than judges. Stevens agrees that Legislatures arebetter equipped with best approaches towards changing the secondamendment to an ideal state in respect to curbing the killing ofinnocent Americans by firearms. Moreover, Legislatures have the powerto decide the type of firearms that ought to be available to privatecitizens. They can go a step forward to deciding when and how allprivately owned firearms may be used. The legislative power thatgoverns the second amendment is curtailed by the constitutionalprovisions, and it does more harm than good (Stevens, 2014).

Stevensmentions that the new federal government powers were limited to thefirst ten amendments to the constitution. This led to the secondamendment in fear that a national standing army might be a securitythreat. He quotes that the second amendment assumes “awell-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FreeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed” (Stevens, 2014). It has been more than 200 years afterthe amendments. The above text was understood that it was limited intwo ways: First, civilians that had firearms only kept them formilitary purposes. Secondly, the text imposed a limitation on thefederal government’s power and not on the powers of both local andstate governments in regards to regulation of the ownership and oruse of privately owned firearms. In 1939, a case of United Statesversus Milner, the miss conception of the amendment led the court todecide the need for Congress to outlaw the possession of short gunswith sawed off barrels. In the courts argument, it was concluded thatsuch an arm had no relation in regards to preserving and or beingefficient for a Militia that is well regulated. As early as 1975,Stevens mentions that the above holding still bore the misconceptionit had ever since it was coined. It was understood that the use ofprivately owned arms was limited to military activities only. Such amisconception would have been an obstacle to the judicial system iforganizations such as the National Rifle Association had campaignedagainst that position. In 1991, after the retirement of bugger fromoffice, in an interview on NewsHour, mentioned that the secondamendment had been a subject of fraud on the American people.

Inrecent times, Stevens notes of two major changes to the secondamendment. By a vote of 5/4, it was decided that the second amendmentadvocates civilians to own handguns for the purpose of self-defense.He adds that in a case of Chicago v. McDonald, the city of Chicagohad no authority to outlaw citizens from owning a handgun. The secondcase was made possible by the 14th amendment. I conquer with Stevensby his opinion to decent on the two judgment in believe that the lawwas to some extent, misinterpreted. Federal judges have no power andor authority to vote over public policies concerning gun ownership.Such a task should be in the hand of voters elected representatives(Stevens, 2014). In the McDonalds case, Stevens points out that thecourt’s decision was rather unique. In such a case, I believe thatit is right to let the federalism take charges without anyinterference from the courts. Across the nation, various states andor localities differ in cultures and lifestyles. The problem of gunviolence and misuse differ, and it implies that respective amendmentshave to be dynamic. Chicago, for instance, has challenges regardingmisuse of firearms and challenges in curbing their criminal streetgang menace. It took the grammar-school students massacre forlegislators to advocate strict measures in the sale of firearms. Thisinvolves more stringent background checks and rules prior to sellingfirearms. I note that adaptation of such a measure might not havebeen affected by the outcome of both the McDonalds and or Heller’scases.

Theenactment of stringent laws when purchasing firearms will enforce theuse of vigorous background checks and limit access to automaticfirearms is vital in avoiding unwarranted shootings by firearmowners. Congress failure to advocate such a measure cannot draw anyjustifications from the second amendment or all that it details.However, I should note that the amendment restrains the power ofgovernment to control the use of firearms. Stevens notes, a dominantimmunity jurisprudence within the courts and the misinterpretation ofthe 11th amendment to have distinct similarities. He adds that themisinterpretation spans to the second amendment. The ruling in thetwo cases, McDonalds, and Heller the adaptation of the secondamendment ensured that the federal government does not interfere withthe states’ power to regulate militia (Stevens, 2014). Thisbestowed the ultimate power to federal judges in making the finalrule on the validity of state regulation of both militia and citizensconcerning the use of firearms. The inconsistent result can becorrected by adding five words to the second amendment. The proposedwords will make the second amendment unambiguous thus it willconform to its original intent.

Stevensquotes the proposed second amendment as: “A well-regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of thepeople to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not beinfringed,” Enthusiast argues that it is the right for civilians tohave the ability to protect themselves by acquiring firearms in alegal manner. Such an argument is true that it is proposed andprotected by the federal constitution. However, the argument by theenthusiast shall be nullified by the addition of the phrase: “whenserving in the militia” to the second amendment as proposed.Nonetheless, the proposed amendment will only stir up noises from thegun lobby. Moreover, it will merely do away with the possibility toprogress a person’s mistaken argument. It goes without saying thatthe public is bound to react emotionally to the cited massacres withthe possibilities of a strong emotional argument. Nonetheless, anyargument and or debate will be based on facts rather thanspeculations or fiction. The American constitution concerning thesecond amendment should encourage intelligent and selfless decisionsfrom its citizens. Moreover, profound decisions on all expectedremedies for what every citizen can perceive as a progressivenational tragedy.

Thesecond amendment was conceived for the benefit of the Americans. Itssole purpose is to give the average citizen a fighting chance whenfaced with danger. They say that with great power comes greatresponsibilities. However, it is in human nature to perceive whatsuits them. The lack of adequate and explicit measures to strike abalance between freedoms to own firearms who is entitled to own oneremains a challenge. Furthermore, it is human nature to beunpredictable. Given that the control of what humans can do is beyondcontrol, and that some of the tragic massacres could have beenprevented, it seems viable to control the law than the people. Byamending the second amendment, federals have the power to manage theuse and accessibility to firearms. This will be a step in the rightdirection, but the ultimate solution lies in our hands.


Stevens,J. (2014). Thefive extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.WashingtonPost.Retrieved 30 April 2015, from