The second amendment of the United States Constitution has been debated for decades. After every mass shooting, Americans question whether every American should have the right to bear arms. Supporters of gun control argue that the United States needs universal, comprehensive background checks on every person who wants to purchase a gun in the country, to make sure a gun does not end up in the wrong hands in another devastating shooting like Newtown or Columbine. Opponents of gun control argue that if there are more guns, there will be less violence because people can defend themselves. With cases of gun violence reported every day, Americans’ access to guns must be regulated to keep guns away from those who commit mass shootings.
In January 2013, one month after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, vice president Joe Biden and president Barack Obama addressed the nation on gun control (Obama and Biden, 2013). Obama and Biden are correct that the government, especially Congress, needs to create legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The United States needs a comprehensive background check system that is the same everywhere in the country, so no potential shooter can get through loopholes in the system. Gun sales at gun shows must follow these regulations as well, as they are the most common place to legally buy a gun without a background check. As well as a universal background check system, mental health professionals must always be on alert and report any potential violence.
Opponents of gun control argue that if more people carry guns, there will be less shootings. Jeffrey Goldberg tries to make this case for more guns but he provides analysis against his claim. Goldberg discusses a controversial ruling that the University of Colorado had to lift its ban on concealed handguns if students were licensed by the local sheriff (Goldberg, 2012). Physics professor, Jerry Peterson, stated that “my own personal policy in my classes if I am aware that there is a firearm in the class—registered or unregistered, concealed or unconcealed—the class session is immediately canceled. I want my students to feel unconstrained in their discussions” (Goldberg, 2012). Goldberg goes on to say that there is no proof of college class discussions getting out of control and turning violent, but Peterson’s point is that no matter the situation, if a discussion gets too heated—in a college class or not—if someone has a gun, someone will get hurt. If no one in the room has a gun, there is a zero percent chance of someone getting shot.
The gun control debate has sparked many discussions on the interpretation of the second amendment, as well as the entire Constitution. Some argue that because the founding fathers broke the law by writing the Constitution in secret, it is valid to break the rules of the Constitution (Seidman, 2012). The founding fathers were supposed to meet at the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation, but instead, they threw the whole government away without the required ratification of all thirteen states, and illegally created a new system (Seidman, 2012). This is a very extreme view, but a common view in defense of gun control is a pragmatist view of the Constitution.
Some view the Constitution in an originalist way, believing the Constitution should be interpreted exactly how it was written. Pragmatists believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can change across generations (Monroe and Kersh, 2018). The United States is not the same country today as it was in 1791. Major views and opinions have drastically changed over the country’s lifetime and the Constitution should reflect those changes in opinions. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners but the thirteenth amendment abolished slavery in 1865. As the United States experiences more history, the Constitution and laws must change with it. The second amendment was created out of the Revolutionary War to be able to form a militia against the government. In modern times, a militia has never been necessary as no one has tried to overthrow the government. Senseless gun violence was not a common issue for early Americans, but today, with too many people receiving access to guns, it is. Times change and the Constitution must reflect that.
Americans will always have conflicting views on gun control, but if Congress does not implement legislation to create a universal background check system, more people will die every day from gun violence. More people must recognize a pragmatist view of the Constitution, understanding that the Constitution changes over time, and maybe not every American should be allowed to carry a gun.