Andrew Xu
7/15/07
Mr. Joseph Scalice
Final Draft on Persuasive Essay
A Moot Point – The Second Amendment
As a gun-prohibitionist, my viewpoint can be simply stated: the fact that there are civilians running around brandishing AK-47s makes it clear that the second amendment has to be reexamined. The second amendment is stated here: “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.”
Given the fact that this is a highly debatable topic, it is not surprising that there are many different types of gun-abolitionists, and all these are based on different interpretations of the second amendment. I wholeheartedly concur with the individual rights model, which states that individuals as well as the militia can “keep and bear arms.” The well-regulated militia is just the subordinate phrase, with the people, the civilians, being the star of the show. If the legislative branch wanted to say that the militia and only the militia could bear firearms, they could have changed the “people” to “state,” which would emphasize the fact that since the militia belongs strictly to the state, it would be solely the militia. In putting no adjectives to specify the people, it is naturally assumed to be the civilians of the United States.
Many things were happening in 1789, the year that the second amendment was put forth, chiefly, the Treaty with the Six Nations, which was yet another treaty to compromise with the Native Americans. The congressmen, knowing that there would always be natives attacking and raiding their villages, set up a bill, which later became known as the second amendment, to ensure that the civilians would have a chance to protect themselves from the raiders.
But times have changed. I find myself remembering a quote from Ecclesiastes chapter 3: “There is a time for everything…” Today, the threat of American Indians slaughtering us is eradicated. We are safe. There is no need for any civilians to carry rifles for “self-defense,” because there are no hostile Native Americans around. The convenience of firearms is just going to allow potential killers easy access to guns. Take Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetuator of the Virginia Tech massacre, for example, although he was declared “mentally ill” by a Virginia special justice, he was manged to arm himself with deadly weapons.
There was a recent article in the newspaper about how drastically the violence scale is increasing. Many typical teens would have probably watched at least one rated R movie in their life. There are more and more violence in movies because in order to show true bravery and valor, videos like Star Wars have to have bloodbaths after bloodbaths. So it would not be long before someone tries to act heroic by trying to the follow what is depicted in movies.
Given the status quo, the convenience of purchasing guns, even with the current restrictions and regulations, is not good. But it does not have to stay this way. This is the final premise of my viewpoint. “There is a time for everything…” Given the status quo, it is very blatant that the current state of things is not going well. We must abolish the second amendment with a new amendment, just like how the eighteenth amendment was revoked with the twenty-first amendment. The militia should definitely be able to retain their arms, but civilians should be forced to give up their current arms and never be permitted to buy one again.
Although violence will not be completely destroyed, this is definitely a step in the right direction. The scale of violence will be lowered due to the fact that arms will be harder to acquire, but it will not be stopped, as truly intent people can always find ways. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction.