“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.”

The Second Amendment of the United States of America can be interpreted in different ways by different readers–and that is exactly the problem with it. People across the United States can adjust it to their way of thinking, to make it seem as though the Constitution was written solely for them. In many ways, it was. It was written for everyone. But should it mean different things to different people?

This amendment was written at a time when the U.S. might have needed a militia when we didn’t have a National Guard. When the Constitution was written, civilians couldn’t easily acquire weapons so deadly that they could walk into a school, movie theater, mall, or any public place and kill dozens of people in seconds.

Despite these atrocities, people still believe that the Second Amendment should protect the average person’s right to own a machine gun or other assault rifle.  The amendment’s original authors thought it was very clear. But many of them also thought slavery was ethical–and a God-given right. Today, the Second Amendment doesn’t seem so clear.

And what would our lawmakers today consider a good reason for a citizen to be in possession of a deadly weapon designed specifically for military use? Do we really believe a law that allows people like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Nicolas Cruz, and Adam Lanza to access firearms helps “promote the general welfare,” and “ensure domestic tranquility?”It doesn’t seem possible that anyone could defend owning that kind of arsenal. But maybe the National Rifle Association has–and donates–enough money to keep our elected officials in the pockets of its gun-toting lobbyists instead of working for the interests of the public.

Like any conflict, there are two sides to this, and obviously, murder isn’t the only reason to own a firearm. People who hunt may use a rifle to sustain themselves, and people who live in high-crime areas have every right to want to protect themselves if the police cannot or will not. or won’t. A handgun may be the obvious choice for that. But does anyone need a military-grade killing machine whose only purpose seems to be, well, killing?  The fact is, they don’t. Something that can violently take the lives of innocent people in seconds has no place in civilian hands, and there must be an end to all this senseless death. 

PHOTO COURTESY OF CREATIVE COMMONS