By Jacob T., 6th grade, Krieger Schechter Day School of Chizuk Amuno Congregation
“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 famous yet controversial second amendment grants law-abiding United States citizens the right to bear arms. However, in the wake of mass shootings, many people are tempted to rid citizens of this right. But what is this proposal supposed to achieve, and what are some of the most important reasons to keep this amendment in place?
One of the most important aspects of the second amendment is to fight off a potential tyrannical government.This idea is not radical or far-fetched at all. In fact, according to the website Gun Policy, North Korea’s dictator, for example, maintains control of his people by prohibiting citizens’ ownership of firearms, “Institutions, businesses, groups and the public [in North Korea] are prohibited from possessing or transacting firearms according to the law.”
In fact, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did not grant his citizens the right to bear arms. According to German documents published in “Gun Control in The Third Reich” by Stephen Halbrook, “The laws restricting firearms ownership . . . rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless.”
The founding fathers of the U.S. created the second amendment because their uprising required firearms, and they wanted the citizens to have power over the government as a last resort.
The threat of tyranny still exists today, and in looking at past and present effective regimes, disarming of the populous is consistent and crucial for their success.
Another proposal is to ban individuals from legally obtaining a firearm if they have been named on the U.S. government’s No Fly List. This idea is so preposterous, and under-baked that it is almost funny. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “[The No Fly List] violates the Constitution’s due process guarantee,” meaning that one can be included on the No Fly List for no reason.
According to CNN, “Sen. Ted Kennedy told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004 that he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports. A (George W.) Bush administration official explained that Kennedy had been held up because the name ‘T. Kennedy’ had become a popular pseudonym among terror suspects.” Even a Middle Eastern toddler was put on the No Fly List, according to CNN, without breaking any laws! And there are many others who have had similar experiences. The idea that one’s constitutional right could be revoked by being named on a list that accuses law abiding, innocent people of being suspected terrorists and has no due process (the citizens right of fair and equal treatment through the judicial system) is unfathomable.
According to American Gun Facts, a campaign by Vici Media, a media group featured in The New York Times and ABC News, every year guns are used 80 times more often to protect a life than to take one. Consequently, ridding civilians of firearms would lead to an increased number of deaths because it prevents the possibility of individuals defending themselves against an attacker.
It is interesting how people frame or view things. I assume that when opponents of the second amendment see firearms, they feel unsafe and offended. However, I find the opposite to be true. A few months ago, I was in a small waiting room when a stocky man walked in. I noticed an upright, holstered handgun at his hip, but I did not immediately think: mass shooter. In fact, I felt safer, knowing that if an actual mass shooter entered the same waiting room, this armed man would save us or at least increase the odds of survival. I felt reassured because the playing field was a little more even.
Making something illegal does not diminish its threat. For example, drugs are illegal; however, people still abuse them. However, guns are more complex; criminals will inevitably find a way to get guns. According to ABC News, “The guns carried and misused by youths, gang members and active criminals are more likely than not obtained by transactions that violate federal or state law.”
But currently, the innocent is left vulnerable and at the mercy of the criminal. The idea of ridding civilians of this right is well-intentioned; however, the overwhelming statistics and rather basic logic show that this proposal in reality does more harm than good.
Jmore Juniors Noah S. and Eli S. take a look at the differences between the Jewish communities of Baltimore and Chicago.
Madeline L., a seventh grade student at Krieger Schechter Day School, writes about the phenomenon that has been Starbucks over the past half-century.
An eighth grade student at Krieger Schechter Day School, Jmore Juniors writer Micah B answers an array of questions from his peers.
Jmore Junior Eitan Beck writes about the pros and cons of having electric cars in the future.