Americans own nearly half of all the guns in the world, despite accounting for only around five percent of the world’s population, and almost none of those guns are registered. Throughout this nation’s history, gun control, guns, and the Second Amendment have been contested issues, with people arguing both in favor of and against them. In the interest of public safety, gun control is necessary. And due to multiple different pieces of evidence and logic to be shared in this paper, it is constitutional as well.
Through the government, gun control in America has a long and storied history. Originally, the American government was formulated by the Articles of Confederation, which gave the state governments the power to govern themselves as they pleased, and gave the federal government the power to conduct only foreign affairs. After Shays’s Rebellion put on full display the weakness of this system of government via the federal government’s inability to do anything and an uncoordinated response from the states, people called for a stronger government, resulting in the Constitution being established as the government’s founding document. However, the people wanted to ensure that the government would not become too strong, or tyrannical (history.com). Hence, ten amendments were added to the Constitution in 1791, called the Bill of Rights. One of these amendments, the Second Amendment, guaranteed American citizens the right to bear arms. At the time, the right to bear arms was deemed a fundamental right to guarantee when protecting against government tyranny, so the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to guarantee that right. The citizens of the newly forged United States did not want their long revolution to end in a tyrannical government, like that of the one they had just freed themselves from, so they demanded their right to own guns be protected (history.com). If the government became too powerful, they reasoned, they would be able to take up arms and restore democracy.
The Second Amendment, as in the Constitution, reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Constitution of the United States, Amendment II). Practically since its ratification, people have debated the meaning of the Second Amendment. Specifically the first clause, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Some believe that this clause means that the right to bear arms is only given to those who are part of a well-regulated militia, while others believe that this clause is merely a preambulatory clause and that the second clause, “the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, being the operative clause, is the only relevant clause (history.com). This core dispute brings America to the two main interpretations of the Second Amendment, the collective and the individual.
Those who believe in the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment hold that the right to bear arms is only given to those who participate in a well-regulated militia. These people argue that the Founding Fathers viewed the militia as a way to ensure both civic participation and prevent the need for a standing army, something at the time thought to be indicative of a tyrannical government. Therefore, they reason, the Second Amendment was written to allow guns only for those who are part of a well-regulated militia. It is important to note that supporters of the collective interpretation (rightly) argue that the Founding Fathers viewed a militia as something akin to a local group of men and boys banding together to defend their town. This view is quite different from the armed group of vigilantes that one would think of today upon hearing the word “militia” mentioned in conversation. And due to the advent of the National Guard and the abolition of the state militias following the Civil War, there are no more government-sanctioned, well-regulated militias. Because of this, proponents of the collective interpretation argue that guns should be banned from civilian use (ivn.us). On the other side, there are those who believe in individual interpretation.
Those who believe in the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment hold that all citizens have the right to bear arms, regardless of participation in any sort of militia. They argue that the clause about state militias is an ablative absolute clause, which gives context to the main, operative clause, but does not define it. They, like proponents of the collective interpretation, provide an explanation for the Second Amendment. They claim that the Founding Fathers feared having a standing army in times of peace, but recognized them as necessary for national defense. They argue that in order to satisfy the anti-Federalists, they agreed to pass the Second Amendment, preventing the government from disarming its citizens, and infringing upon their liberties (law.virginia.edu).
The Supreme Court has, throughout history, taken different stances on the Second Amendment. Until recently, the Supreme Court had ruled in multiple cases (for example, United States v. Miller), in accordance with the collective interpretation, allowing gun control legislation to pass. However, in 2008, the Supreme Court made a surprising shift from this stance. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the first Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court decided on the true meaning of the Second Amendment, rather than the constitutionality of any given gun control law, the Court struck down a handgun restriction law in Washington, D.C., ruling it unconstitutional. Their decision protected an individual’s right to possess a firearm, without militia service, for previously legal uses, like hunting and self-defense within the home. The Court, however, did backstep a little by saying that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and will continue to be regulated. Despite this caveat, for the Court to side against the collective interpretation and gun control after so many years of supporting it was, to most, a shocking change (britannica.com).
There have also been numerous laws passed in the United States throughout its history on the subject of gun control. The first major piece of federal gun control legislation was the National Firearms Act (NFA), passed in 1934. This law was passed as part of the Internal Revenue Code (IRS), and as such, its primary function is that it levies a tax upon the manufacture, sale, and transfer of certain types of guns. Despite being amended many times, the NFA’s tax is still levied and has served as a deterrent against potential buyers of the more dangerous types of guns. Shortly after, in 1938, Congress passed the Federal Firearms Act (FFA). This law mandated that all gun manufacturers, importers, and sellers must be licensed by the government in order to operate legally. Also, it prevented certain groups of people, like convicted felons, and those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns. Although this law was repealed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, much of it has since been reenacted by other laws. The next gun control law is the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), passed by Congress in 1968. This law placed restrictions on the importation of all guns not used for sport. It also required all guns in civilian hands to have a serial number, established a minimum age for gun ownership, and expanded the groups of people barred from gun ownership. The next gun-related law to be passed by Congress was the Firearms Owners Protection Act. This act passed in 1986, was a major backstep when compared to its predecessors. It repealed much of the restrictions put in place by its predecessor, the Gun Control Act, and also loosened restrictions on gun sellers, by allowing them to sell guns not only in the location they were licensed to sell at but anywhere in the same state as that location. It also decreased public firearm safety, by forbidding the government from maintaining a database of firearm sellers and eliminating the requirement that gun sellers must record their ammunition sales. However, in 1994, the Brady Handgun Control Law was enacted. Named after a press secretary of Ronald Reagan who took a bullet for him during an assassination attempt, this law undid some of the backsteps of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, by mandating that a period of 5 days must pass before any licensed seller may transfer a gun to an unlicensed buyer. Within this period, it required the government to complete a background check on the buyer. Unfortunately, this law was only temporary. Its provisions lasted for only four years, until 1998 when Congress declined to renew it. Lastly, there is the Federal Assault Weapon Ban, passed in 1994, as well. This law prevented the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons, as well as large clips of ammunition. It also banned nineteen types of assault weapons, as well as any semi-automatic gun with at least two military-grade upgrades, and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. Yet again, the act was only a temporary measure, and it expired after ten years, in 2004 (giffords.org). America has a storied history when it comes to the Second Amendment, with different interpretations gaining preference at different times.
America, as a nation, was founded on guns, as the forefathers used them to gain America’s independence from the British. As such, they have played a significant role in America’s history, but the muskets of the late 1700s are a far cry from the AR-15s of the modern day. The Constitution was ratified in 1788, shortly after the Revolution ended. Americans were wary of the government becoming tyrannical like the one they had just defeated. So, these people wanted their right to own a gun for defense against the government to be guaranteed, and this demand was met in the Second Amendment.
Back then, the right to own guns was not as much of a problem as it is now. Back then, smoothbore muskets were the most common weapon for a civilian to own. These guns, if used by a skilled soldier, could be fired three times a minute, had a lengthy reloading process, often missed, and were not able to fire in the rain (History.com). In part due to the Industrial Revolution, these guns became more advanced up to and through the Civil War. Right before the Civil War, the Minie ball was invented. Unlike the musket balls of previous decades, these were very accurate, and fast, and made muskets much deadlier, and subsequently, minie balls were the main bullets used during the Civil War (Yancy 30). Another Civil War invention was the Gatling Gun. It was the first gun able to shoot multiple people at once, but due to its size and the required number of people to operate it, the Gatling was not very practical, and it was also hard to move around. The Tommy Gun was similar to the Gatling gun, but unlike the Gatling, it was handheld, and therefore very mobile (History.com) By this point, people had the ability to kill multiple people at once, and the Tommy gun became the favorite of many gangsters for this reason. Many gangsters including Al Capone in the 1920s used the Tommy gun. An updated version of the Tommy gun was even used as a submachine gun during World War II. Jumping to modern times, certain guns, like the AR-15, are extremely lethal and can kill multiple people at once, and the bullets that it fires have the highest velocity of any gun ever (History.com). While reasonable in 1788, advancements in gun technology have led to the right to bear arms becoming a danger to public safety.
Throughout its history, Americans have gone from having smoothbore muskets that shot three times a minute, to having fully automatic assault rifles. When the Constitution was ratified guns were actually needed: During the colonial era, people needed to hunt animals to survive. Pioneers and settlers outside of the original thirteen states occasionally needed guns to fend off Native American attacks, as well as bandits and robbers. The Founding Fathers had no way of knowing that guns would become advanced as they are now; that there would be guns capable of killing multiple people a second. The only guns that they thought would ever exist were the slow smoothbore muskets. As forward-thinking and adaptable as the Constitution is, it was written around 225 years ago, and some things, including guns, have changed drastically since then. Gun control is necessary now, though it may not have been then, because guns now are far more dangerous.
Historical advancement of gun technology is not the only reason that gun control is necessary, some current events show the need as well. Mass shootings are a uniquely American problem because this country has so little gun control. There is a whole cadre of reasons that mass shootings happen. Some people that feel as if they have no purpose in the world may seek fame through an extreme means: murder. One killer reacted to his imprisonment by saying that he wished that he had killed more people, so his name would have been printed on even bigger headlines (latimes.com). One example of someone committing murder to gain fame is when David Chapman murdered John Lennon and waited by the crime scene so that he would become known as the man who killed John Lennon (biography.com). Now, obviously, this does not apply to everyone, but it does apply to many of the killers in America. Some semblance of an incentive is the leading reason for people to decide to commit mass shootings (sun-sentinal.com). The only way to stop mass shootings is to remove the ability to commit them so easily, by restricting the ability to own a gun. There may seem to be other ways, but none of them are as sound of a way. Ceasing to broadcast news of the mass shootings is not an option, because people must learn about these atrocities when they occur. Increasing security and the number of police officers are not necessarily the best method either, as doing that may lead to brutality and abuse of power. The way forward, then, is simple: gun control. If restrictions were placed upon firearms, then the death toll from gun murders would certainly go down. A solution must come into effect soon, for firearms will only become more advanced, mass shootings will only become more frequent, and America will continue to lead the world in many negative gun-related statistics. Americans account for around four percent of the world’s population, yet Americans own forty-six percent of the world’s guns. There are 857 million guns in civilian hands worldwide, and forty-six percent of those guns are owned by Americans, meaning there are around 394 million guns in America (reuters.com). Of those, only two million are registered, meaning that there are 392 million unregistered guns in this country. There were, in 2019, 328 million people living in America. Meaning that there for every one hundred Americans, there are around one hundred and twenty guns. (Civilian Firearms Holdings).
The information regarding mass shootings, the progression of gun technology, the Supreme Court’s new stance on guns, and the current lack of federal gun control legislation shows why federal gun control legislation is necessary and needed now. However, the constitutionality of gun control has not yet been addressed in this essay. Now, the reasons it is constitutional will be explained. First off, nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that the right to bear arms cannot be controlled and limited, it merely says that it must exist. Secondly, if the right to own guns remains unregulated, other rights guaranteed in the Constitution and its amendments are endangered: the rights to free speech, press, and protest can be diminished by a single person with a machine gun mowing down protesters, assassinating public officials, or by going on a rampage against the staff of a publication one disagrees with. And thirdly, the Constitution, above all else, as stated in the Preamble, is dedicated to ensuring the general welfare of the public. The welfare of the public can most certainly be endangered by a person or a group of people committing mass shootings with automatic weapons. It is for these reasons that gun control is constitutional. As for those who are against it, their arguments will be debunked momentarily.
Those against gun control argue that the Second Amendment, in its second clause, says that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They argue that this means that guns of every type must be allowed in America, saying that the Constitution must be interpreted literally, as it was written. But this argument can easily be thrown out by doing exactly that: interpreting the Constitution literally, with historical context. The Constitution, as wonderful as it is, is outdated. The world is different now from how it was in the late 1700s. As has been previously noted, guns are far more advanced now, and more lethal. The Founding Fathers had no idea that gun technology would advance, just like they had no idea that cars, the Internet, or robots would. If the Constitution is to be interpreted as it is written, what of those things? If they are not in the Constitution, would they be unconstitutional as well? No, these things would be regulated by Congressional law, as they currently are. Then why can guns not be as well? The Constitution has survived by being adaptable and amended again and again. In order to protect the general welfare, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, The United States must amend the Constitution yet again, and update one of America’s oldest amendments.
The ideal solution is as follows: guns should be restricted, but per the Second Amendment, they cannot, and should not, be prohibited outright. Instead, certain restrictions should be set in place. For one, all assault weapons should be prohibited from civilian usage, as well as semi and fully-automatic ones. These types of guns are not necessary for sport and self-defense, and if prohibited, will severely decrease the potential damage any shooter could do. Certain groups of people should be prevented from purchasing guns as well, namely convicted felons, people afflicted with mental illnesses, and those with a violent criminal record, among others. Because those groups are most likely to commit gun crimes, banning them from purchasing guns will go a long way toward making gun crimes more infrequent. Further, the government should perform background checks on all individuals seeking to buy a gun, and the government should prevent those with which they find an issue from buying the gun. Also, the government should require all gun sellers to obtain a federal license to operate legally and require them to keep a record of all their transactions. That way, illegal gun purchases would drop, and the government would be able to track any sales that it needs to. Finally, all people that own a gun must be taught gun safety, and receive a permit. That is the ideal solution to the question of gun control.
As has been proven in this essay, gun control is both necessary and constitutional, in the interest of public safety. Throughout the 244 years of this nation’s history, guns, gun control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment have frequently been subject to debate, with many laws and Supreme Court cases taking varying stances on the issue. As a nation with a disproportionate amount of guns relative to its population, controlling those guns is the only logical action.