The Second Amendment and Gun Violence
I. Introduction
Much debate surrounds what constitutes a generation. The term was historically viewed as a way to attribute characteristics to an otherwise undefined group, yet interestingly, “Baby Boomers” are the only generation wherein a recognized beginning and end are demographically distinct via an increase in birth rate. In accordance with tradition, many have attempted to define subsequent generations, such as: “Generation X,” “Generation Y,” and now “Generation Z” (“Gen Z”). The former two generations are distinguished by defining traits; Generation X are often referred to as “Baby Busters” in reference to their chronology, while Generation Y are known as “Millennials” as they spent the majority of their adolescence prior to the turn of the millennium.[1] Unlike the previous two generations, Gen Z maintains discourse over its defining moment. This essay proposes the following: Gen Z is the generation of mass shootings.
Mass shootings have become so normalized within Gen Z that it is not only common but expected to live through multiple. Gen Z has suffered through a disproportionate number of mass shootings and a corresponding uptick unseen in American history. The eldest members of the generation lived through the Columbine High School massacre that killed 15 and injured 24, normalizing the threat of violence within public spaces.[2] As of the writing of this essay, there have been over 100 mass shootings in 2023 alone, despite being barely three months into the year — the earliest point in over a decade where the number of mass shootings has surpassed 100. The year before saw the second-highest number of mass shootings on record, outranked only by 2021.[3] These statistics correspond to a ten-year increase in prevalence; from 2014 to 2019, an average of 349 mass shootings occurred annually, yet from 2020 to 2022, this average increased to 649.[4] Gun violence is perpetuated by the Second Amendment, which asserts a constitutional right to obtain a firearm, yet this right culminates in gun violence dominating the United States. In 2020, gun violence alone comprised 79% of all homicides.[5] Still, proponents of the Second Amendment stress the importance of citizens’ right to bear arms.
To begin, this essay first presents an overview of the Second Amendment in context (see: Second Amendment). Next, this essay examines how lobbyist groups such as the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) proliferate pro-gun propaganda (see: Lobbying Groups). Thus, this essay argues that the Second Amendment is inadequate for modern Americans. Subsequently, this essay asserts that arguments in favor of the Second Amendment under the guise of “self-defense” lack qualification in the sense that they one) fail to acknowledge the historical and legal framework supporting the Amendment, as the average person within Revolutionary War-era America and the modern country face vastly different threats to their safety; and two) treat the Second Amendment as a champion for individual freedom, a stance that innately contradicts the notion of personal liberty.
II. A Brief History of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment was written during a time wherein guerilla warfare and similar methods of violent resistance were seen as the optimal mode to incite change. Coined during Revolutionary War-era America, a period renowned for its grotesque savagery, the Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”[6]
While various modes of constitutional interpretation offer conflicting explanations on the scope and methodology of the Amendment, this essay will focus on the first two clauses and their corresponding proper nouns. To begin, one must define what constitutes a “Militia.” In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court concluded that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of a militia force.[7] Miller then goes on to define a militia force as a group that states relied on for the “defense and secure[ment] of the laws” enacted,”[8] equating to the present-day National Guard.[9] The average gun owner in modern America does not have the level of military expertise displayed by the National Guard, nor do they have the need for the same weapons used by the National Guard. This point is furthered by Miller, wherein the majority opinion writes:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[10]
This decision proposed the correct constitutional interpretation that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to bear arms, but rather defends against statutes that infringe upon the right of an armed militia. This interpretation is upheld by scholars outside the Supreme Court, such as the late Don Kates, a Yale Law School graduate and professor at Stanford University, Oxford University, Saint Louis University School of Law, and the University of Melbourne.[11] In his article Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, Kates contends that the Second Amendment serves “‘to guarantee the right to carry [weapons] outside the home only in the course of militia service.’”[12] Again, the difference between the individual and a militia again must be noted within context; as Kates outlines, the Second Amendment is, and was intended to, coincide with firearm regulation.
Arguments against regulation often have philosophical roots. For example, John Locke, a prolific defender of humanity’s “natural rights,” wrote that “in a state of war, ‘every one has a right to defend himself’” and “‘must be allowed to strike…‘with a sword in his hand.’”[13] This view is often misconstrued as to argue that Locke believed in a “natural right” to weapons of self defense, such as guns in the modern world. He did not. Rather, the quotation above is in reference to what Locke described as a “state of nature” in his Second Treatise of Man, wherein humanity abided by no form of law and therefore maintained no consequence for their actions. In this environment, Locke would argue the use of weapons is permissible — despite contradicting the conditions established by the Second Amendment — as the very notion of regulation relies on a statute, the Bill of Rights, that would not exist within the thought experiment. As such, should the Constitution exist, Locke would then argue that by joining society, “the preservation of society takes precedence over the preservation of individuals.”[14] This can be extended to include the freedoms of individuals, such as the right to bear arms. Thus, in a free “State,” as outlined by the Second Amendment and defined by Locke above, an individual does not have the right to violence and by extension, tools conducive to violence. As such, the view that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms is incompatible with both Supreme Court precedent and Enlightenment philosophy, two foundational pillars of American jurisprudence.
III. The National Rifle Association and Lobbying Groups
Calls to action against the misuse of the Second Amendment to defend gun violence are often ignored because of how politicized the issue has become. The debate over gun control was not always a political issue; the majority opinion in Miller was unanimous despite owing to members from various polities, and frequent reports of gun violence did not pervade American media prior to the Columbine High School mass shooting.[15] As such, one must consider what prompted widespread discussions of the Second Amendment during a time in which nearly a century has passed since the occurrence of external threats that require the average citizen to be armed at the scale seen during the Revolutionary War. The perpetrators behind the rebirth of gun-related discourse are lobbyist groups. For the purposes of this argument, this essay will focus on the NRA.
Many states based their preliminary handgun legislation on the Uniform Revolver Act, a statute drafted and promoted by the NRA.[16] This displays a clear conflict of interest, as that the NRA benefits from the sale and legal protection of personal firearms. As a lobbyist group, the NRA has been described as “conservative, dogmatic, and uncompromising” — adjectives that follow suit in its push for laws that benefit its economic success rather than the safety and rights of Americans. The organization was founded by war-crazed zealots and expanded during periods of violence and political instability, such as World War One and Two, under the guise of protecting the Second Amendment.[17] Beyond their questionable beginnings, the NRA’s status as a single-interest group further demonstrates its sole purpose of benefiting through the preservation of firearm wholesale.
The NRA historically has, and likely will continue to, promote legislation that serves its agenda. Consider the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting. In contrast to activists who demanded increased and more expansive background checks for individuals inquiring personal firearms to better protect children via limiting who has access to weapons of mass destruction, the NRA campaigned to arm teachers. Critics deconstructed the NRA’s euphemism through the following slogan: “[t]he only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”[18] While it seems obvious that increasing the number of armed individuals does little to mitigate the problem at hand — that is, the accessibility of firearms to individuals ill-suited for the possession of such weapons — this argument stalled legislation that would have tightened control over firearm sales. Additionally, it must be noted that should the NRA’s proposal be implemented as it still is debated, the NRA would benefit from the increase in sales and therefore present further conflicts of interest in promoting such an alternative to gun control. Ultimately, the goal of the lobbyist organization is realized: preventing the total ban of firearms in the United States, which would threaten their business.
As mentioned in the introduction above, firearms are responsible for the vast majority of American annual homicides. Considering countries with stricter gun control laws, such as the United Kingdom wherein gun-related killings comprised just 4% of homicides in 2020, it is evident that the restriction of firearm accessibility and sale correlates with a reduction in gun violence.[19] The NRA’s attempts to combat what has been statistically proven to reduce gun violence cannot, in good faith, stem from altruism. Thus, their interest in this issue lies in maintaining profits from the sale of firearms, not in the protection of personal rights granted by the Second Amendment.
IV. Conclusion
The Constitution was intended to reflect the highest moral standards of the country; should Americans allow the Second Amendment to prevail in the face of overwhelming violence, the American government becomes complacent within a greater crime against the very legitimacy of its institution. In line with the Constitution, the Supreme Court was founded to reflect the needs and subsequently, support its people — a notion that is innately contradicted by upholding institutional violence against Americans. Rather than wait for bad things to happen to good people, proactive measures must be taken to mitigate such displays of violence. Thus, the Second Amendment must be repealed.
References
[1] Philip Bump, “Analysis | It's Time to Formalise 'Gen Z' as the 'Lockdown Generation',” The Washington Post (WP Company, February 16, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/15/mass-shootings-gen-z-lockdowns/.
[2] Jacqueline Maciel, “The so-Called, ‘School Shooting Generation,’” The Spectator, April 28, 2021, https://seattlespectator.com/2021/04/28/the-so-called-school-shooting-generation/.
[3] Brian Bushard, “Over 100 Mass Shootings Have Hit U.S. So Far This Year—In Worst Start To Year In Decade,” Forbes (Forbes Magazine, March 7, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/06/over-100-mass-shootings-have-hit-us-so-far-this-year-in-worst-start-to-year-in-decade/?sh=59d6fb32ea51.
[4] BBC Editorial Team, “Gun Violence in the US and What the Statistics Tell Us,” BBC News (BBC, February 17, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081.
[5] BBC Editorial Team, “Gun Violence in the US and What the Statistics Tell Us.”
[6] U.S. Const. amend. II
[7] Charles Blek, “Our Second Amendment.” Human Rights 26, no. 4 (1999): 3–4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27880164.
[8] Justia Editorial Team, “Second Amendment of the US Constitution — Bearing Arms,” Justia Law, accessed March 8, 2023, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-02/#fn-6.
[9] Blek, “Our Second Amendment.” 3–4.
[10] Justice James Clark McReynolds, majority opinion, United States v. Miller (1939), 178.
[11] “Don B. Kates, Jr..,” The Independent Institute, accessed March 9, 2023, https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=739.
[12] Stephen Halbrook, “What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to ‘Bear Arms.’” Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1 (1986): 151. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191615.
[13] Mark Tunick, “JOHN LOCKE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.” History of Political Thought 35, no. 1 (2014): 50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26227264.
[14] Tunick, “JOHN LOCKE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,” 52.
[15] United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 1939.
[16] Don Kates. “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment.” Michigan Law Review 82, no. 2 (1983): 204–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288537.
[17]Pierre Lagayette, “Lethal Lobby: The National Rifle Association.” Revue Française d’études Américaines, no. 63 (1995): 53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20872490.
[18] Michael Hogan and Craig Rood, “Rhetorical Studies and the Gun Debate: A Public Policy Perspective.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 18, no. 2 (2015): 367. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0359.
[19] BBC Editorial Team, “Gun Violence in the US and What the Statistics Tell Us.”