By Lilly Rogers
When our founding fathers created the Second Amendment, they didn’t think guns would advance in the way they have. Now in the twenty-first century, guns are much too easy to access and even more deadly.
The debate on whether to change our gun laws has gone on for years. On one hand, many see that making guns harder to access is the best way to prevent mass shootings; others have deemed this as unconstitutional. But the ones who have done this seem to think that the goal is to completely take guns away, when really it’s just to make them harder to access.
When our founding fathers created the Second Amendment, they didn’t think guns would advance in the way they have. Now in the twenty-first century, guns are much too easy to access and even more deadly.
The debate on whether to change our gun laws has gone on for years. On one hand, many see that making guns harder to access is the best way to prevent mass shootings; others have deemed this as unconstitutional. But the ones who have done this seem to think that the goal is to completely take guns away, when really it’s just to make them harder to access.
Back in February, President Trump repealed a rule passed by Obama that required people with certain mental illnesses to go through a background check before being allowed to buy a gun. In other words: people with mental illnesses couldn’t buy guns without being sure they wouldn’t use it to hurt others.
This is a completely logical rule; it’s impossible to tell what will trigger a person with a mental illness, especially the more severe illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. When this was first passed, many disagreed—some just because Obama passed it, others because it was against the Second Amendment, some because of both. People fought it, and President Trump calmed them by repealing this. All in all, not his smartest move.
What many don’t understand by the passing of stricter gun laws is that their guns won’t be taken away; it’ll just be harder those who want them to access them. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the debate was sparked again. The main argument conservatives made this time, was that restriction of guns wouldn’t do anything; but what about Australia, who banned guns and hasn’t had a mass shooting in years because of this? Or the UK, whose laws require a certificate that allows the possession of guns and prohibits a majority of guns, and has had a decrease in shootings over the years?
Really, what we’re seeing here is people who care more about one constitutional right than human lives—as long as it’s not them being shot, right? So many people are so blinded by their beliefs in the constitution that they can’t, or won’t, see the lives they put at stake by defending the Second Amendment.