The 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution has often been a topic of divided debate, often regarding the moral question around arms and weaponry. However, regardless of moral implications behind guns, there is a strong argument to be made that this Amendment is quite simply outdated in modern society.
The 2nd Amendment reads:
“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.”
It is first important to consider the original intention behind this Amendment, ratified in 1791. Proposed by James Madison, its intention was to allow the creation of civilian forces, or militias, in the case of a tyrannical federal government. Many anti-federalists, at this time, feared the overbearing powers of a centralized government, and this amendment therefore both aimed to appease this as well as ensuring more power was given to the people. After the American Revolution, the Continental Army, having fought for the US, was virtually disbanded, highlighting the necessity of this Amendment at the time. However, it is clear that the current strength of the American military simply no longer reflects these circumstances. Having the strongest military capacity in the world, with more defence spending than all other countries combined, it is clear that the USA no longer has the same need for militia units. The intention of the 2nd Amendment, which was written with a completely different outlook on the US military, is therefore outdated in the current system.
Furthermore, civilian outlook on the government has hugely shifted. Whilst the value on liberty is still entrenched in American society, the fears of the 18th century are no longer as potent, and the way in which America is treated with patriotic reverence suggests that people are not keen to overthrow the current system. Whilst there has been without a doubt discontent expressed at US politics, as seen with the storming of the Capitol in January 2021, this was an attack to ‘defend’ Donald Trump by his supporters, arguably not a response to a tyrannical government. The current political circumstances very clearly no longer reflect the original purpose of the2nd Amendment – an point which is often overshadowed by argument for the need of ‘liberties’.
As the political situation in the US has evolved, so has weaponry itself. At the time of writing the 2ndAmendment, the weapons mainly considered were significantly weaker than those in modern times, such as muskets, pistols, and long rifles. The Founding Fathers would have been unlikely to predict weaponry such as the current AR-15 assault rifle, as no arms of such calibre existed. Furthermore, the ability of a man to kill 46 and injure 60 with just one weapon was so unlikely that the decision making around the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is irrelevant to that of today. The consistent misuse of the 2nd Amendment, an example of which being mass school shootings, has further accentuated the point that guns may now represent a threat to American liberties, rather than an aid.
The intention of the 2nd Amendment was never to excuse killings and crimes being committed, but it has been warped and abused over time, showing how the Amendment itself may have to change to fit the currently reality.
Whilst the change of the US Constitution is so contentious and complicated that it is unlikely to happen any time soon, the question to be posed is quite simple: should a country’s laws represent 18th century standards, or is it more beneficial for them to reflect an understanding of the modern political situation?
