Almost like clockwork, after every highly publicized mass shooting event, policy makers reactively try to calm nerves by declaring the need for more effective gun regulations. This time around, in the aftermath of the second-deadliest school shooting in US history, the Obama administration was decidedly quick to deliver meaningful changes to existing gun controls. Last week, President Obama and Vice-President Biden unveiled a $500 million program, signed 23 executive orders, and announced that they will pursue new gun control laws that would introduce universal background checks, limit high-capacity magazines, and re-enact a ban on assault weapons.
On the other hand, perhaps we don’t need better gun laws. Why? Simple — we don’t need guns. Civilians of established democracies such as the United States do not need access to firearms. Oh, I suppose it’s some people’s dream to whip out a Walther P99 pistol and save the day by subduing armed robbers, but this doesn’t happen at any appreciable rate in real life. For untrained people, the consequences of firing a single bullet runs ahead of our ability to wrap our head around it, especially during a heated altercation or in the midst of a mental breakdown. Before the advent of guns, if you wanted to kill someone, you had to risk your own life to do it. With a gun in hand, pulling the trigger is almost effortless. In the peaceful classrooms of an elementary school or the parking lot of a supermarket, killing another person should never be this easy.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution, coupled with a 2008 US Supreme Court interpretation, gives its citizens the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defence. Enacted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Amendment is dated and its relevance in today’s society has woefully diminished. The Bill of Rights was created as the coda of the tumultuous American Revolution. The motion to give citizens the right to bear arms was arguably inspired by the pre-revolutionary period. This period saw the Patriots forming their own independent legislatures and militias, and the British and Loyalist seeking to thwart their efforts by restricting their access to firearms and ammunition. To prevent this from happening again, the Second Amendment was proposed to give individuals the power to protect themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. The Amendment itself, which was proposed by the presiding government of the time, is a courageous one. It embodies the idea that the government must never be an ends to itself, and that it must rise and fall according to the interest of the people. Today, over two centuries later, the US has grown more mature and people usually rely on dialogue, not violence, to effect political change. So, this once courageous idea is now much less relevant.
Let us take a step back. What makes a constitution a constitution? Constitutional laws are cornerstones that maintain the integrity and values of any assembly from a university club to an entire nation. A constitution should be resilient, but not stubborn. It should be timeless, not because it cannot change over time, but because every generation gets to interpret it all over again. The founders that drafted the Constitution lived in a different era — much has changed over the centuries. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that adhering to an original interpretation of the Constitution was essential to protecting the Constitution and democracy. He has perhaps forgotten that the Constitution ultimately protects the will of the contemporary people.
The US no longer needs the right to bear arms. At this point, it merely creates an unnecessary civil arms race. Individuals that are intent on committing a crime with a weapon are usually more adept with guns than the average gun owner. This disparity makes the playing field uneven, the vulnerable more vulnerable, and catastrophes more catastrophic. Contrary to what the National Rifle Association might tell you, a safe society is not one where everyone has a gun, but one where nobody has one. The constitutional right to bear arms solves a problem, which that very Constitution had already solved. Ironically, a society that encourages everyone to take up arms is essentially like a loaded gun, poised for any one of its gunslingers to ignite a tragedy in the heat of a single moment.
Kelvin Chen studies psychology and physiology.
David Woolley has also written this week on the issue, looking at the issue under a different lens: The logic of consitutional originalism protects all rights
