A typical Revolutionary-style rifle is compared to a modern semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Although an AR-15 is considerably more dangerous than the 18th century musket, the modern gun continues to be protected under the Second Amendment in the same manner as its precursor. “A law drafted over 230 years ago should not define, or end, the lives of innocent citizens and students ignored by their representatives,” Managing Editor Jane Ripps wrote. Illustration by Sam Harwell
The Second Amendment isn’t the enemy, but incorrect interpretation of it that avoids proper gun regulation is.
Huddled in a corner, putting a quill to paper.
The year is 1789 and James Madison, a Founding Father of the United States and soon-to-be fourth President, is drafting a document with the goal to unite the newly formed nation under a single set of laws. Little does Madison know, this document will go on to shape years of unrest between political parties already divided.
This document is the Bill of Rights.
Adopted into the United States Constitution on Dec. 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights contains the first 10 amendments to the document. Each amendment offers a goal to protect individual liberties through establishing the freedom of speech, religion, assembly and due process of law.
The Second Amendment, most commonly known as the right to bear arms, is among the 10. It is also the deadliest.
According to an article published by the Washington Post in 2016, the typical Revolutionary-era musket most popular when the Bill of Rights was drafted was capable of shooting three bullets per minute with a velocity of 1,000 feet per second and an accuracy range of 50 meters.
Over 230 years later, a modern semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle can shoot 45 bullets per minute with a velocity of 3,260 feet per second and an accuracy range of 550 meters. The gun has been used in military combat, including the Vietnam War, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It has also been used in classrooms.
“A law drafted over 230 years ago, although a guideline, should not define, and even end, the lives of innocent citizens and students ignored by their representatives.
Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012), Parkland High School (2018), Robb Elementary School (2022), Apalachee High School (2024). The list goes on.
Despite the rifles’ deadliness, the Second Amendment has long been used as an excuse to fight against regulation of them. According to the Washington Post, 20 million AR-15s were in circulation in the U.S. as of 2023.
Regardless of this, in December 2023, Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would ban semi-automatic rifles from being sold, manufactured or possessed. This bill would have also enforced background checks on citizens looking to purchase a gun.
Following the shooting at Apalachee on Sept. 4, Georgia’s Congressional District Representative Mike Collins even claimed, “The problem is not the gun.” Instead, he pushed a mental health advocacy agenda that, though important in reaction, ultimately puts a band-aid on a bullet wound.
As Madison scribbled these rights down, could he have fathomed a world where 45 people could be killed in a minute, let alone at a school?
Times have changed and circumstances have evolved. The Second Amendment should not be used as an excuse to ignore reform when there is a clear and dire need for change.
“Opinion polls always seem to suggest ‘Are you for or against the Second Amendment?’ But that is completely missing the point,” University of Georgia Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science Dr. Alexa Bankert said. “Most Americans support the second amendment, Democrats and Republicans. But the question is, what are some permissible and lawful means for the government to regulate access to those guns?”
Purchasing a gun in the U.S., let alone a military-grade rifle, should be far from simple. Instead, there should be nation-wide policies enforced, beginning with background checks and permits.
As the nation continues to forge the way into what many politicians promise will be a “progressive” new frontier, lawmakers and citizens need to face reality, instead of clinging to the past. A law drafted over 230 years ago, although a guideline, should not define, and even end, the lives of innocent citizens and students ignored by their representatives.
So, while “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” it needs to be adapted. The year isn’t 1791 anymore, and James Madison is gone.
His quill has long since dried up.
