The year is 1791. Johnny Jones, a humble apple farmer, decides that his government has become tyrannical and threatening to his freedom. Johnny approaches his neighbors and together they form a militia armed with musket rifles and bayonets to march against their oppressors. Met by the combatants of their government, also armed with musket rifles and bayonets, an equally matched battle ensues, allowing Johnny Jones and his citizen's army to overthrow the existing corrupt system and replace it in the name of justice.
The year is now 2015. Johnny Jones VI, a humble social media expert, decides that his government has become tyrannical and threatening to his freedom. Johnny approaches his neighbors, and together they form a militia armed with semiautomatic rifles and handguns to march against their oppressors. Met by the combatants of their government, armed with F-15 tactical fighter jets, mortar systems, mobile artillery rocket launchers and over 1,500 nuclear warheads, a devastatingly unmatched battle ensues, preventing Johnny Jones and his citizen's army from overthrowing the existing corrupt system and allowing it to continue on its path of injustice.
Now, it may sound wildly far-fetched, but these are precisely the situations for which the authors of our constitution were trying to account in their creation of the Second Amendment. Although the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is often understood as the right for one to stash a 9-millimeter pistol in their bedroom drawer for self defense, the true intent was starkly different. The purpose of a "well-regulated militia" stemmed from the fear of constitutional architects that the governing body of their nation would return to the oppressive nature of the one that they had only recently overthrown--and the hope that if this situation were to arise again, the citizens of their infant country would have the physical power to do the same.
But here's the thing: they didn't know what fighter jets were back in 1791. The Second Amendment assumes the ability of citizens to reasonably match the strength of their government in the event of a necessary uprising. It's easy to promise an equal fight when both sides have to take a whole minute to reload their 18th-century weapons. With the utterly immeasurable power and weapons technology of the US military, the ability of Johnny Jones VI to overthrow his oppressive political system is that of an ant's to defeat a boot (hint: they both end with someone getting crushed).
This means that the existence of the Second Amendment has become obsolete. In a country in which the power-holders could obliterate your entire existence with the push of a button, the intentions of the amendment's ratification are rendered impossible. Instead, it is used as an excuse to prevent restrictions against guns. The "right to bear arms" is not taken for its purpose, but is instead manipulated by gun proponents and defended as a constitutional right to prevent the control of weapons, even when the use of those weapons ends in death and destruction.
So in the wake of constant and unquestionably preventable tragedies inflicted by gun violence, it's time to rethink how we deal with the Second Amendment. Gun control is becoming an increasingly more urgent issue that is in dire need of addressing. If a positive reform prevents even just one more person from dying at the armed hands of a man with hate in his heart, wouldn't it be worth it?
