The world seems to have been thrown into a barbaric and violent period of time, as we see horror stories in the world around us on CNN everyday. We act surprised at these outbreaks and struggle to find meaning from the tragedy.

This article is not meant to be a statement of mourning or of lamentation at the horrible tragedies that seem to occur so often in our everyday society. This article is here to serve as a reality check and a recognition of the realities of the human condition, and simply explores one of many possible reactions to events that have happened in Orlando and San Bernardino. This article is going to present an argument why the Second Amendment and the unequivocal right of self-defense we have in the United States is becoming more and more a daily necessity for Americans.

“The Second Amendment is an outdated notion.”

I have seen that phrase repeated in some form or another dozens of times in the last 24 hours every time I log into Facebook or open my twitter feed on my phone. It is the basis of one of the most prevalent arguments in the debate over Second Amendment rights in modern culture.

The basic premise of this argument is that the notion and concept of self-defense that was created in the United States Constitution was based on the everyday realities of life in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War. That reality of life being that the Second Amendment was created to provide a legal base for the existence of self-formed militias in the individual states to act as a defense force. In the post revolutionary period most individuals had to provide their own weapon to join the militia, hence the necessity of the Second Amendment.

By and far the majority of people who offer this argument are liberal leaning in terms of their preference of policy advocation. The liberal side of politics in the United States relies on an interpretation of the Constitution referred to as loose constructionism, essentially meaning that they view the Constitution as a set of governing principles that is free to change and adapt to the challenges of the contemporary era. They see the Constitution as the backbone for a policy advocation platform, one that favors expanding and increasing the size and role of government and its principles.

A Chink in The Argumentative Armor

Given these presuppositions there is one major flaw in the previously described argument they present towards Second Amendment rights and its role in the contemporary world, they deny their basic argument of loose constructionism and the expansion of principles laid out in the Constitution. They instead offer an argument based on analyzing the context of the 18th century ,when the Constitution was written, not a contemporary examination of the principle of Second Amendment rights in the daily realities of the 21st century.

The liberal side is breaking from the basic premise of their entire political viewpoint founded in loose constructionism, and instead uses an argument founded in the notion of strict constructionism. Strict constructionism is largely the basic political philosophy for the backing of viewpoints held by the conservative side of American politics.

An Adjusting Contemporary Reality

Given the ground that has been covered so far in terms of the realm of political theory, I want to address what I see as the everyday reality and necessity of the 2nd Amendment in the 21st century.

The world has become a very dangerous place and the United States has undoubtedly seen more than its fair share of the violence that in some places is rocking the world to its core. Instead of a full blown guerrilla war and a loss of basic societal infrastructure, the United States is currently facing the challenge of domestic terrorism as one of its largest threats.

The threat of domestic terrorism has created a reality where the average citizen does not feel 100 percent assured of their own safety, nor can they rely on law enforcement to protect them in the moment of danger during a shooting or act of terror. Police and law enforcement are primarily responders to crisis situations not a reliable source of prevention for events like the one that unfolded in Orlando and San Bernardino. One of the primary points of the argument against the Second Amendment being outdated is that unlike in the 18th century, we now have modern police and law enforcement. However, current events seem to constantly remind us of how our modern police and law enforcement cannot adequately prevent and stop every crisis situation, especially those involving firearms.

The reality of the situation for the average citizen therefore is that they still need a reliable method of protection or possible prevention in crisis situations. The Second Amendment guarantees the average citizen a legal and protected right to deal with crisis situations, the right to possess and use a firearm in self-defense. A citizen deserves to have the ability to adequately defend themselves against an armed assailant in a reasonably successful manner.

Yes, firearms have evolved and changed over the two centuries since the Constitution was written. Modern events have proven that the need for armed citizens has not diminished or gone away at all in the last two centuries. Rather, citizens have developed a false of security about their ability to be protected by the “advancements” of modern society in the United States. The average citizen still has a recognizable need to have the ability to defend their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness through his Second Amendment rights.

Orlando should serve as a wakeup call for citizens that we live in a world where we can be suddenly and hopelessly outgunned at a minute’s notice, a world where a peaceful and enjoyable setting can become the potential scene for a bloodbath. The bottom line is that the average citizen now more than ever has a demonstrable need to possess a firearm to guarantee their safety, the same basic need that hasn't changed since the Constitution was written.