The Repeal of the Second Amendment impacts WC

                "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Repealing the 2^nd amendment is a hot topic after the recent shooting at Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Florida. This tragic event spurred a massive anti-gun movement and “The March for our Lives.” The main question at hand is if we repealed the second amendment, would that severely diminish the number of gun deaths in the country? The answer is simply yes. If you take away the guns, logically the gun deaths will be lowered. The argument to this can be found through my Christian worldview, and that is sin. Evil people will always exist. People that want to murder will stab or beat a person to death if they don’t have access to guns.

                The purpose of the second amendment was seen by the founding fathers as our God-given right to self-preservation and having an armed citizenry under the threat of a tyrannical government. Is it really that unlikely that our government goes rogue? Look at Germany in the 40’s after Hitler took control. He took away all the guns from the populous and then did whatever he wanted. If the military decided to attack an armed populous, it would be suicide. The current population of the United States is about 300,000,000, and the current military holds about 800,000 service members.

                Worthington Christian’s Head of School, Troy McIntosh, commented in an interview that “I do not think the 2nd amendment should be repealed. I believe it was put in the Bill of Rights as a means of securing all the other rights within it.” What he means by this that the amendments are God-given and absolute. These rights cannot be infringed upon and they are what make us free and independent people. A great example of this being the 1^st amendment. The constitution defends a citizen’s ability to say whatever he/she pleases. If this amendment could be infringed upon or policed, (a good example of this is Canada) then what is stopping that same government from removing the amendment outright or removing others? He goes on to explain that “An armed citizenry provides a necessary defense against a potentially tyrannical government. I believe scripture allows the use of force in cases in which loving our neighbor requires it.” Mr. Heath also remarked “that the strength of The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is in its ability to adapt and be modified in accordance with changing circumstances. In this case, it may be possible to achieve necessary changes in the United States without modifications to the Bill of Rights.” Where we may be able to add more stringent background checks for buying firearms and maybe a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun, the fact that these rights are inalienable given to us by God means that changing the amendment because the “times have changed” is irrelevant. In the past, the Washington Artillery of New Orleans was an artillery militia and was not regulated by the government. This means that cannons were permitted under the second amendment. They both later stated that stricter gun control should be enforced, but that is another discussion for another time.  

~Ben Stoll