Since it was adopted as the supreme law establishing its legal foundation on March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States has been amended 27 times.
As Gutting points out in his essay, "Who needs a gun?" the strongly contested arguments about the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which was accepted by the US as law in 1791, have failed to reduce widespread gun ownership and the related violence.
As we saw when it came up in our first class a couple of weeks ago, the 2nd Amendment is one, relatively short sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
What do you think? Rather than simply arguing about interpretations, should the political action that Gutting also supports (lines 65 - 67) include again amending the US Constitution to change the existing Second Amendment as above?
Amendments have been amended before, most famously the 18th Amendment of 1919, which criminalized making and selling alcohol in the US from 1920, and which was subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendment of 1933.
If you think that the current version of the 2nd Amendment should not be changed, why not?
If you think it should be changed, how should it be amended? What would your proposed new amendment say? Why?
______________________________
I suggest you give yourself a chance to think about your response before commenting, perhaps 24 hours. A good comment will: 1) state your main idea in one or two sentences, and then 2) briefly explain your reasons for that main idea. Short is good, but you probably do need a paragraph of a few sentences here. E. M. Forster would say that putting things in writing can be a useful for way for us to work out what we think about complex issues.
And you are welcome to reply to your classmates' comments on this. There is no need for us to agree — Americans can't agree on it.