This essay was written by Jakub Cajkář, a graduate student in Prof. Jana Sehnálková’s class, “Major Issues in Contemporary Public Debates” in the Department of North American Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Her class partnered with Dr. Mark Neuzil’s TommieMedia students to produce opinion pieces on issues of interest to Czech students. Dr. Neuzil edited.

In the Czech Republic, we have a strict law for the possession of arms. Only the holders of the firearms license may legally own guns. Our legislation determines the conditions for obtaining a firearms license. If we want to acquire the license for keeping arms, we must meet several requirements. We cannot have any criminal record, we must undergo a medical examination, and we must pass a test of qualification for holding a weapon. The law even states that we have to be responsible to gain the firearms license and defines this responsibility. This process ensures that all owners of guns are thoroughly selected and registered.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the right to bear arms is embedded in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and deeply rooted in society. Each day an average of 100 people die from gun violence in the United States. The estimated number of guns owned by civilians is 393 million. There are more guns than people in the United States. The more weapons, the bigger the risk of an intentional or unintentional shooting. Consequences of such shooting may be serious injury, death or everlasting trauma of survivors.

It is time to take action and limit the ownership of guns by stricter legislation.

No other constitutional amendment has recently gained so much attention and has been so controversial as the Second Amendment. It is more remarkable if we realize that the amendment consists of one single sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In my opinion, the interpretation in favor of an individual right to bear arms is incorrect.

Written documents reflect the times during which they were created. America’s founding documents were mostly written between 1787 and 1791. It should appear obvious that some sentiments from these times may now be outdated, such as the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of the soldiers in any house. This amendment was aimed against the British, who had forced people to take soldiers into their homes before American independence. In 2020, this is no longer a concern of U.S. citizens.

Any governing document older than 230 years needs updating in order for the system to function. Clinging to old documents is an obstacle to progress. No document should be inviolable, no matter its importance. Based on the Founding Fathers´ vision, the Senators should be elected by the legislature. This vision has altered during history, and since 1913, people have elected Senators directly.

The Second Amendment allows states to organize militias. The right to bear arms allowed the people to be ready for a possible British intervention after the Revolution. The Second Amendment served for the protection of the newly emerged Union against foreign powers. If such a threat existed today, the military would defend the citizens against foreign intervention. Law enforcement protects Americans from domestic intervention. I reckon the state Militia is not necessary since the U.S. military is so numerous and powerful.

If the Second Amendment means the right to bear arms for individuals, likely it serves for people to overthrow the government. However, if today’s government becomes too oppressive, it can be toppled by peaceful protests or elections where guns are not needed.

Stricter gun laws would not limit ownership for people who use their guns for hunting or sport shooting. The law could moderate conditions for acquiring the firearms license for people who want to use guns for these activities. Such people would prove their intentions with guns by certain documents which would validate the reasons for keeping arms. Limiting gun ownership means that the number of guns would decrease and reduce the risk of mass shootings, suicides and intentional or unintentional shootings.

Anti-regulation supporters are right when they say that today’s regulation is ineffective. However, the regulation can be enhanced. If we strengthened the regulation and pushed through stricter gun laws similar to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the regulation would become efficient. It is also necessary to unify the states’ laws of carrying weapons. This unification will be best ensured by a federal law that would establish a standard for the whole United States.

Amending the Constitution is almost impossible. But stricter gun laws are not impossible. If you want them, write to your Congressperson.