Dateline: September 15,  2025

The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has reignited America’s endless gun debate. Predictably, leaders across the political spectrum have called for more laws, tighter restrictions, and urgent passage of “commonsense gun reform.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) urged Congress to move swiftly, arguing that the scourge of violence must end.

Her words are not wrong. Yet the reality is this: more laws stacked on top of the broken framework we already have will not solve the crisis. The United States has tried half-measures for decades, from background checks to magazine limits, only to watch gun deaths rise. At some point, we have to admit the truth: the Second Amendment itself is the problem, and until it is repealed and replaced, Americans will keep dying.

The Original Purpose Has Been Abandoned

The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century, in a nation without standing armies, police departments, or AR-15s. Its purpose was not to guarantee every citizen an unchecked arsenal, but to ensure state militias could defend against tyranny. In 2025, we are told that this amendment still ensures “freedom,” yet not one gun owner has used their weapons to toss out a tyrant when Donald Trump returned to the White House. Instead, firearms fuel mass shootings, assassinations, and suicides.

In practice, the “well-regulated militia” has collapsed into vigilantes, paramilitary gangs, and politicians who wink at civil war rhetoric. As historian Saul Cornell (2006) argues, the modern reading of the Second Amendment is more invention than tradition—a distortion built by the gun lobby and activist courts, not the Founders’ intent.

Laws Won’t Save Us

America already has more than 20,000 gun laws on the books (Luo, 2013). Each new massacre produces another call for another law. Yet loopholes, poor enforcement, and the sheer number of weapons in circulation render these efforts symbolic. The United States has an estimated 400 million privately owned firearms—more than the civilian population (Small Arms Survey, 2018). No patchwork of reforms can control a crisis this large.

Red flag laws can help in isolated cases. Background checks can close loopholes. Age restrictions can slow down reckless access. But none of these alter the fundamental truth: a society awash in guns is a society doomed to repeat the same cycle of violence.

Repeal and Replace

The only honest solution is repeal. Ending the Second Amendment is not political heresy—it is constitutional housekeeping. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, including repealing Prohibition. The notion that the Second Amendment is untouchable is a myth cultivated by the NRA and its allies.

What should replace it? A new amendment that recognizes the right of Americans to personal safety and the government’s duty to regulate firearms as lethal tools. This amendment should make clear that while hunting and sporting arms may remain, weapons of war and high-capacity killing machines are not civilian entitlements.

Such a change would not happen overnight. It would require mass political will, decades of organizing, and a cultural shift away from worshipping the gun as a symbol of freedom. But if America is serious about preventing assassinations like Kirk’s—and the countless everyday shootings that never make headlines—this is the only path left.

A Suicide Pact No More

Justice Robert Jackson once wrote that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” Yet that is exactly how the Second Amendment functions today: a clause twisted into an excuse for endless carnage. The Founders never envisioned a society where schoolchildren, college speakers, and public officials would be gunned down as routine.

The question is not whether America can tinker with the edges of gun reform. It is whether America has the courage to admit that the Second Amendment has failed—and to write something better in its place.

—

References

Cornell, S. (2006). A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Oxford University Press.

Luo, M. (2013, January 12). In gun debate, divide on evidence. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us/in-gun-debate-a-different-understanding-of-evidence.html

Small Arms Survey. (2018). Estimating global civilian-held firearms numbers. Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.