Let's complicate the Second Amendment | New University | UC Irvine

Protestor Alex Pretti was killed by masked federal agents while recording the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Jan. 24. Although ICE had killed other people in the past, Pretti’s death was uniquely impactful for one reason: he had a gun.

In the wake of Pretti’s death, familiar debates regarding firearm ownership have sprung up again — but the parties are changing their stances. Many Democrats are defending Pretti’s gun possession, while Republicans suggest that Pretti’s weapon justifies his murder. The confusion and apparent hypocrisy stem from an oversimplification of the Second Amendment and its application in the modern day.

The exact wording of the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to “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.” At first glance, interpreting the clause seems simple; Americans are allowed to keep and use weapons or form well-regulated militias. But harder questions arise, too. Do the Arms have to be well-regulated, or just the Militia? What is included under the umbrella term “the security of a free State?”

The U.S. Supreme Court cases McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller established the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment, stating that neither the federal government nor the state governments have the right to greatly restrict firearm ownership. They specifically state that guns are protected because of their essential use in self-defense.

Under this interpretation, firearms have become the leading cause of death for children and teens. Between 2009 and 2018, the U.S. had 288 school shootings; Mexico, the country with the second-most school shootings, had only eight. Last year gun violence was the lowest it has been in five years, but a daily average of over 100 people were shot each day. While self-defense is often the justification for such high gun ownership and use, a refusal to consider nationwide regulations has caused as much harm as it has prevented.

Although politics are divided and tense, the country can unify behind the desire to minimize unnecessary American deaths. The current approach to gun control is entirely ineffective for meeting that common goal; it is time for a more complex approach to the Second Amendment.

The solution to America’s gun problem is not to repeal the Second Amendment, as some people would advocate for. Historical context for gun rights — and modern context like the death of Pretti — clarify why such an amendment may be necessary.

When the U.S. Constitution was first written, the country’s founders had just finished a devastating war against their oppressive government. Their experience convinced them to write the Bill of Rights: laws directly preventing the government from oppressing its citizens. When situated in this context — directly between the First and Third Amendments empowering rebellion against the government — the Second Amendment does not seem focused on individual self-defense. It seems like a way for Americans to enforce their resistance against a crooked government.

Unfortunately, military weaponry has advanced far past 18th century muskets. When writing the Second Amendment, James Madison could not possibly have envisioned a future in which the government wielded a hydrogen bomb. While this raises notable concerns about Americans’ actual ability to defend their rights, the solution is obviously not layman access to military-grade arms. To truly embrace the intention of the Second Amendment, the country needs to seriously pursue demilitarization — not for international conflicts, but for those on its own soil.

If federal agents can kill protestors who choose to exercise their gun rights — even as politicians lower firearm regulations in the name of protecting those same rights — the current interpretation of the Second Amendment has failed. It does not protect Americans from the government or from each other. If anything, the division over the Second Amendment further prevents the populus from uniting to defend their rights in the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. Something must change.

The debate over the Second Amendment is not as black-and-white as a choice between unregulated firearm ownership or a total ban on bearing arms. To properly validate the many complex rights of Americans, politicians and voters alike must overcome their biases and examine the issue with the nuance it demands.

Ruby Goodwin is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2026 quarter. She can be reached at *[email protected]*.

Edited by Casey Mendoza and Riley Schnittger