Presumably with the best intentions on the part of the rulers of the time, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was established on December 15, 1791, granting its citizens the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of themselves, their rights, and their property. 

​

However, at that time there were approximately 4 million people residing in the country, which means that the distribution of that number across such a vast territory as the United States meant living in small, distant towns. If we take into account the time elapsed until now, and the country's natural birth rate, the figure rose to 345 million, which means we have a huge number of people residing here who are entitled to own firearms, and that's where the problem lies. 

​

Not everyone is sensible. There are immature adolescents and adults with mental health problems, which, unfortunately, can affect these people's decision-making, because not all of them are sensible enough to understand when it's necessary to use weapons and when it's, at the very least, foolish.

​

Gun sales should be even stricter than they appear for potential buyers: thorough background checks, certificates of optimal mental health, and the applicant's age should be required to be of legal age. And precise legislation should be put in place regarding incidents involving the carrying of weapons, so that laws are written that are enforced with the utmost rigor, which would send a clear message to potential violators. I believe that only in this way can we unleash the Amendment without fear of evils of unsuspected magnitude. 

​

We've reached the point where many people are experiencing some fear when going out to restaurants, theaters, movie theaters, parks, and other activities, as serious events have occurred in these places, and you never know if they might be hit by a fateful event that leaves a mark of mourning on their families or community. 

​

On the other hand, we have the fact that not everyone has the resources to pay a bodyguard who can bail them out in an unforeseen situation, or to look after their family in any circumstance, such as taking their children to school or accompanying them to the cinema, the theater, a restaurant, or any other outing from home. Therefore, given the current situation, they would be forced to acquire a firearm, undergo training to learn how to use it, and, in the best of cases, carry it discreetly.  

​

For some reason, the idea that some candidates for public office at certain levels receive under-the-table donations has become common knowledge: from monopolies, corporations, giant companies and other entities linked to the manufacture, sale and distribution of firearms, which means - if this is true - that anyone with enough intention can get one of them on any corner at a reasonable price thanks to corruption, theft, and other related factors that intervene in some way in the acquisition and carrying of weapons. 

​

Most politicians, for their part, have no financial difficulty hiring a bodyguard. This is where the common denominator lies: people disguise their motives for participating in the scheme, choosing to accept certain donations and entering the scheme with seemingly clean hands. 

​

However, experts in the field are far from suspecting a connection as devoid of civility and integrity as this, considering that no person holding public office risks it for a few coins that, in the long run, can cost them much more than what is earned from such fraudulent operations.

​

It may or may not be true, but in any case, it would be embarrassing for those involved if these excesses were to openly flourish in the pursuit of such undesirable practices embedded in a society that seeks to establish and maintain itself as an example for the rest of the planet. 

​

Over the years, the famous Second Amendment has been the subject of numerous interpretations and debates, especially regarding whether it refers to an individual or collective right related to membership in a militia and other extensively specified details. Either way, the Amendment exists, and we should all respect it with the devotion of citizens who attach due importance to it.

​

It is the duty of adults to ensure that public institutions fully comply with the laws for which they were created, and the creation of the Second Amendment is no exception to this reasoning. Therefore, each of us must faithfully serve the concepts on which it is based and not allow violators to exist simply because they absurdly interpret the fact of living in a democracy.

​

We are an organized society that must zealously guard the values ​​that underpin freedom, and, above all, not allow anyone to feel entitled to trample on the benefits granted by the Constitution. We must be faithfully vigilant about our conduct, as well as the behavior of others around us: family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, classmates, and other individuals who could harm the good progress of the country.

​

By following these procedures, we won't need to hire bodyguards to enjoy leisure time in public places with our families, nor will we need to calm our nerves knowing that we're protected and safeguarded by others. The behavior we observe in our daily lives produces an echo identical to that which returns to us when we raise our voice in a cave. Be an example of civility and courtesy, and you'll enjoy the results when you return home safe and sound. So don't waste time experimenting with people who aren't at your cultural level or who don't enjoy your formula for happiness. 

​

For all the above reasons, don't you think it's time to say: "Enough with the violence and shootings!"