Have you bought a gun yet? According to the second amendment, all citizens have the right to bear arms: ".The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pro-gun ownership activists hold this section of the amendment as scripture. However, it is only the second half of the amendment, and is proceeded by the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State."

Given the fact that Britain has not posed a threat to our nation almost 200 years, and that the threat of foreign invasion in general is quite slim, does the second amendment really apply the way in which it was originally intended, especially since the muskets and firearms in the 18th-century were not as accessible, portable, or lethal as artillery used today?

Though Americans are divided over the extent to which a citizen should have the right to arm himself we can learn from the recent gun-related tragedies, such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the Washington sniper shootings in 2002, and last week's Virginia Polytechnic Institute shootings, what happens when individuals arm themselves. These violent attacks can point us in the right direction-towards sensible gun control policies.

In the book Private Guns: Public Health, David Hemenway underlines the fact that this country's gun ownership culture has become less about actually using firearms and simply more of an obsession with upholding a constitutional right. "The United States continues to have by far the largest number of privately owned firearms in the developed world, almost 300 million, about one for every man, woman, and child," despite the fact that it is very unlikely that Americans truly need so many more guns than other countries have. Gun ownership has become the goal rather than a means to security. With a rise in gun-related accidents and fatalities, the question arises: Are we buying guns in order to shield ourselves, or should we really be shielded from guns?

Of course, in our lawsuit-friendly culture, many are quick to blame the gun companies. Yet, the National Rifle Association mantra, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," applies here. In 2005, in response to a series of massive tort litigations against the gun industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to legally protect manufacturers from blame for third-party offset gunfire. Congress is right in suggesting the lawsuits will not solve the problem, because it isn't the fault of the manufacturer that the firearm is mishandled.

Instead, it is the person who acquires the gun, as well as the society that allows him to do so, that is responsible. There have been multiple court cases where accidental shootings occurred because the gun owner was inexperienced and "accidentally" fired the gun, consequently adding to the death toll. In these cases the gun was properly manufactured, but improperly handled by irresponsible individuals. What legislation needs to do is ensure that guns get into the hands of responsible and considerate individuals rather than attempt to blame those who manufacture the product. The Virginia Tech shooter would clearly not fall under this category.

Repealing a right from the Constitution would cause sensational outrage. In the years since September 11, 2001 our Constitutional rights have been bent in order to ensure safety and security, and if the Second Amendment were repealed, it should be viewed as a rational response to the fact that guns have provided more harm than good; but it would also open the door to that the repealing of other Constitutional Amendments. Then our nation and its founding principles would unravel like a finely stitched scarf in hurricane winds.

Instead, strict laws and enforcement need to be upheld to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Massachusetts enforces a system that registers gun bar codes, won't distribute a gun unless there is a valid reason for buying the gun-for example, to have in my dorm-room wouldn't be a sufficient reason-and forces the potential owner to undergo the proper training for responsible firearm use. If regulations like those in Massachusetts were passed in other states, they could dramatically decrease the number of civilian deaths from gun related violence.

Such conditions do not curtail individual freedoms under the second amendment, but instead lead to legitimate state oversight over who is allowed to harness such a potentially destructive force.

Although we are constitutionally allowed to own guns, the urgency and need for them isn't as apparent as during the times of our Founding Fathers. Conversely as guns have become more deadly, the need to keep them out of irresponsible hands has increased.

While we can't and shouldn't repeal a constitutional amendment- think of how prohibition failed-with strict regulation and the passing of new common sense protections, we can do our best for the public good.