The Supreme Court has expanded constitutional protections for gun ownership over time. The Second Amendment was adopted in part to ensure citizens could organize “a well regulated Militia” to protect against the threat of a tyrannical government.
Following the court’s earliest Second Amendment cases, it left states with broad authority to regulate firearms for more than a century. That changed within the past two decades, when the court recognized an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense and made that right enforceable against state and local governments.
Several participants questioned whether the amendment’s original purpose of protecting against a tyrannical government is still realistic in an era of drones, artificial intelligence and advanced military technology.
Bridging Blocks moderator Brisa Luzzi Castro asked participants what it means to be a responsible gun owner and how they would describe America’s relationship with guns. Attendees tried to find a middle ground between “the joys of firearms” and “the sadness and cruelty of violence.”
“I love guns, but I conflict with them. I hate them,” said Tony Micciolo, of Malvern, while explaining what brought him out to the conversation. He said hearing conflicting opinions Tuesday night was uncomfortable but refreshing.
Kenneth Berlin, of South Jersey, a member of gun violence prevention organization Moms Demand Action, said New Jersey “is doing the right thing by restricting guns in public places.” Berlin said he believed the conversation succeeded because it exposed participants to multiple perspectives.
Michael Novak, from Society Hill, said the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, ignited his gun rights advocacy. Novak said he believed the event was a great way to promote constructive dialogue.
“In order to have an honest and fruitful conversation, you can’t just present one biased side,” he said.