The United States Constitution serves as a medium to secure and accommodate the people of the nation. The Second Amendment expresses, “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.” The Second Amendment was created with a specific end goal to ensure the lives, freedoms and quest for happiness for each and every American citizen. However within recent decades there has been a plea for significant firearm control and a necessity for altering the Second Amendment in view of the truth that these laws are imperative for the insurance of society. The basic individual of the 21st century does not need guns in order to ensure their basic rights. These rights are under the insurance and wellbeing of the elected state and federal governments, in this way the part of the American citizen is never again intended to utilize brutal power to maintain their rights yet rather use majority rule government and libertarianism. By and large, the founding fathers, for example, Thomas Jefferson or George Washington never envisioned for the weapons of the eighteenth century to develop and heighten to the degree they are today. The absence of weapon laws are the purpose behind much barbaric wrongdoing in America and ought to be changed with the goal that the lives of American citizens are never again in harm’s way. The Second Amendment must be amended similarly to the way the Australian federal government has created stricter gun control laws nationally in order to prevent unlawful shootings and deaths through harder attainability of guns, particularly large gun magazines. this manner an individual owning an unlawful firearm will along these lines wind up with a firm punishing sentence even as a first-time guilty party. Therefore, the best way for American subjects to secure common, social and monetary freedoms is to be politically unique in ways that support vote based organizations, traditions, and central human rights, rather than relying upon guns to guarantee these basic esteems. America is the promise land for those seeking solace, opportunity and success, however, these three attributes of the “American lifestyle” are threatened by the lack of federal legislation that controls the sale and usage of firearm weaponry. The citizens of America have established trust within the federal government to protect their inalienable rights and therefore the federal government must take the initiative to grant each American a chance at the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, this promise made in the constitution to the American people has not been upheld. How are Americans supposed to live fruitfully in pursuance of happiness when they fear the threat of firearms in public spaces? How are Americans supposed to have feelings of assurance when around their fellow countrymen if their representative officials cannot carry out the cry and will of the masses? According to the Center for Disease Control, in 2016 there were more than 38,000 gun related deaths; this is 4,000 more than the year prior. This goes to show that the number of gun related deaths, whether it is by homicide, suicide or mass shootings, the amount of deaths caused by guns is increasing annually resulting in in the loss of American lives taken too soon. The overall issue for America in its entirety is the lack of security within both the public and private sectors of life. Despite the common misunderstanding that guns are accessible in order to protect American lives from a potential threat from a more powerful outside entity, Americans have become one of their own greatest threats. The loose interpretation of the Second Amendment carried out in 21 of the 50 states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Missouri maintain legislation such as the “Shoot First laws, which gained national attention after the death of Trayvon Martin because they can prevent law enforcement from prosecuting shooters in public places; the Firearms Freedom Act laws, which declares that federal gun laws do not apply to firearms manufactured and sold within a state’s borders; and laws that prevent doctors from informing their patients about the health risks associated with firearm ownership (Gun Laws Matter).” It is not uncanny that these same same states have faced issues with large amount of deaths in relationship to lawful yet unjustified gun use. These same states also have a “constitutional carry” policy; a gun out in the open or concealed without holding a permit by any individual who can legitimately carry that gun, thus posing a threat to surrounding citizens if the weapon is used purposefully or not. Ultimately the legal accessibility of firearms in the US are causing an extraordinary amount of killings and mass homicides.. In refutation of another common belief in the United States that justify lenient gun control, guns are rarely used in self-defense. Furthermore, numerous Americans assume that they are equipped for honing the responsibility of a gun. However in agreement to research examined at Kutztown University, “The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation” (Voccola). In this way firearms are not defenders of peace in American culture but instead aggressors of viciousness and barbarity. Researchers of firearm violence for the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that “of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior” (Planty, Bureau of Justice Statistics). Therefore on account of this data, guns are not truly used as a source of justifiable homicide, since most forms of protection stemmed from elsewhere. United States federal law, for centuries, has taken a national position that is a loose interpretation of the Constitution to grant Americans the best opportunity to a life of peace and freewill. However the founding fathers did not create the 2nd Amendment as a supporting reason for citizens to carry guns around as protection or even as a threat to and from the general public. Craig R. Whitney former editor of the New York Times stated, “If you could ask Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton or John Hancock after the adoption of the Bill of Rights whether they had an individual right to carry arms and use them for self-defense, or to hunt . . . they would have laughed at you,” he continues to write, “Of course they had that right, they would have said. The Second Amendment didn’t give it to them; it simply recognized a right Americans had always had in common law and protected it” (Living With Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment). Whitney asserts that the root problem behind the lack of gun control and mass amounts of deaths by guns are from a weak federal stance on arms limitations, therefore the founding fathers did not completely believe that firearms should have been used to protect what is stated in the United States but rather it is the place of the government and the people to work together. Not only is there an American issue stemming from the constitution but there is a problem with the lack of consistency between states and their gun control laws. There is an absence of connection and unity between states and the federal government about gun control as well; national legislation only prohibits “Access to firearms … for persons with convictions for violent, firearm-related, and other serious misdemeanors, such as hate crimes in 25 states and the District of Columbia. Access to firearms is restricted for people who are dangerous because of mental illness, including people reported as dangerous to themselves or others in California, Illinois, New York, Washington and people who have been involuntarily hospitalized in the states of California, Connecticut, Illinois” (Giffords Law Center). The impact of shootings, on account of vague legislation, cause a major cascade effect of social and economic downfall. Additionally, the financial impacts of weapon viciousness all through the United States has taken an incredible toll upon the American economy. Because of America’s industrialist economic framework connection to the Second Amendment, the US government has not prohibited the sale and maintenance of gun weaponry. In spite of the fact that the assembling and exchange of firearms creates benefit for American industries, the harms made by these weapons are inequitable for tax paying citizens. In numerous areas across the United States, individuals live in dread of getting shot because of the absence of laws applying to the suitable use of guns. In these towns and cities the dread of getting shot is very discerning because of past encounters, for example, the mass shooting in an Arizona movie theatre or on the Virginia Tech campus. Therefore, “the economic impact extends well beyond emergency treatment and continues with chronic dysfunction, rehabilitation, and long-term disability. Medical expense outlays increase for everyone, covered largely by government and ultimately affecting taxpayers. These costs inflate the price of medical, disability, and life insurance; escalating premiums are paid by companies, governments, and private individuals” (Goss 27). Overall, the economic expenditures of American citizens are significantly greater in times of mass shootings and large scale gun violence rather than during an era of strong gun control. Gun control can be defined as, a collection of ordinances or policies that regulate the production, sale, possession, utilization or modifications of firearms by citizens.The United States must utilize Congress to its fullest degree for the purpose of creating legislation that will guarantee to protect the people’s life, liberty and rights. The men and women of Congress should look to the Australian government as a prime example of using legislation to defend both the life and liberties of citizens. In 1996, Port Arthur, Australia faced the worst mass shooting in the country’s history where 35 people were killed and 23 people were wounded. Days after the shooting, Australia’s prime minister and deputy prime minister were hard at work to successfully create a bill that would implement a ban on automatic and semiautomatic firearms nationally (Glover, The Washington Post). Despite some setback by members of Australian Parliament who supported easy access to guns, the Prime Minister, John Howard, appeased both sides of the gun control argument by getting the “National Firearms Agreement” passed and put into action. The new legislation consented to set up a gun buyback program for guns that were once legitimate now made illicit, that as per the Council on Foreign Relations purchased more than 650,000 firearms. The National Firearms Agreement, which costed $230 million, was paid for by an expansion in the nation’s taxes. The law made a national gun registry, created a wait period for the sale of guns, and fixed gun permitting rules.This law requires an individual wishing to own a firearm must be no less than 18 years old, have a bona fide reason while also having secure capacity for their guns (Kirsten 16). Likewise, in wake of events such as the Las Vegas massacre, the United States Congress should work to pass their very own “National Firearms Agreement.” Although the United States has a much larger population in comparison to that of Australia’s and American citizens own 48% of the world’s 650 million guns existing, the Australian legislation could be enforced across state borders (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 3). Jonathan Masters, from the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that “After another high-profile shooting in Melbourne in 2002, Australia’s handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts say these measures have been highly effective, citing declining gun-death rates, and the fact that there have been no gun-related mass killings in Australia since 1996. Many also suggest the policy response in the wake of Port Arthur could serve as a model for the United States” (Public Broadcasting Service 1). The United States’ government does not differ that greatly from Australia’s, thus legislation can be formed and passed to prevent more immoral, illogical and practically unlawful usage of gun weaponry. By imposing these rules, not only would guns be harder to attain legally and be placed in the wrong hands but guns would be even more difficult to access illegally as the production of automatic and semiautomatic weapons would be regulated by the government. In addition, the Australian Parliament deliberately included particular limitations within their agreement, such as age and appropriate cause, in order to trust guns in the hands of those who are truly responsible. The Australian government implemented the National Firearms Agreement in a manner that is possible for the United states, being that America will restrict:the importation of: all semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns, and all parts including magazines for such firearms, including magazines with a capacity greater than thirty for long arms and magazines with a capacity greater than twenty for handguns, all handguns for sporting shooting purposes other than those which meet the prescribed characteristics including barrel length, magazine capacity and calibrein paragraph handgun parts for sport shooting purposes (for example slides, barrels, receivers and frames) which could be used to assemble a prohibited handgun or convert a permitted handgun into a prohibited handgun. Jurisdictions will ban the sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture and use of those semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns other than in the following exceptional circumstances: military use police or other government purposes, occupational categories of licence holders who have been licensed for a specified purpose, including the extermination of animals, film and theatrical armourers, firearm dealers, firearm manufacturers, additional occupational needs and other limited purposes as authorised by legislation or Ministerial discretion” (The Council of Australian Governments 4, 7, 12). These laws enforced in both American and Australian societies would ultimately create a public that is safe from harm’s way. While many may believe that stripping the people of their guns would unconstitutional and detrimental to human rights, the removal of powerful guns would actually save hundreds of American lives. Human rights guaranteed by the constitution are ensured through the democratic federalist system valued in the United States (Jacobs 49). Whether the Second Amendment is amended to become more succinct or a completely new law is formed to tighten the rules on gun use, enforcing strict gun control would not allow the general population to be in a dangerous gun-related situation while also relieving the people of the United States from stress and worry.The United States of America was destined to face issues involving gun use, since a broad perception of the Second Amendment was the overwhelmingly unjustified idea present in more than half of the fifty states. However, thankfully to the nation of Australia, the United States has a model law to follow after in which the rights and liberties of American citizens would be just as protected as their lives. The success rate of the Australian legislation, the National Firearm Agreement, is 100% as there have not been any mass shootings taking place in the entire country since 1996, also known as the year in which the NFA was passed into action. It is incorrect to believe that the United States has too many people to possibly regulate the production, distribution and reclamation of firearm weapons however Australia effectively carried out on all three parts of their law. In order to have success is imperative that the United States government begins by not just creating a ‘US-Federal Firearms Agreement’ but to also reclaim all automatic or semiautomatic weapons, while administering the execution of each limitation. It is long overdue since the American people have been crying for protection from their state and federal governments. It is long overdue since the United States government has looked outward in order to fix the problems inward. It is long overdue since United States legislation has been updated and altered in order to keep up with modern social and technological advancements. It is time that that the United States governments truly looks after its own people, similarly to that of the Australian government, and amends the Second Amendment. Therefore, the United States will righteously defend democracy, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and ultimately the honor of secured life.