No More Limitations on Gun Control
Freedom is manifest in the land of the United States of America. Freedom is also evident to have been sturdily built of the very foundation of America’s history. The necessary rights of the people to fully enjoy the fruits of democracy have been inculcated in the fundamental law of the land. The freedom that is enjoyed by the generation of today includes, freedom to choose, to speak, to worship, and almost anything else beyond the limitation of the law. America’s law is also designed in a way that the fundamental freedom are protected and preserved. Notably, due to the freedom enjoyed by the citizens, more people from other nations attempt entrance with risks. On the other hand, some people try to destroy the freedom that has been constitutionally bestowed upon citizens by penetrating the country with terror and intimidation. But then, the protection of these liberties is more than enough motivation to wage a defensive war. Further, the citizens have been armored with right to defend themselves from unwanted attacks that may endanger their life and property because there is no more limitations on gun control.
For almost 70 years of existence of the Second Amendment in the Constitution, the nation had not been bothered by the real purpose of it. Meanwhile Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states; “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” (U.S. Constitution, The Second Amendment). From the provisions, two rights have been drawn by two groups of people in the society. According to the gun control oppositionists, 2nd Amendment granted rights to individuals to keep and bear arms and retraining the people from exercising such right is a violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, the gun control proponents believe that the founding fathers founded the provision for the purpose of establishing militia men and hence, the right to bear arms is only afforded to members of militia (U.S. Constitution, The Second Amendment). In addition, the provision was included in order to prevent the tyranny that may be potentially created by the standing army (Crooker 59). The debate, however, on the provision was settled in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, declaring the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right (Cornell University Law School, District of Columbia v. Heller).
Among the proponents of gun control, they perceive that granting the citizen right to bear and keep arms would mean an increase in crime rate that would imperil peace and order enjoyed by the society. While gun may be considered as a thing, it is also powerful that can kill lives in a single pulling of trigger. The perception is grounded on the belief or analogy that guns are always involved in most crimes in the society and that gun kills people (Barash and Webel 264). In addition, the unwanted killings in schools alarmed the harmful effect of making guns available to the citizens. Furthermore, the proponents of gun control also believe that granting individual right to arms would create an aggressive society and further intensify violence. This is because a presence or sight of gun may trigger hostile action (Malcolm 1).
Gun, on the other hand, is perceived as a necessary factor of defense. Gun has been used in the early history of man in many ways which includes, hunting, sporting events, and others. In the history, men lived before from the meat of animals they hunt. Guns were necessary then for search of food. Without gun, people then could have resorted to other harmful means such as poisoning. The right of owning guns was also recognized because of the necessity to in protecting their properties from robbers or burglars. Notably, many sectors of the society rejoiced after the Supreme Court settled that right to bear arms is an individual right. Significantly, the right to own gun was recognized under natural law because of its necessity in defending oneself from harmful attacks (Cornell University Law School, District of Columbia v. Heller). Hence, the importance of gun is encompassing as it is used to ensure security and protection.
As to some groups in the society, they raise that gun control is necessary in preventing violence. However, the essence of the 2nd amendment would be defeated if guns will be controlled. By controlling gun, the people would be disabled of a means to protect their lives and their property. In addition, the use of guns also helps in decreasing crime rates because criminals would tend to hesitate on targeting people how possess guns (Barash and Webel, 264). It is also wrong to state that guns are the factors that caused crimes because guns do not kill, instead it is the people or the user who kills (Barash and Webel, 264). It is quite disappointing that gun control is being used as an attempt to divert the attention from the root cause of the problem, which is evident on the psychological state of the gun carrier. Besides, criminals can resort to other deadly weapon such as knife in the commission of a crime. More importantly, as gun use proponents states, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws can have guns” (Barash and Webel, 263). Consequently, the good citizens would not have an effective means of defending their lives and property causing further security dilemma (Barash and Webel, 263). Furthermore, there is no data to rely upon that controlling gun has greatly decreased the commission of crime. Hence, gun control is not the solution but instead a contributing factor to crimes and definitely not a plausible idea in a democratic country like America.
In the perception of the international Community, America is a strong and secured country. It is undeniable that each borders and the defense force of the country is fully equipped and secured by the high-tech gadgets and fully trained military men. But the horrible 9/11 tragedy changed such perception. It also changed America’s perception of security. On that particular event, thousands of people died helpless and some citizens have fought against the terrorist before the terror plan could have been perfected. The event merely proves that the nation is not only threatened by internal factors but also by external attacks. Furthermore, without firearms to help protect the people, families and homes would be vulnerable to attack.
In the society, crime is unavoidable. Among the population, there exist individuals who go beyond the law for various reasons. Some people on the other hand, attribute crime commission to guns. However, such analysis cannot be accepted. A gun, when left alone, is not harmful. But when it is touched, it can create unexpected things depending on the person holding the gun. The assertion that guns are the causes of violence is absurd. Among criminal researches, availability of gun to the public does not necessarily create increase in crime. Instead, it can both have positive effect in increasing violence and can also be a factor in decreasing violence (Kates). In addition, not all crimes recorded involved guns. Significantly, murders and other crimes involving the loss of life have been caused not by law abiding people but by the “extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology, and substance abuse” (Kates). Notably, the direct relationship between gun restriction and crime decrement was not established or proven in nation that strictly restricts possession of gun like in Japan (Kopel). Hence, violence is not dependent on the availability of gun but on the person holding the gun.
Refer to an authority
Primarily, the decision finalizing the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right has been hailed by various sectors of the society including the National Rifle Association (NRA) (Cornell University Law School, District of Columbia v. Heller). The NRA has always been behind the campaign that the citizens have right to posses guns for their own protection and disarming the people is definitely defeats the essence of the provision. It has also been lobbying in Congress for the prevention of gun restriction laws. Sen. Sarah Palin, a member of NRA, for example, has been a strong proponent of the right to own gun for self- defense, for hunting, and for other purposes (On the Issues, Sarah Palin on Gun Control). She also applauded the recent decision of the Supreme Court upholding the individual right of the citizens to own guns as she stated; “I applaud the Court for standing up for the Constitution and the right of Americans to keep and bear arms” (On the Issues, Sarah Palin on Gun Control). The group has been adamant in stressing that 2nd amendment created right of the people to bear arms and should be interpreted as such. Recently, their battle has ended because the court has finally closed the debate.
As for me, I perceived that the citizens should not be restricted from owning guns. When in my younger age, my grandfather taught me how to use gun. But first, he instilled in me the purpose of the gun and the responsibilities in handling it. In my own perspective, gun is not a dangerous thing per se. The danger may only come when the person possessing it decided to use it for bad purposes.
In case gun control is increased, there would definitely curtailment of freedom as embodied in the Constitution. In addition, more innocent and law abiding people would be incapable of defending themselves because they are unarmed. With the 9/11 attack, fear is becoming more real. At present, the need for protection should be more appreciated. Violence can some from anywhere and comes unexpectedly. In order to prepare and defend the citizens from further attack, they should be given the right to own guns. If restriction is heightened, the people would be more vulnerable to attack and another terror event in not far from being repeated.
Instead of restricting gun possession, the government should concentrate on educating the people of the responsibilities attached to the use of guns. Since the debate has been ended, the government then should invalidate all laws restricting gun ownership. Instead, laws regulating guns should be passed. It would also be necessary to instil the proper use and storage of guns in schools. Notably, during the era of gun control, may unauthorized citizens are able to own guns. Despite the consistency and decisiveness of the federal and state government to control guns, there were still lapses as crimes involving guns continued to exist. This appeared when the nation was not saved from attacks of terror on the unforgettable 9/11 attack. Another is when the killings in schools that caused lives and terrified students and parents. The gun control laws were not enough to prevent these tragedies and have potentially hindered the citizens from defending themselves from the attacks.
Hence, the government should regulate the use by registering and licensing all the guns. A background checking can also be done to individuals who plan to buy and own guns. Further, carrying of guns can be restricted in some sensitive public places, like schools, hospitals and others where trained security guards have been assigned to secure the place and the people. This way, there would certainly a balance of freedom and responsibility in using and possessing a gun.
By not limiting gun use, more jobs will be created and a peaceful society is assured. Aside from having a legal manufacturer of guns, people would avoid buying from those operating illegally. This way, illegal weapons illegally obtained would be eliminated and at the same time gun smugglers would be weakened. In addition, more jobs will be created like in the gun manufacturing, gun use trainings and seminars, and opening of gun training centers, among others. On the part of the government, revenue can be increased through the tax paid by companies engaged in guns and also help lessen the unemployment rate in the country.
Freedom is indeed a powerful word. As has been said, freedom is established in the foundation of the nation. It is also freedom that led America today. Underlying this, the freedom to own gun has been upheld. On one hand, gun control has been criticized on the ground that it defeats the right of the people to self-defense. While on the other hand, the freedom to own guns would merely intensify violence in the country. However, from the researches and from the analysis of the court of the provision, it has been finalized that people are free to own and use guns. But, underlying the freedom is a responsibility to use the gun for valid and legal purposes only.
Barash, David, P., and Webel, Charles, P. Peace and Conflict Studies. New York: SAGE, 2008.
Crooker, Constance Emerson. Gun Control and Gun Rights. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003.
“District of Columbia v. Heller.” 2008. Cornell University Law School. 3 December 2008 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html>.
Kates, Don, B. “Do Guns Cause Crime?” 7 November 2008. George Mason University’s History News Network. 3 December 2008 <http://hnn.us/articles/871.html>.
Kopel, David, B. “Canadian Gun Control: Should the United States Look North for a Solution to its Firearms Problem.” 2008. GunCite. 3 December 2008 <http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html>.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. Guns and Violence: The English Experience. Harvard University Press, 2002.
“Sarah Palin on Gun Control.” 2008. On the Issues. 3 December 2008 <http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Gun_Control.htm>.
“The Second Amendment.” 2008. U.S. Constitution Online. 3 December 2008 < http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html>.