The controversy surrounding the right to bear arms or the freedom the bear guns dates back to the 1840s in the United States of America (Halbrook, 125). Americans started the practice of owning guns back when the colonialists set foot on the American soil. The right to bear guns by individuals has been labeled the most controversial issue in the political arena of the United States of America for quite a number of decades today. Studies in the year 2004 on this topic established that more than sixty percent understood the owning of a gun within the home as a constitutional right. Only about forty percent were in favor of stricter gun possession laws. Those in favor of the gun ownership right refer to the second amendment to the federal constitution of the United States of America. The right to possess fire arms should be granted to the citizens of the united states of America for a number of reasons, chief among them: self defense, effective community policing, responsibility among citizens, psychological factors of crime prevention, betterment of security and most prominently, because bit is implied in the American constitution.
Body
Self defense is a human right that is attributed to the principles of natural justice. In the 2008 landmark case of District of Columbia v Heller, it was held that possessing guns within the home for purposes of self defense was not wrong at law. The supreme court of the united states of America explained that pursuant to the provisions of the second amendment to the constitution of the united states of America, Heller like any other citizen under the protection of the supreme constitution of the united states of America had the right to keep guns at home for their self defense. Self defense is a prominent legal defense in criminal proceedings. Self defense is one of the legally acceptable reasons for murder as long as the accused can prove beyond reasonable doubt that their life was in danger and that there was no other thing a reasonable man could have resorted to (Halbrook, 112).
Studies on the field of security have established that community policing is one of the most innovative and efficient ways of curbing crime at the grassroots. This is a concept that involves the social alliances between the police and other security agencies in reducing crime within the residential areas both urban and suburban. For effective community policing, the administration should grant and protect the right of gun possession among its citizens. Where the citizens have access to the arms, they can effectively contain criminals and neutralize criminal activities (Malcolm, 26). This is especially so where the criminals involved are heavily armed criminals. It is a simple impossibility for a citizen to conduct self defense against an armed robber.
Another prominent reason why more than sixty percent of the citizens are in favor of the ownership of guns in the United States of America is the presumption that such rights will cultivate a culture of responsibility among them. The argument behind this is that, with such rights in place, the citizens will be reluctant to resort to physical conflict resolution methods (Spitzer, 102). More amicable methods of conflict resolution are likely to replace the violent nature of the average citizen. This kind of responsible nature will bring about peaceful co-existence among the American populace. Peaceful co-existence is the foundation of prosperity among the citizens as it provides a favorable environment for businesses and economically viable investments.
Gun rights are associated with psychological factors of crime prevention. Crime prevention is one role of the most important roles of the police. In their efforts to prevent criminal activities, the police work hand in hand with the civilians. As such civilians can be said to be among the major players in the security of the country (Malcolm, 46). Sometimes though, the collaborations between the police and the civil society are not efficiently workable. As such experts in the field of security recommend that for effective crime prevention, both parties should act independently. The police are capable of working independently since they have the machinery and apparatus necessary. The citizens on the other hand do not have the capacity to prevent crime considering the number of armed gangs in America. Enabling the citizen to access guns will to a great extent play a big role in the prevention of crime.
Security levels within society depend on the extent to which the individual residents are secure. Incidences of insecurity are on the rise in almost all states of America. This could be due to inefficient law enforcement, ignorance among the populace or other social imbalances yet to be discovered (Spitzer, 56). Whichever the case, in an insecure society, the individual must and should start by enhancing his own security as well as that of their immediate families. This way the long term effect is that incidences of insecurity will drop drastically within the society. Experts argue that in a society where everyone is actively enhancing the security of their property, family and neighborhood, crime is less likely compared to a society where the society leaves all their security needs to state agencies and departments that are governed by inefficient and un-called for bureaucracies. The government should therefore enforce and protect the right to bear arms.
The most prominent reason cited by political leaders and human right activists who advocate for the right to bear arms across America for the past few decades is that this right is implied in the American constitution since the enactment of the second amendment (Spitzer, 15). Such political leaders have argued that the government of the United States of America is failing in its duty to protect the constitution. The constitution of the United States has proclaimed itself as being the supreme law of the land. It further explains that any law that is inconsistent to it shall be null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. It is noteworthy then that all laws against bearing of arms are null and void. This is the argument that leaders and activists go by.
Conclusion
In conclusion therefore, it is from the foregoing worth arguing that the bright to own guns is a constitutional right that should not be violated by anyone and for any reason. In America, nobody is above the law. As such, all people should observe the provisions of the constitution social class notwithstanding. From the above discussion, it is rather apparent that the ownership rights are bound to enhance self defense, effective community policing, and responsibility among citizens, psychological factors of crime prevention and betterment of security. It is therefore recommended that all the states of America observe the provisions of the second amendment and act accordingly.
Work cited
Halbrook, S. A Right to Bear Arm: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Westport. Greenwood Press. 1989. Print
Malcolm, J. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo America Rights. New York. Harvard University Press 1994. Print
Spitzer, R. The Right to Bear Arms: Rights and Liberties under the Law. New York. John Wiley and Sons. 2001. Print
