The second amendment to the constitution of United States gives protection to people’s right to own arms. Together with the bill of rights, the second amendment was implemented in 1791. The court in the District of Columbia versus Heller case made a ruling that stated that an individual’s rights to own firearms are protected by the second amendment. The ruling also adds that one can own a firearm if one does not have any connection with a militia group and should only use the firearm for purposes that are traditionally legal for instance, for self-protection within one’s residence. The court also specifies limitations and prohibitions on ownership arms that seemed consistent with the amendment (ii). The early settlers of America found principal purpose in adopting the right to own arms because of the purposes mentioned below (Barnett 76).
The firearms would help to prevent invasion since the citizens would have means of protecting themselves. The early settlers thought that by allowing ownership of arms, they would facilitate the ordinary right of personal defense, and it would induce participation of citizens in enforcement of law. This would enable citizens arrange a system of militia. It would also help in discouraging governance that is undemocratic and suppress civil disobedience. The 1689 English bill of rights had enormous influence on the second amendment. The English bill of rights resolved the issue whether leaders had the right to disarm the citizens after James (ii) attempted to take away firearms from a lot of protestants arguing that he wished to create a permanent army. The English bill of rights stated that it was aimed at maintaining ancient rights that had been distorted by James (ii) and was to create a new right to ownership of arms for the sake of self-defense (Doherty 23).
The Supreme Court failed to agree with this view in the District of Columbia versus Heller. This is because during the period of enforcement of the English bill of rights, the right did not have anything concerning service of militia, but it was evidently a personal right. The English bill of rights was a way of stopping the rulers from disarming citizens and was not concerned with giving people the right to own firearms. The United States Supreme Court acknowledges the historical connection between the second amendment and the English bill of rights, which recognize the existence of a right but do not create a new right.
Historically, the second amendment was inspired by the pre-revolutionary period, where a colonial militia included colonialists loyal to the imperial rule of Britain. A rebellion towards the British rule was created as a form of distraction to loyalists and they were in favor of acquiring independence from British rulers. The patriots formed a colonial legislature that was independent, created a militia of their own, and stocked it with firearms. The British colonialist banned ownership of arms on American colonies leading to the declaration of rights militia law of a right to self-defense. Second Amendment provided assurances that militias could not be disarmed (Wills 83).
Cases in the supreme court that were concerned with the second amendment include united states versus miller that was presented in 1939, the 1897 case of Robertson versus Baldwin, the 2008 case of Columbia versus Heller, and the McDonald versus Chicago case of 2010. In McDonald and Heller cases, the Supreme Court was in favor of the model of individual rights. In such a situation, the second amendment offers protection to the individual the right to own and bear a firearm just in the same degree as rights to free speech are protected by the first amendment. The militia includes members who have a supply of ammunitions and firearms. Militias in United States have used this method to acquire firearms historically. In the United States versus Cruikshank case, the white men are charged with conspiring to stop black men from practicing their right to ownership of arms. The court dismissed the case, maintaining that the bill of rights prevented the congress but not private individuals (Adamson 45).
In accordance with the national crime survey held in 2010, over 530,000 crimes had been committed with the use of guns. The crimes ranged from rape robbery assault and aggravated assault. In all this cases, the victims stated that criminals with a gun had faced them. Statistics show that this represented almost 8% of the crimes that had been committed in that year. In addition, the research showed that 66% of the murders that the FBI was investigating from 2010 had been committed with a firearm. All this just goes to show how dangerous guns are. The survey went ahead to show that almost 30% of the crimes committed with firearms in 2010 were committed by uses of registered fir arm. Although not all the crimes have been, solved statistics show that, in almost 10% of the unsolved cases, registered guns were used. While these figures remain to be high, it is clear that registered guns have been on the rise in crime related examples (Doherty 29).
Personally, in my own opinion the second amendment has both its advantages and disadvantages. First, I think that it is proper that the state gives consent for people to carry registered weapons. This is because most of the people who have registered weapons are wealthy people who can be targeted for their wealth. By having registered weapons, these people are able to protect themselves better. However, this does not mean that these individuals have any right or power over the other people. Having a registered guns means that one will only uses the gun in exceptionally grave situations where an individual's life is in eminent danger, and the individual has no other option. Morally it is wrong to think that a gun can only maintain one safety. However, the crime rate in today’s world has been going up at an extremely high rate. This means shat people have been looking for ways in which they could ensure their safety (Hemenway 39).
This has led to a rise in people wanting to buy registered weapons. Self-defense has been a reason for many people to kill in innocent blood. For this reason, I find it had to support the second amendment act that permits people to have guns. Personally, I feel that by allowing people to own weapons, the government is just giving them a reason to kill, steal, and rape. Looking at the statistics it is not had to see this. In 2010, 30% of the crimes committed were done so by the use of registered weapons. This goes to show just how many registered guns are used to commit crimes. However, the best part of having registered guns is the fact that it is more easer to truck down a registered gun that in it is to truck done a criminal who is using a gun that is not registered (Charles 66).
In fact, most of the cases have been solved by trucking down registered guns to their owners. However, this does not guarantee anything personally I still think that no one apart from law officers should be issued with a gun no matter what the circumstances are the reason why America has a law system and police officers to deal with things like this at the first place. This means that all citizens have equal rights to feel protected by the state. Furthermore, as citizens of a powerful nation, we all pay taxes to make sure that we are protected. Additionally, the fact of the matter is that people cannot be protected by giving them guns. By giving people the right to have guns, the law is simply acknowledging that crime will be theirs. When thought of carefully it does not make sense that, some people are given the right to have guns when some are not (Adamson 48).
This makes some feel more powerful than the others, which it turns leads to a problem of segregation amongst the citizens. However, as much as I feel that it is wrong it would be blind of me not to acknowledge that there is a significant problem with insecurity in the country. The second amendment merely provides citizens with a right to protect them from all the insecurities. However, using the facts presented in this case, one can clearly see that there is a key reason as to why I personally do not support the registering of guns. According to the facts provided in the paper, the second amendment in my own opinion has left a lot of loop holes that are in time are growing to be a menace in the society. Reported cases where known gangsters have used registered weapons in have been noted to be on the increase. This just goes to show how much the system has left loopholes in the second amendment. However, only way out of this problem in my own opinion s to either stop registering guns or put measures in place that ensure that the registered guns are not put to destructive use (Charles 72).
Work cited
Adamson, Barry. Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court. Pelican
Publishing, 2008. Print
Barnett, Hilaire . Constitutional & Administrative Law. London: Routledge Cavendish 2004.
Print
Charles, Patrick J. The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and
the Supreme Court. McFarland, 2009. Print
Doherty, Brian. Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second
Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute 2008. Print
Hemenway, David. Private Guns, Public Health. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2007.
Print
Wills, Garry. A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. New York:
Simon & Schuster 2002. Print
