For the last 200 years, the second amendment in the United States has brought along several controversies over its interpretation and implementations (Bogus & Bellesiles, 2000). These controversies arose due to their irrelevancy over time, as the amendment has since become void. In the development of the second amendment, its framers maintained that the right for an individual to arms should not be infringed (Bogus & Bellesiles, 2000). This clause has had several interpretations from people arguing that, according to the clause, people should possess guns. Similarly, the “people,” as stated in the clause, have caused several heated debates over who these “people” are. Due to this confusion, the state has had to interpret the meaning of this controversial clause. To comprehend the reason for the second amendment, one needs to evaluate the prevailing conditions that led to these amendments. During the foundation of America, the continued struggle for power by the Americans had several undesirable effects on them. With these tensions, the founding fathers of America formed a government with the intention to establish policies that would counterattack any tyrant government in the future. This, in turn, led to the formulation of the second amendment to prohibit any future tyrant armies that might attempt to take advantage of the unarmed civilians. The current killings caused by the ever-increasing number of criminals suggest that it is crucial to uphold the second amendment and allow the American citizens to possess guns.
A. Reasons for Supporting Gun Ownership
I. Personal Defense
One of the main reasons that Americans should own guns is for their own personal defense (Burbick, 2006). People are known to value self-preservation at all times. Thus, there is the need to possess a gun considering its high capability in protecting an individual from various security risks posed by criminals. Federal police officers have often demonstrated failure in protecting citizens against various security threats. This inefficiency to provide maximum security to all the citizens mandates all Americans to own weapons, particularly guns. In this regard, it is crucial to accept our own self-defense ability even to the extent of using guns to secure our lives.
Gun critics should acknowledge that denying any individual the right to ensuring that he or she is sufficiently protected is similar to committing a grievous crime. Denying individuals their ability to defend themselves is similar to the human enslavement. This is because, as more citizens become unharmed, more criminals harm themselves. Survey illustrates how citizen disarming has led to grievous crimes aimed at innocent citizens. In Germany, before the holocaust, Hitler had disarmed all the Germans to facilitate his evil acts. This suggests that armed civilians are more safe and protected from tyrant leaders and criminals.
Concerning self-defense and property protection, the possession of a gun and its appropriate use is the best force one can deploy. This is because it is more difficult to hold captive a person possessing a gun. The recent research conducted among the American population suggests that three out of five people feel more protected when in possession of a gun (Burbick, 2006). This data demonstrate how the society has lost faith in the police service concerning the provision of security. Similarly, it is a proven fact that an increase in gun possession among the members of the community can lead to a reduction in crime incidences in the community of concern. Likewise, the documented self-defense incidences suggest that the use of a gun as a tool for the self-defense does not necessarily necessitate firing. This implies that the mere presence of a gun is enough to scare off individuals with the intention of inflicting harm on innocent citizens (Cosby & Poussaint, 2007).
The current increase in harassments, theft and shootings justify why it is crucial for all citizens to possess guns for the self-defense. Weaponless families often encounter harassment and robbery perpetrated by criminals who take advantage of the fact that they do not posses guns, which are the most significant threat to criminals. It is depressing to learn that every day, a person is robed, raped or taken hostage by criminals, yet the government is reluctant to allow these innocent individuals to protect themselves by owning guns. It is even more disturbing to learn that the police officers are unable to prevent these unwarranted acts by criminals living among the innocent people in the society (Carter, 2002). It is a common scene to see police officers arriving at crime scenes minutes or even hours after a crime has already occurred. As Lee McCollum asserts in his writings, “it is more practical and effective to rely on own guns for protection than relying on lazy law enforcers.” Such statements imply how the society and country at large are progressively losing control over criminals (Carter, 2002).
Criminal acts towards innocent civilians are motivated by the fact that citizens want to maintain constant ill and avoid inflicting harm on one another. By allowing individuals to defend themselves, criminal activities will considerably decline. Criminals will shy away from assaulting innocent citizens, once they take up the responsibility to guard their lives by any necessary means, including the use of guns. Surveys conducted on the convicted criminals suggest that they are more scared by a civilian holding a gun than a law enforcer doing so (Hanson, 1998). The survey further reveals that armed civilians have killed more criminals than the police have ever done. In this regard, armed civilians in America have thwarted criminal activities more often, as compared to the law enforcers (Hanson, 1998). In every society, achieving a crime-free community is considerably difficult without the civilians. Thus, no matter the efforts by law enforcers in this regard, arming the civilians will considerably boost the war against criminal acts and the realization of a safer society.
II. Inefficient Legal System
The failure by the American legal system to punish criminals justifies the reasons for arming civilians (Halbrook, 2008). The civilian possession of guns will force criminals to stop assaulting community members, since they will be aware of that civilians act more aggressively using their guns, than the law enforcers do. This will discourage criminals in their acts, as they will have been deprived by the advantage of guns possession. Thus, the level of crimes, especially gun-related, will significantly decline.
II. Living the Legacy
Another reason to substantiate gun ownership is the need to respect human rights (Doyle, 2005). With an armed population, human rights violation issues, such as forced labor and impingement of freedom of communication and speech, would decline in the society. Tyrants have often used guns in perpetuating oppressive acts (Doyle, 2005). Gun misuse will effectively decline in the society, since every individual would be responsible for the gun that he or she possesses. To preserve the legacy of the founding fathers, Americans should uphold and treasure the second amendment (Halbrook, 2008). The early Americans who had migrated from Europe valued their security to the extent of arming the community members. Therefore, in honoring the ancestors’ ambitions of a secure America, free from totalitarian individuals, it is essential to allow civilians to own guns (Halbrook, 2008).
The American government should allow every individual to own property and ensure that his or her actions do not inflict harm to anyone. In this regard, it is crucial to embrace individual thinking and wishes (Doyle, 2005). Considering the large number of illegal gun possession and the considerable support for legal gun possession, the government should allow its citizens to possess guns.