Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry - Essay Example

Why the Second Amendment Should Not Give Citizens the Right to Own Assault Weaponry The Second amendment should not give private citizens the right to own guns as this right has been continuously abused by individuals and criminals alike. The United States of America’s constitution in regard to the second amendment states in part that a militia that is regulated for the reason of upholding the security of a state, the right of the citizens of that state to bear firearms shall not be regulated. The second amendment therefore brings about a huge debate regarding the intended objective of this amendment. Some Americans and scholars alike are of the belief that this amendment brought forth an individual constitutional right for American citizens to keep arms (Maier 21). On the other hand, other scholars are of the opinion that the language of the amendment, with focus on the words regulated militia was intended at trying to restrict the Unites States Congress from legislating against a US state’s right to defending itself (Whitney, 42). On the idea that the amendment’s intention was to give Americans the constitutional right to arm themselves (Maier 21), the constitution of the United States tries to restrain legislating against citizen’s right to possess firearms. This school of thought explains that an amendment to denying citizens the right to own firearms would in fact be unconstitutional and therefore null and void (Halbrook 36). On the other hand, the school of thought advocating that the amendment was meant at restraining the US congress from legislating against the rights of US states to defend themselves argues that the local, federal and state bodies are the ones that are entitled the right of bearing arms. This effectively locks out private citizens and individual from the right to bear arms (Whitney, 42). In the case of Unites states, V. Miller before the Supreme Court of the US in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not enjoy the right to arm themselves and thus interpreted the Second amendment to mean that the US congress could in fact come in and regulate against the rights of private citizens owning firearms (Halbrook 44). The above case became a precedent until the year 2008 when another case on the same issue of the second amendment came before the US Supreme Court again. In the 2008 case, the court, in the case of District of Columbia against Heller determined that the constitution of the US had indeed established the right to own firearms by individual citizens of the United States. As the plaintiff in the case, Heller was in court to argue against the legality of the ban on handguns in the state of Washington DC. This piece of legislation had been around for the last 32 years. The US Supreme Court therefore found the law to be unconstitutional and a violation of the right that US citizens have to bear arms. In addition to the ruling, the court also ruled that the US constitution could in no way refuse to let mentally ill as well as criminals bear arms. The ruling brought about increased debate as to the real meaning of the second amendment and what the framers of this legislation had in mind when they developed this piece of legislation. In the year 2010 in a case also related to the second amendment, in McDonald against Chicago city, the Supreme Court decided to adopt the argument that the second amendment was aimed at ensuring citizens enjoyed the right to arm themselves (Halbrook 78). The court determined that the second amendment meant that American citizens enjoyed the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense. One judge dissented on the ruling, but a majority of the judges and indeed the ruling was that the hand gun ban of Chicago that prohibited private individuals from bearing firearms was against the spirit of the constitution (Whitney 22). According the ruling of the Supreme Court in the year 2008 and 2010, the aim of the second amendment was to enable private individuals bear arms. This is emboldened in the bill of rights that gives individuals the right to enjoy their rights according to the US constitution. An argument therefore emerges as to why the second amendment should not give citizens the right to own firearms (Whitney 79). Though self-defense is a basic right, this right has been abused on numerous occasions, courtesy of the second amendment ruling. Lives have been lost and shattered; individuals have been maimed as a result of guns lawfully ending up in the hands of individuals who abuse the legal right of bearing arms (Whitney 78). Recently shootings in schools as well as other social places have resulted in loss of young innocent lives. Assault weapons might be too powerful for self-defense, and therefore legalizing possession of the same is in essence arming individuals excessively (Gonzales 56). The second amendment does not in any way define the type of, neither weaponry, nor state the age at which individuals will start enjoying the right to arm themselves. This leaves open the possibility of children young enough to go to school to carry guns. As to the extent of the sophistication of the weaponry individuals carry, the second amendment leaves that open too. This means that from AK 47’s to machine guns to hand guns, the choice of weapon to arm yourself with is not unquestionable and entirely up to the choice and taste of the individual. (Doherty 77). At the time of introduction and framing of the second amendment, the forefathers in essence intended the white man to enjoy this right to bear arms (Norquist 55). In today’s world, more importantly the scenario for people as citizens of the United States, any individual within the legal age has a right to bear a fire arm, any arm, inclusive of assaults weapons. As it stands, ownership of guns is already limited. Laws pertaining to gun licenses and registration of firearms are existent but in reality these limitations pertaining to licensing and registrations have done little to curb violence and misuse of firearms. Mafias and criminal gangs here in the US have not been deterred by these limitations from owning guns. The limitations only work towards prevention of importing guns but not really in owning the guns (Halbrook 56). In conclusion, the amendment should not give private citizens the right to own guns as this right has been continuously abused by individuals and criminals alike. Lives have been lost, property destroyed and neighborhoods have become violent prone. This has negatively affected the economy. The second amendment does not ideally define a weapon that private individuals can use for self-defense purposes. While self-defense is a human mechanism to defend oneself against harm, if the amendment does not define what type of weapon or what an assault weapon should be then the amendment should not give private citizens the right to own firearms (Whitney 52). Assault weapons were meant for the wars and in reality should not be kept in houses and homes. This is especially so with those homes that have young ones. There are the police who are responsible for keeping the population safe, and therefore people do not need assault rifles in their homes in the pretext of self-defense (Halbrook 75). The risk of individuals bearing weapons essentially outweighs the benefits of individuals bearing them. This is because the risk of innocent individuals getting hit by stray bullets becomes significantly higher when numerous individuals and criminal gangs bear guns and carry them around (Whitney 88) In closing off, self-defense should not be reason enough of bearing arms. The bearing of arms has resulted in more harm than good and therefore the second amendment should not allow individuals to bear weaponry. Works Cited Doherty, Brian. Gun control on trial: inside the Supreme Court battle over the Second Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2008. Print. Gonzales, Doreen. A look at the Second Amendment: to keep and bear arms. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2008. Print. Halbrook, Stephen P. The founders' Second Amendment: origins of the right to bear arms. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee ;, 2008. Print. Maier, Pauline. Ratification: the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print. Norquist, Grover Glenn. Leave us alone: getting the governments hands off our money, our guns, our lives. New York, NY: W. Morrow, 2008. Print. Whitney, Craig R. Living with guns: a liberal's case for the Second Amendment. New York: Public Affairs, 2012. Print. Read More