The right to bear arms is a philosophical school of thought that was developed by Aristotle, John Locke and Cicero among other philosophers of ancient times. The scope covers the right of the people to own arms for their defence and that of their private property. The right is incorporated in the common law often associated with Britain and its colonies. The law is much older than the modern written national constitutions and in some of the states; it enjoys supremacy over the laws recently developed, based on the complexity of the matter at hand. In the United States, the right to bear and keep arms is one of the laws protected by the constitution and enjoys support from many of the state constitutions. However, there have been recent debates on the carrying of arms. For instance, Howard Schultz, the Starbucks head notes in an open letter that, “respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.” (J.F, 2013). For the purpose of this essay, we shall examine the right to bear arms in the light of its history, pros and cons.

Discussion

It is imperative that according to the second amendment of the constitution of the United States, the law does not recognise the right to bear or keep arms among the civilian populations. In addition, the constitution does not establish a natural right. It is imperative that the arms possession among the farmers in the United States was an inherent right or rather self-evident (Halbrook, 2013). Under the democratic government, the right to possess and keep arms for the civilian population is more of a natural right. The formation of the democratic government by the farmers in the United States was thus supported by this notion and therefore was there understanding and intent. Another important perspective covered in the second amendment also is the fact that it recognizes the right, power, and the duty of able-bodied persons to organize themselves into militias to defend the state (Halbrook, 2013).

Worth noting is the fact that the united states constitution fails in the definition of arms and therefore there is no clear cut boundary as to what arms people should possess and which should be left to the state. In its adoption stage, the definition included muzzle- loaded muskets, swords, knives, pistols, bows and arrows as well as spears (Halbrook, 2013). However, the common law defines arms as “light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare.” (J.F, 2013). With this definition, the interpretation includes the use of modern rifles and handguns, machine guns and grenade launchers, tear gas and anti-tank weapons. What makes the issue more controversial is the use of robotics and its limitations to individual use.

According to the Legal, theory of the right to keep and bear arms the right to keep and bear arms extends to the rest of the states of the United States. It is reinforced by the fourteenth amendment. However, the act is subjected to the citizen’s power to entrust the rights to restrict arms rights to their state governments (Halbrook, 2013). The states have a power to regulate the right to arms where they conflict with the right to ownership of property or where they undermine the property rights. The citizens thus have a right to keep their guns in the places they are supposed to be unless in the situation whereby the law prohibits carrying in designated areas.

In explanation to the letter by Schultz, he noted that the company had been following the local laws and permitted the open carrying of weapons in the states that allowed it and banned it in those states that were not in support of the law. He also noted that “increasingly uncivil, and, in some cases, even threatening… The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers (J.F, 2013).” He also added that the request was not inclined to the thought that gun owners were right or wrong and maintained a neutral perspective. According (Neily III, 2010), the right to bear arms exists across all jurisdictions regardless of whether it is recognized or not. For most of the states, the regulation of the arms depends on the levels of security and the stability of a country. It is thus imperative that countries that suffer instability may tend to oppose the right.

As we have seen above, one of the disadvantages that accrue to gun rights in support of arms possession is unsettling and upsetting many of the people (Neily III, 2010). This is common in societies where the open carrying of arms is allowed and therefore the general population is scared of the intentions of the bearer. Common disagreements may lead to shoot outs and death of innocent civilians as the bearers may lack proper training on gun use. Peace in such societies may not necessarily prevail, as many of the criminals tend to bear the arms and pretend to be innocent civilians (Neily III, 2010). This consequently lead to crime in the neighbourhoods and unnecessary deaths that result from anger management issues between rival groups.

With arm rights that are in support of the possession of guns by civilians, there is little mechanism in which the law and order in a country is enforced by the law enforcement bodies. It is thus imperative that the police pose a minor threat to the criminals as they have an equal repellent power to counter the police weaponry. This is thus a major undermining factor to the law. Street crimes are common phenomena as more of the gangs fight for territorial; control and engage in illegal activities like drug trafficking and sale of the weapons. The issue of gun rights begins with a positive perspective whereby the issue is viewed from a protective perspective but eventually land in the hands of the youths and jobless individuals who use it to their advantage to cause havoc and reap from the fear of others.

Among the negative externalities that accrue to the gun rights include the establishment and regulation of who should own a gun. A constant struggle exists between the various groups whereby, the group allowed to own guns tend to sell them out to the restricted groups. More importantly, the limited access granted to the other groups triggers a conflict that plays a key role in peace erosion and a struggle to own arms. On the same note, some of the countries that allow hunting rifles have been an example to the failure of the law to take effect among the civilian populations. It has been noted that in the recent past instead of using the guns for the hunting purposes, the guns have been widely used in crime, as criminals are less likely to be arrested when caught with one.

Increased suicide rate is another major factor that accrues to the increased arms possession by civilians. It is important to note that in most of the developing countries, life is characterised by a constant struggle to make ends meet. Moreover, plenty of limitations are in place, that inhibit the success of an individual among them extreme poverty, bad governance less resources to exploit and unemployment among other factors. In the United States and other developed countries, this is still the case though the suicide rates are lower owed to the better living conditions. It is thus imperative that arm rights in support of the civilian arms possession contribute to high suicide rates as it provides an easier exit to the problems faced in the society.

Enforcement of private property rights is an important role that is protected by the arms rights whereby the people are equipped with the necessary force to protect their own property from thieves and other malicious individuals. More important is the fact that the policy that is used in the enforcement of the rights stipulate the conditions to which the use of arms may be necessary. This contributes highly into economic growth as people have more courage to own property and seek for more as they are assured of security. For lawless states, this is the only way to empower the people to work. It gives them power to fight for what is rightfully theirs as they await help from the state. In the United States, areas are less likely to be issued for this particular purpose to an individual.

Increased individual security accrues to the ownership and carrying of arms whereby criminals are barred from robbing off people or committing crimes such as rape and mugging. When people are armed, it becomes hard for the robbers and muggers to undertake their evils, as they fear for their lives. It is important to note that the crime rate may tend to decline at an increasing rate because when an individual’s security is threatened, they are more likely to shoot down the threat. Community policing also is an advantage that accrue to ownership of private arms (Volokh, 2008). According to (Volokh, 2008), this occurs in the event whereby people organize themselves to guard their own neighbourhoods with the help of the local police in case of emergencies. With arms, the people are able to defend themselves and their neighbourhood from criminals and intruders.

The right to bear arms increases the chances of a government committed to serving the peoples’ needs. For most of the war torn countries, ownership of arms is an important aspect that empowers the people to face bad leadership and oppose it despite the military and presence of law enforcement bodies. A good example is the war torn Libya, Congo, Cuba and Syria among others. It is imperative that the civilians in these states have the power to face their ruthless leaders with the weapons they have. Alternatively, other countries especially those in the Middle East and some Asian countries such as China continue to suffer from low levels of democracy as they lack the power to face their governments (Dowlut, 1997). Presence of arms is a strategic measure that empowers the people to oppose such leadership and set them off against such regimes.

The people also have the power to defend the nation through militias organised in support of the military and other bodies. It is important to note that they are used in subordinate capacities and play a major role in replenishing the gaps that may be left by the soldiers in guarding the homes. More importantly, they are empowered to fight against insurgents and certain bad agents that are not preferred in the society (Dowlut, 1997). It is imperative that militias have been influential in overthrowing governments and played a crucial role in guarding the public and their property as evident in Somalia in Africa whereby militia groups guard their territories and levy charges for the security.

Sport, hunting or collecting are other important uses of arms rights as they enable the citizens to participate in sporting activities. Through this use, guns are known to be of recreation value to the society and a good source of entertainment as people compete on target shooting. Whenever the civil and have the capacity to own guns, they can participate in hunting for food or for recreation (Volokh, 2006). Most of the people will; take hinting trips and go off to the mountains where they can have time alone and reflect on their lives. Equally important is that hunting is a good source of relaxation offering a person a passion and a hobby in a more engaging scope of life. This is particularly helpful for people who are engaged in white-collar occupations and need some time to explore other skills in a different setting and in a more engaging practice (Volokh, 2006). Gun collecting is also an important practice that can only be facilitated by the arms rights whereby individual civilians can undertake the act as a hobby. Gun collecting helps the society by preserving a chronological order of gun evolution for museum purposes among the future generations. We also understand that the act of collecting guns is revenue generating for the collectors and the economy as a whole.

Conclusion

The right to bear arms is one of the most controversial rights that draw into the essence of democracy and the need to control it. More important is the fact that the foundation of the modern day democracy on the United States was the basis that farmers should be allowed to own guns for various purposes among them the protection of private property, as an assurance of good governance and as a stepping-stone to strengthening the government. It is thus controversial to the point that the definition of arms remains unclear. This makes it hard to determine whether individuals should own man’s most dangerous weapons. In this line of thinking, it is imperative that civilians cannot be let to own arms. The modern world is based on the principle of survival for the fittest therefore; it is dangerous for civilians to own arms as they are on a constant struggle for the limited resources making them potentially harmful for one another. Government supremacy is the paramount principle that should be put in place to restore order and establish a code of conduct through the judicial systems ensuring that civilians do not carry or own arms.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW