The Right to Bear a Gun by Somebody35 (Edison)

This is an essay I wrote in January 2008:

In the article “Do YOU have a right to bear arms?” Linda Greenhouse writes about how the Second Amendment, which cites: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” is having a different interpretation for gun-rights group and states, gun-rights groups interpret the amendment to be a right that applies to individuals, but rather some states, such as D.C, and Chicago think that this should be understood only as the right of the state to maintain militias and they create gun-control laws to prevent the rise of gun crimes. Gun-control laws are affecting law-abiding Americans who are appealing these laws as “unconstitutional” given that most of the criminals obtain their firearms on the black market.

The major discussion in the article is focused on the D.C.’s appealing the case of District of Columbia v. Heller . In this case Heller, a security guard, wanted to be able to keep his gun at home for self-defense, but D.C laws, the strictest with gun regulation, banned or made it very difficult to legally own handguns, therefore it didn’t allow it. After the case was presented, the Supreme Court struck down the D.C law. Now the District of Columbia, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country, is appealing the decision of the Supreme Court. The case is very likely to produce the most significant Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment in our history given that it will have a huge act on federal, state, and local gun-control. “But even if the Supreme Court finds the D.C. law unconstitutional, that would not necessarily invalidate other, more modest gun restrictions, like those that permit handgun ownership for those who pass a background check and obtain a license,” Linda Greenhouse emphasizes in one of her last paragraph.

What Linda Greenhouse says is certainly true. The interpretation of the Second Amendment will have a great impact in the District of Columbia and it could change some of the gun-control laws but not all of them, like the checking of the background. I also agree when they say that “any restrictions on ownership infringe upon the rights of the citizens” given that most of the gun crimes happen with guns that are bought in the black market. Then the interpretation of the Second Amendment wouldn’t have an effect on the rate of crime but instead it could provide more security to its law-abiding citizens who ask for security in their homes. But if the Second Amendment is interpreted as the right of the people to bear arms I think that a background check is not enough.

Many people can have an impeccable background but that doesn’t mean that they have the mental capacity to own a gun. We can see a good example in Cho Seung-Hui, the guy who caused the Virgins Massacre, a boy with no criminal history. His background said that was a person without problems but this just deceived everybody of his true self. Background checks are not save enough to own a gun. I think that we would be more comfortable if we knew that the person who is purchasing a gun took a psychological test, so that we can be sure that that person won’t use the gun against others. The background check doesn’t guarantee you that the person is really capable to own a firearm, but it just gives you general information about their criminal history and problems with the law. Instead a psychological test could give us the mental capacity of how good is a person prepared to own a gun.

Also some of the gun-control laws, even if for some people are stupid and doesn’t see them necessary, are really important, such as to keeping the gun under a trigger lock or keeping them disassembled, these could prevent accidents. In 2003 a teenager killed his half brother in an accident, the gun with which they were playing was loaded and it didn’t have a trigger lock. If that gun had had a trigger lock I think that the little boy wouldn’t have died.

That’s why I think that they shouldn’t deny the right to bear arms because bearing arms is the decision and the will of the people. It is up to the person and family whether they are going to own a gun or not. But however they interpret the Second Amendment they should have some laws requiring protection like the trigger lock and not only background checks, but if not also a psychological test.

Work Cited:

This entry was posted on 29. November 2009 at 05:26 and is filed under Social Problems. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.