Introduction
The sale and use of guns (guns control) has become an immensely popular issue of debate among political critics on either end of the political divide. This has always been based on the argument of balancing the security as illustrated by an individual and the state. This is with respect to the privileges of an individual.
Various groups have come up with different constitutional interpretations as regards to gun ownership and just where the thin line should be drawn. The bill of human rights in the constitution has not helped make matters any better as it is immensely vague on the matter. Justice has to prevail in whatever the interpretations from the dissimilar schools of thought.
Body
The argument that possession of the guns by the civilians protects them against the tyranny of the state is frequently advanced. The state is armed through the police and the service men who risk the livelihood of the civilian in the eventuality that a state-civilian conflict arises. The law enforcement has become markedly brutal and extra judicial killings are significantly on increase.
When a police kills an inhabitant, it is claimed the civilian ran into a wander away bullet and the punishment is only a few months in the penitentiary. On the dissimilar, if a civilian kills a policeman it is regarded as man slaughter or even murder with increased penitentiary time. The police are not held answerable in such cases. Just how safe are civilians when not armed against an armed state? Social justice is indeed compromised in such cases.
The effective gun control is, however, a plus to citizens that are law compliant. Such citizens are rarely on the mistaken side of the law. The case of gun ownership is not as significant an issue as compared to the person engaging in the act. The threat of potential crime and crime related activities has been addressed by regulating individuals who own guns.
Clearly set guidelines on preventing people of questionable status and minors as a gun control measure creates a situation of state and individual balance. The bottom line lies entails citizens being law abiding, as opposed to seeking to contest the government’s efforts.
The continued procurement of guns illegally by criminals necessitates questions pertaining to fairness and equality. The government’s inability to ward off such a concept makes it essential for citizens to take up the initiative of self defense. Armed law abiding citizens are, in a formidable position, to handle criminals.
This significantly contributes to the reduction of crime rate as statistics have continually pointed to that direction. It is noteworthy that the government makes it continually difficult for an individual to purchase and own a firearm. It is so ironical that states that have banned the guns post the uppermost numbers of misdemeanor related murders as seen in Washington.
The government has undertaken to set clearly defined regulations as regards to procurement of guns. Transfer tax machines have been put in place for machine guns and short guns. This is intent on curbing the haphazard procurement of the dangerous weapons. Interstate sale of fire arms has been prohibited to enable monitoring of arms within the convenient level of the state. The ban on arms transfer to minors has helped limit their access to weapons.
The government has, however, put numerous hurdles on the way of even the most law abiding of citizens to own guns. Regulations and counter regulations do not provide a level playing ground between the administration and the civilians. The escalated prices of the guns due to lack of government subsidies has made it impossible for most Americans to own the self defense armor.
The mandatory psychiatric examination that one has to take also puts off probable gun owners. This, as a result, creates increased fears of ill motives by the administration towards the civilians. It also infringes on the constitutionally definite civil liberties of the individual.
The misuse of guns by the citizens is a cause for worry to the government. Augmented cases of suicide by authorized gun owners and murder that are not crime related then call justice to question. This may then demand more rigorous measures in gun control for the sake of fortification of one’s life and that of others.
A well synchronized militia is obligatory to the protection of the state. The militia, composed of ordinary men and women to whom the spectacle of blood and annihilation may not enthuse, is critical for a nation’s stability. An armed resident will only endeavor to use the gun for their own self protection and security.
Conclusion
The guns control subject provides an opportunity for the examination of the justice arrangement in the country. The citadel of justice has loopholes as seen in the interpretation of critical aspects of the constitution and laid down policies. The guns control measure is a noble idea but only when it is kept under restrictions. This is to prevent the side stepping of civilians privileges by the state. Both individual and state protection are basic and neither of it should be enjoyed at the expense of the other.