The Right to Bear Arms and National Security

Background 

Recently, 17 people lost their lives when a gunman opened fire at a school in Florida (Grinberg & Levenson, 2018). This mass shooting is one among many others that have left many dead. The shooting reignited the debate about the need for tougher gun laws. Those calling for these laws argue that the laws will help to minimize the shootings. However, there are some who are opposed to the calls for stricter gun legislation. Among the arguments that these individuals raise is that the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. They contend that this right cannot be violated under any circumstances. The Second Amendment to the US constitution provides that all Americans have the right to possess firearms (Walker, 2016). The argument that the strong supporters of the Second Amendment raise underscores the role that US constitutional provisions play in defining such issues as homeland security. A review of the current and past states of security in the US reveals that the right to bear arms is in conflict with homeland security.

Hypothesis 

The following are the hypotheses that this paper seeks to examine:

H0: The right to bear arms conflicts with national security vs

H1: The right to bear arms supports national security.

Thesis 

The arguments below seek to support the following thesis: the right to bear arms conflicts with national security.

Analysis 

For one to understand how the second amendment provision regarding the right to bear arms compromises national security, they simply need to look back at the history of the United States. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement was seeking to secure freedom for the African American community. The Black Panther party is one of the stakeholders that joined this movement. The use of violence and weapons is what set this party apart. While such Civil Rights leaders as Martin Luther King encouraged peaceful resistance, the Black Panther party actively promoted violent acts. This party wreaked havoc in such places as California where they led calls for greater freedom for African Americans (Yuhas, 2017). In defending its use of violence, this party contended that the right to bear arms was constitutionally guaranteed. Essentially, the members of this party were exercising their right to tackle tyranny and secure freedoms. It is true that the Black Panther party agitated for a noble cause. However, the methods that they used are questionable. Today, the FBI recognizes this party as an extremist group that is outlawed (FBI, n.d). Joshua Bloom and Waldo Martin (2016) authored a book that explores the history and operations of the Black Panther party. In the book, they note that the “National Security Agency identified the Black Panther Party as the most ‘active and dangerous’ black nationalist threat to internal security” (Bloom & Martin, 2016, p. 212). If the words of the intelligence community are to be believed, it can be argued that the Black Panther party was indeed a threat to the national security of the US. Since the right to bear arms facilitated the activities of this group, the argument that the second amendment hampers national security is indeed valid and sound.

The activities of such groups as the Black Panther party underscore the impact that the second amendment has on the national security of the US. To gain an even clearer understanding of the association between the right to bear arms and national security, it is helpful to consider more recent developments. There have been efforts to understand the relationship between gun violence and the concentration of guns in a particular area. These efforts have yielded intriguing insights. It has been established that states with more guns tend to have higher rates of gun violence. In his discussion on the state of crime in the US, David Hemenway confirms that “within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community lead to more homicide” (Hemenway, 2004, p. 61). Hemenway is not isolated in his assertion that higher concentration of firearms leads to higher rates of violent crime. Michael Monuteaux joined forces with other scholars to conduct a study which confirmed Hemenway’s argument. After examining the link between firearm ownership and violent crime in the US, these scholars established that “evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk of violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm” (Monuteaux et al., 2015, p. 1). Detroit is recognized as America’s most dangerous city. In 2012 alone, the city recorded 375 homicides (Woods, 2012). A number of factors are responsible for the high number of homicides in this city. However, the fact that many people possess firearm is one of the main factors. Children as young as 15 possess firearms that they use to commit crimes and murder (Woods, 2012). The example of Detroit and other areas in the US with high violent crime rates show that the right to bear arms threatens national security. Unless the US takes action to limit this right, it should brace for more deaths and more violent crime.

The Second Amendment is one of the issues that set the US apart from other nations. Other countries lack constitutional provisions that guarantee citizens the right to possess firearms. The difference in constitutional provisions is one of the explanations for the difference in crime rates. The US accounts for a bulk of violent crime that occurs in the world. The US population accounts for a meager 4.4% of the entire human population. However, this country holds nearly half of guns that are in the hands of civilians (Lopez, 2018). It is understood that the US ranks 31 st as regards gun violence. While this position is not too high, one needs to remember that there are many countries that are experiencing civil strife. For example, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died as a result of the civil war in Syria. The US compares poorly against such other developed countries as Denmark and Canada (Aizenman, 2017). The right to bear arms is almost single-handedly to blame for the higher rate of violent crime in the US. There is no question that the Second Amendment hinders the efforts to ensure national security in the United States.

Among the arguments used to oppose efforts to introduce stricter gun laws is that guns help to keep individuals safe. It is argued that with a gun, one is able to ensure their defense. This argument sounds valid. However, an examination of the facts shows that the argument is not in line with the situation on the ground. In an article that featured on the Scientific American, Melinda Wenner Moyer disputes the argument that guns enhance security. She cites dozens of studies which show that “more guns are linked to more crimes: murder, rapes, and others” (Moyer, 2017). The arguments that Moyer presents are clear evidence that instead of enhancing national security, the right to bear arms makes the US less secure. It exposes Americans to the threat of being victims of such crimes as murder and rape. The position that gun ownership is needed to keep the country secure is without merit and is clearly a desperate attempt to oppose gun laws. Unless the US joins the rest of the world in taking guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, it will continue to witness violent crime.

No discussion on the Second Amendment provision concerning the right to bear arms would be complete without an exploration of the numerous mass shootings that the US has witnessed. Over the last few years, the country has suffered mass shootings which have resulted in the deaths of civilians. For example, in 2012, 20 children died in Newtown, Connecticut (Masters, 2016). This shooting renewed calls for stricter gun controls. In 2015, the country witnessed yet another mass shooting. A gunman murdered 9 worshippers in Charleston (Masters, 2016). In the same year, 15 people died in another mass shooting that took place in San Bernadino. In 2017, at least 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas (“Las Vegas Shooting”, 2017). More recently, 14 people died in a Florida School shooting. After each of these shootings, there were calls for tougher gun laws grew even louder. It is indeed unfortunate that the US has not made any meaningful progress in enacting gun laws. What is clear from the mass shootings is that the right to bear arms compromises national security. This right places guns in the hands of dangerous and unstable individuals who go on shooting sprees. The American people need to come together and offer their full support to stricter gun policies.

For one to understand how the right to bear arms affects national security, it is necessary to consult the American people. After all, it is them who have borne the brunt of mass shootings, rapes and robberies that have been perpetrated using firearms. In a New York Post article, Mark Moore details the findings from a poll on the thoughts of Americans regarding gun laws. According to the poll, “Americans back stricter gun laws by a 66-31 percent margin” (Moore, 2018). Moore makes it clear that the entire American nation is supporting tougher gun laws. He notes that even those who possess guns have expressed their support for the laws. Citing the results of the poll, Moore states that 50% of gun owners support gun laws (Moore, 2018). This is as opposed to 44% of the gun owners who remain faithful to the spirit of the Second Amendment (Moore, 2018). The findings of this poll are evidence that the American people have had enough of mass shootings, murders and rapes. They recognize that there is a clear and indisputable association between the right to bear arms and deterioration in national security. Law makers need to endorse the findings of the poll through legislation that introduces tougher gun laws.

The discussion above has revealed that most Americans fully support stricter gun laws. These Americans also acknowledge that guns are responsible for many of the violent crimes that the US witnesses every day. It is critical to focus attention on one group of Americans that is leading the movement for tougher gun laws. Responding to the Florida school shooting that left 14 people dead, thousands of American students came together to form the Never Again movement (Alter, 2018). These students are challenging legislators to pass gun laws for the purpose of making American schools safer. The campaign that these students have launched serves to add further weight to the argument that the right to bear arms conflicts with national security. The US cannot expect to enhance public safety and national security if it fails to water down the Second Amendment provisions.

Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the national security of the US. Given the grave threat that terrorism poses, one would expect that terrorism would account for most of the violent deaths that the US records. An examination of data reveals that this is not the case. Between 2001 and 2011, an average of 517 deaths was attributed to terrorism. During this period, the US reported 11, 385 deaths that were blamed on firearms (“Guns in the US”, 2016). As made clear in a previous section of the analysis, the gun deaths can be linked directly to the Second Amendment. Therefore, the right to bear arms is a threat to national security.

This far, the discussion has strived to support the position that the Second Amendment poses a serious threat to the national security of the United States. The arguments that have been raised are indeed strong and sound. However, in the interest of balance, it is important to include arguments which depict the Second Amendment as a catalyst for national security. Various courts in the US have held differing opinions regarding the right to bear arms. In 2008, District of Columbia Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns (Marimow, 2008). In arriving at its decision, the court determined that Americans have the right to possess guns for the purpose of self-defense. The position of this court is the main counter-argument to the case that the Second Amendment compromises national security. The judges that rendered the ruling must have considered the impacts that gun ownership has on violence. Therefore, an individual who contends that the Second Amendment promotes national security and bases this argument on the Supreme Court decision would be presenting a sound and solid argument.

It is extremely difficult to defend the argument that the right to bear arms promotes national security. This is why only one counter-argument has been offered above. There is overwhelming evidence that the Second Amendment is a threat to national security. Some of this evidence has presented above. In the counter-argument above, the District of Columbia Supreme Court decision has been cited. The court held that citizens needed to own guns to stay secure in their homes. On its face, this argument appears valid. However, one when examines the situation on the ground, it becomes evident that the argument does not hold much water. As pointed out earlier, guns have been shown to lead to insecurity. They do not make neighborhoods safer. If anything, they encourage such violent crimes as rapes and murders. It can be argued that when arriving at its ruling, the DC Supreme Court did not really examine the true effects of gun possession. Had they consulted the facts, the judges making the ruling would have noted that gun ownership is directly responsible for crime. Therefore, the truth remains that instead of promoting national security, the right to bear arms has set the stage for wicked individuals to commit atrocious crimes.

In conclusion, the Second Amendment continues to stir controversy and divisions. It is encouraging that more and more Americans are coming alive to the need for tougher gun laws. The numerous mass shootings that have rocked the US have prompted Americans to urge their representatives to enact tougher gun laws. These Americans understand that gun ownership is responsible for the horrendous violent crimes that are committed in the country. Evidence indicates that instead of enhancing safety, gun ownership fuels violence. Such cities as Detroit have witnessed first-hand the devastating impacts of violent crimes committed using guns. The various school shootings and the resultant Never Again movement are other indications that the Second Amendment has made the US less secure. It is vital for members of Congress to take action and address violent crime.

References

Aizenman, N. (2017). Gun Violence: The U.S. Compares with other Countries. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries 

Alter, C. (2018). The School Shooting Generation has had Enough. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/ 

Bloom, J., & Martin, E. (2016). Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (n.d). Black Panther Party. Retrieved April 1, 2018F rom https://vault.fbi.gov/Black%20Panther%20Party%20 

Grinberg, E., & Levenson, E. (2018). At Least 17 Dead in Florida School Shooting, Law Enforcement Says. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html 

Guns in the US: The Statistics behind the Violence. (2016). Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604 

Hemenway, D. (2004). Private Guns, Public Health . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press . 

Las Vegas Shooting: At Least 59 Dead at Mandalay Bay Hotel. (2017). Retrieved April 1, 2018 From http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41466116 

Lopez, G. (2018). America’s Unique Gun Violence Problem, Explained in 17 Maps and Charts. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts 

Marimow, A. E. (2016). The High Court Struck down D.C.’s Gun Ban Eight Years ago, but the Fight Continues. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-high-court-struck-down-dcs-gun-ban-eight-years-ago-but-the-fight-continues/2016/09/13/070e6786-7054-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?utm_term=.7abca8141ac4 

Masters, J. (2016). Gun Control around the World: A Primer. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/ 

Monuteaux, M. C., Kee, L. K., Hemenway, D., Mannix, R., & Fleegler, E. W. (2015). Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 

Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc6f/104b5b658796ce6b7ca1e1afe8caeb55ff6b.pdf 

Moore, M. (2018). Majority of Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws: Poll. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://nypost.com/2018/02/20/majority-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws-poll/ 

Moyer, M. W. (2017). More Guns do not Stop more Crimes, Evidence Shows. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ 

Walker, D. (2016). Necessary to the Security of Free States: The Second Amendment as the Auxiliary Right of Federalism. American Journal of Legal History, 56 (4), 365-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njw012 

Woods, A. (2012). Detroit Gun Violence: Murder Rate, Violent Crimes Threaten Youth and City’s Future. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/detroit-gun-violence-murder_n_2316323.html 

Yuhas, A. (2017). The Right to Bear Arms: What does the Second Amendment Really Mean? Retrieved April 1, 2018 from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history