Ethical Rights of Gun Control

Name

Institution

Date

Introduction

The debate regarding ownership of a gun by private citizen has raised a hot debate between the government and the civil right groups. The government agencies are uncomfortable with the idea of private gun ownership. However, the proponents argue that gun ownership is a civil right and citizens should not be denied the right to own a gun for self-defense.

Moral Duty behind Gun Ownership

There is a moral right for private citizens to own guns. Gun ownership should be more than the civil rights since it is one of the most basic human rights. Every person should have the fundamental right of self-defense. The government should encourage the law- abiding citizens to own guns so that they can protect themselves, their families and the entire community from the crude people who may harm them without regard to human life. The reasons for gun ownership can be attributed to the fact that law enforcement agencies do a reactive work, not proactive duty; the agencies spent most of their time attempting to apprehend criminals after committing the offense (MacKinnon, 2013). The agencies lack the ability to be on hand or in time to prevent mass causality shootings hence prevention could have been better than cure, and this can be done if the citizens are allowed to own guns.

It should be noted that, no state agency in the entire globe has the right to force an individual to give up the capacity and the ability to physically protect themselves if attack by a criminal person, and that makes self defense part of every constitution in the world (Lott, 2010). Many people argue that the blood of every innocent victim of mass-casualty shooting is on the hands of the agency that advocates for a gun-free zone hence owning a gun should be a moral duty for every individual that has the ability to buy a firearm.

It is the moral duty of every individual to do no harm to other citizens, except during self-defense mechanism, and that can be further suggested that it is amoral duty of an individual not to risk his or her life in protecting another, but it would be prudent if the individual is prepared to act in self-defense of the innocent. The government armies are charged with the responsibility of protecting the country from external aggressions and the armies are not designed to protect individual citizens from human predators within the society. Hence, owning a gun will prove useful for the citizens in protecting themselves and their community from criminals (MacKinnon, 2013).

Constitutional Interpretation by the Supreme Courts

The role of the supreme courts should be limited to the interpretation of the law and not making such laws. In a functional democracy, where parliament has the mandate and independence of legislating on fundamental public policies, strict policies are required to facilitate “checks and balances” within the country. The noble reasons why supreme courts should only limit themselves to constitution interpretation are the conflict of interest that may arise between the parliament and the judiciary. The noble rule of nature is that a man cannot make his laws and interpret by himself since he may lack partiality in his work, therefore, making of the law should be done separately with the interpretation of the same laws (Lott, 2010).

Another reason why the Supreme Courts should limit themselves to law interpretations is that, many of the supreme judges and the entire judiciary have increasingly become parked with wimps and are rather being subject to the executive. The robust and outspoken judiciary members are always being lured by the politicians while others are being threaten. This might compromise their work if they were to make and interpret the laws. In the modern times characterized by lack of respect for court rulings, the supreme courts, through their wisdom, can make rulings based on their interpretation of the constitutions that limit gun control (MacKinnon, 2013).

Finally, the making of the law should be left for the parliament and government since these bodies are held accountable by the people directly unlike the judges in the supreme courts that are mainly held responsible by the judiciary. The legitimate process of lawmaking should be inclusive characterized by public participation, and this can only be achieved when laws are made in the parliament (MacKinnon, 2013). Legislation by parliament is preceded by public participation hence making the law making process more inclusive and exhaustive as the public is given opportunities to air their views.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the hard and ultimate truth is that no individual or government entity has the right to prevent a law abiding citizen from owning anything including a gun. Since control is life-saving and morality supported, owning a gun should not be debated but left as a civil right and, duty for the citizens to protect themselves and their society from crude criminals.

References

Lott, J. R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues, Concise Edition (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.