Top Special Offer! Check discount

Get 13% off your first order - useTopStart13discount code now!

Is Gun Ownership a Lawful Right

Recently, the debate about weapons control in the nation has brought out more and more veterans, especially following numerous incidents related to arms. The veterans base their claims on previous service to the country and their comprehensive arms experience. Recently, the veterans have been whipping their case around the media. According to them, while the right to have a weapons is lawful, veterans are attempting to increase law-makers to enact legislation aimed at more stringent background screening which includes restricting legal criminals, domestic abusers and persons investigated by the FBI on grounds of terror. Background An estimated two point five million troops have been sent on foreign missions to Afghanistan and Iraq, producing experience and perception on the usefulness of guns at the battleground and home. The right to gun ownership has created a national domestic gun control debate and was first introduced in the 1950s. Recently, ex-military bureaucrats and veterans urged their alliance to call for the Legislature to tighten gun regulations. The group initiated the lobby only 48 hours before the Orlando nightclub shooting that killed Twenty-nine and wounded more than fifty people (Spitzer 13).
Discussion
The right to gun ownership is an area of statutory law that has been given slight modern judicial scrutiny, and as such it has educed an incredible amount of law review comments. Unquestionably, this is due to its significance to the long-lasting and robust debate on the prohibition of firearms. The founder's outlooks on the civil liberties of gun possession, yet freely available, are hardly cited in most law review processes. Interestingly, each of the Founders who talked about guns categorically validated their possession as a fundamental personal right (Chemerinsky 86).
Afar from the contemporary analysts to review important materials, the inventive implication of the second amendment is masked by the massive gap of time as well as standpoint which unconnected us from the founders, as well as our great detachment from the historians and philosophers who influenced the thinking of the Founders. The idea of arming individuals to uphold their rights and the pro-republic form of administration is not a subject in the present political thinking. However, it was tremendously significant to the radical theorizers, cherished by the Founders. Additionally, what the founding fathers meant by “Right to keep and bear arms” cannot be fully comprehended without referring to its advancement in the seventeenth century. As stated by Dr. Joyce Malcolm, “Without a doubt, the belief in the virtues of an armed citizenry had a profound effect upon the development of the English, and in consequence the American, system of government” (Chemerinsky 102). She further acknowledges that regardless of the significance, the history of the people’s right own guns remains unclear. Also, the constitutional scholars as well as historians have shown no attempts to investigate more into the origin of these rights (Chemerinsky 102).
PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder), a condition that is common among military veterans, is associated with high rates of aggressiveness and suicide. Although this group of individuals has a vast experience with guns, practically no indicator shows that who is more likely to own a gun and whether the weapon ownership is in a different way associated with psychological and behavioral risks among them. Besides, very little is known about this differential correlation. This information could be valuable in better informing the screening processes, risk evaluation, and policy institution. It is for this reason that the Veteran Affairs Department have listed hundreds of thousands of veterans to the NICBCS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), preventing them from accessing guns. However, in general, the veterans are against the view of rightfully owning a gun. Their primary argument is that since guns are the deadliest arms, reducing their accessibility would lessen killings by obliging the perpetrators to use less lethal weapons (Heinz et al. 1207).
Veterans are skilled in the use of guns, and most of them have served in wars. Most of them believe that the government should go an extra mile to protect more lives from being wasted by gun-related incidences. As one veteran, McChrystal, wrote in a magazine, he urged his fellow veterans who have served their nation in combat to participate more in the call for change amid the national crisis as their country needed them (Horton np). As eminent from this comment, veterans believe that owning a gun is citizen's right but the government should be more stringent in regulating them. Some veterans have also written in magazines about the kind of guns they have carried in missions and insist that such guns have less practical use outside a war zone.
Several other veterans have publicly spoken against gun ownership. For instance, Bethea wrote in the Star and Stripes magazine that he does not want a gun because he does not want to think of his homeland as a battleground. He further wrote that he does not want the civilians to own firearms because he thinks that the risks surpass the benefits. The veteran also believes that the idea of an individual needing a gun for home defense or any other use looks like a retrospective validation. He further questions the sense of making the guns readily available, and yet they are designed explicitly to kill the enemy (Horton np).
On the contrary, some people think and believe that owning a gun is a fundamental right. According to the proponents of gun ownership, the gun provides average individuals with the advantage they so dreadfully need and be worthy of protecting their life, rights and happiness. However, such comments from the proposers usually receive a lot of critics and condemnations. Amid all this, the important debate on gun regulation policy goes on as several gun-fixated bills presented by the congress were backed out. The bills comprised procedures to strengthen background checks and limit individuals on terror lists from acquiring guns (Terzian 112).
Conclusion
More recently veterans are coming out more and more spoken in nation's debate on gun control, especially in the wake of many gun-related incidences. Their arguments are based on their past service to the nation and their vast experience with weapons. The right to gun ownership has created a national domestic gun control debate and was first introduced in the 1950s. Several other veterans have publicly spoken against gun ownership. For instance, Bethea wrote in military.com magazine that he does not want a gun because he does not want to think of his homeland as a battleground. On the opposite, some people think and believe that owning a gun is a fundamental right.

Works Cited
Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.
Heinz, Adrienne J., et al. "Firearm ownership among military veterans with PTSD: a profile of demographic and psychosocial correlates." Military medicine 181.10 (2016): 1207.
Horton, Alex. "Veterans Add Voices To The Gun Control Debate After Orlando Attacks." Stars And Stripes, 2016, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/22/veterans-add-voices-to-gun-control-debate-after-orlando-attacks.html.
Terzian, Dan. "The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms." (2012).
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of gun control. Routledge, 2015.

July 24, 2021

This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.