In a country where over the last ten years we have seen an increase in the amount of gun violence in schools and a rising number of cheap handguns widely available, more and more citizens are asking themselves if, as a nation, we need to make changes in current handgun legislation. Concerns have been raised by gun advocates (most vocally by groups like the NRA) on the safety of citizens without the ability to freely purchase handguns to protect their family from crime. On the other hand, gun control advocates propose that these same citizens would be far safer and in fact have more liberty in a nation where guns were more difficult to obtain. When the bases for these positions are analyzed, it seems that it is in the best interest of our country to ban private handgun ownership.
One of the arguments that gun supporters makes to justify the ownership of handguns is that they have the "right" to own firearms. The first line of defense for this theory is the 2nd amendment of the Constitution which gives citizens the right to bear arms. However, we must go beyond the current law to see what the justification for such a law is and if it would still be justified in today's society. Beyond the 2nd amendment, it has been claimed that gun owners have a basic, fundamental right to own and use firearms. If we do have a basic, fundamental right to .
bear arms, then we should protect that right the way that we protect the basic, fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, if it is a basic, fundamental right then no one can be denied that right and we already allow some people to be prevented from owning guns, for an example convicted felons. Convicted felons after they have been released from prison, would not be disallowed from pursuing happiness, how then would they be denied the basic fundamental right to own a gun? Therefore, gun ownership is not a fundamental right, but perhaps it is a derivative right.
