"A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Above is a powerful albeit
very contentious provision in the famed second amendment of the American bill
of rights. Did the framers of this significant law intend for individuals to
bear arms without restriction, or was it intended for state-owned, funded and
regulated militia? Notwithstanding the intendment, every one of the ubiquitous
duels between the Gun Rights and Gun Control groups in the US inevitably boils
down to this provision in the second amendment.
Regardless of the intention of the framers, I have been an ardent supporter of gun control. Well, it was
just plain common sense. With America being home to the highest number mass
shootings in the world, only challenged by Yemen at a distant second, it seemed
reasonable that gun ownership should be controlled. It is also worthy of note
that there are more guns in US than there are people! Only the Americans could
understand there obsession for gun ownership.
However, lately I have begun
appreciate the point being canvassed by the Gun Right and activists and to interrogate
very seriously my conviction in that guns be banned. Is there really no merit in
allowing individual gun ownership? Can individual gun ownership really be
helpful to the security of a state? Pragmatically, it appears we cannot just
dismiss Gun Rights advocates with a wave of the hand. There are contexts in
which their agitation cannot be faulted. I will start from home.
The marauding herdsmen, who
have been raping, maiming, burning and killing with appalling arrogance, only
have one edge. They bear arms! The audacity with which they strike is only
provided by the guns. They are not superior in intelligence or strategy to
their victims. Nor are they physically stronger. On several occasions, their
victims sent out information to security agencies days before the attacks
happen. Yet, they strike. And when they do, they inflict maximum pain. Why? The
victims and aggressors are both prohibited, by law, to bear arms. But one party
is permitted to bear arms against the law, by virtue of their religion and ethnicity.
As a result of a deliberate
policy of weakening one party against the other, of conferring undue advantage
on one camp in flagrant violation of the Nigerian constitution, international
laws and conventions and the principles of natural justice, the security of the
Nigerian state is undoubtedly compromised.
I ask myself, ‘How different would
the story have been if these herdsmen knew that their targets were as well
armed as they?’ Communities would not have had to cry to governors, who have no
power to secure them beyond what the federal government permits. Most of these
communities already have vigilantes. But an unarmed vigilante is powerless
against heavily-armed, state-backed actors. Imagine if they had unlimited fire
power like their aggressors!
Until such a time when the government
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria begins to use the armed services of the
federation for the mutual benefit of all, until the protection of every Nigeria
is not only the primary concern of government but actually seen to be so, until
the life of every citizen is considered of equal importance to government, I
think a law should be enacted to give force to the right to self-defense by
legitimising individual ownership of guns.
I think the security of the
state will be better served that way.
Comments and reactions to
teamupafrica@gmail.com
