IN DEFENCE OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

"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