Project management fundamentals and organizational implementation

Right to Bear Arms

Should civil society have the right to bear arms? A Critical Look on the Issue of Individualism and Collectivism in the Interpretation of the Second Amendment

In the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment contains the rights of citizens as individuals, of which the 'right to bear arms' is considered part of the conditions stated. The issue of a citizen's right to bear arms, or guns, is a debate that has remained unresolved, especially if a controversial or celebrated case concerning the right to bear arms is in focus.

This research provides an alternative way of looking at this issue, wherein the issue of the right to bear arms is argued based on the judicial system's interpretation of this right: whether the right to bear arms should be interpreted based on an individualist or collectivist point-of-view.

The thesis that will be discussed in this paper assumes the stance that the right to bear arms should be based on a collectivist view, for every individual right, if subjected to interpretations favoring individual purposes only, would defeat the objectives of the formation of the Constitution itself. Thus, in accordance to the objectives of the Constitution, which is to guide both civil society and the political system in governance and to ensure social order, the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the context of the individual vis-a-vis his/her rights' effect on the society. Thus, if the right to bear arms caused or will cause detriment to the civil society, then this right should not be considered an argument for an individual to still attain this right, and held not liable for whatever detriment the attainment of such right has for the civil society or one's community.

This point-of-view was subsisted in Busch's (2003) analysis of the case United States vs. Emerson, wherein the issue of the right to bear arms surfaced. In analyzing the Court's decision to defer Emerson's right to bear arms, Busch stated that such decision was made because the Court's decision was "collective" in nature, wherein the welfare of the civil society, and the danger posed by Emerson became the contentions against his case. In asserting that the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the collectivist point-of-view, the author rationalized that "the more collectively the right is interpreted, the more broadly Congress can legislate to restrict the right to bear arms" (347). In effect, what made sense in Busch's analysis is that this particular right, as stated in the Constitution, must be interpreted in the proper context. Thus, Emerson's ownership of a gun for militia purposes, whether he has the intent to use this or not, is a threat to civil society; hence, the Court's decision to deny him his rights to bear arms is considered just, in the collectivist's point-of-view.