Dear Editor,
Why are senior members of our military granted the right to bear arms? We are not presently at war. There is a longstanding and ongoing controversy over our territory and a threat at our border but we can’t honestly define it as an imminent one. It is more understandable and expected that our crime-fighters and members of our police force would be allowed to carry a weapon. Yet, there was a furore recently when it was revealed that none other than the Commissioner of Police granted himself such a privilege.
I know people who no longer have a business but who still have a legal firearm. I know people who have been convicted of a crime and in some cases are deportees who have a legal weapon. Where are we Guyanese and how much further along the trail of terror are we going to travel before we realise there is no escape? If a survey is conducted, it would be revelatory of the percentage of our population who are licensed firearm holders. Surely our population is too small and not growing with our ever present migratory trend, to have more arms than people in circulation. If we focus on getting our society working well, there would be no need for so many of us to carry a weapon. A firearm in the hands of the wrong person will often result in murder or a gun-inflicted wound. The temperament and history of someone should always be analysed and considered before being allowed to own a firearm. Could someone tell me what part of our Constitution endows us with the right to bear arms such as provided to United States citizens by the US Constitution?
Yours faithfully,
Conrad Barrow