A right to bear arms?

Had Tichaona Chiminya and Talent Mabika (and countless other innocent victims, before and since) been armed on that fateful day in Buhera nine years ago, they might have been able to defend themselves. Unfortunately, only criminals sponsored by, and working for, the government, were armed on that day.
Whenever I consider some of the excesses of the past thirty years of ZANU-PF rule under Robert Mugabe, such as the genocidal atrocities perpetrated against innocent civilians in the western provinces during the 1980s; and the more recent murderous assault by the ruling party on farmers and political opponents of all sorts and conditions, across the length and breadth of the country, I experience a melting down of my natural resistance to the free availability of arms.
I just wonder if the behavior of the ruling elites might have been different had they known that their potential victims were lawfully armed and likely to fight back, as individuals and even, as organized groups. My liberal tendencies lead me to instinctively oppose widespread access to arms of all sorts, from small ones to missiles.
In theory, for one to be able to make the transition from one end of the spectrum to the other, one needs evidence showing that armed communities enjoy more political and individual rights. (I emphasize that for me, this is not an issue of public safety, so I am applying Occam’s razor to that line of discussion because it would be another conversation altogether if my original assumption were correct. Granted: there is a direct link between the number of guns in a community and the number of gun-related deaths and injuries).
Those who think only in terms of general safety are, therefore, missing the point. What I am arguing is that there may be a positive correlation between gun ownership and the enjoyment of individual rights such as free speech, association and property.
Let me briefly describe the gun ownership regulations in Zimbabwe, as I understand them. It is basically up to the police (read ZANU-PF or MDC, depending on who is in power) to decide who gets armed or not. Presumably, anyone can apply for a gun license but in general, licenses are reserved for farmers, businesspeople and other well-connected individuals.
The minister of home affairs may, at his or her sole discretion, by way of a so-called statutory instrument (surely one of the most primitive ways of law-making ever), decide who can or cannot own, a gun. The police are the functional licensing authority with respect to civilian firearms ownership.
In practice, what this means is that only members of the uniformed and intelligence services, thugs in the employ of the ruling coalition, and a few favored people, can legally own or carry, guns.
The results of this situation for the rule of law and the enjoyment of peace and political and individual rights, by the people of Zimbabwe, over the past thirty years, are so well documented that there is no need to discuss them here. Suffice it to say that a reasonable observer might wonder if the people of Zimbabwe might have been better off with an inalienable right to bear arms in the constitution. Of course, the Zimbabwe government is not famous for respecting constitutional rights, but it could well have been the case that before the government realized that its hold on power was under threat, the people would have been so well armed already in their villages and towns that the government would have thought twice before taking any action that might cause mass provocation.
It seems obvious that ruling party thugs would think twice before trying to drag a man from his home in the middle of the night or forcing people to attend political gatherings against their better wishes. Even the police would have second thoughts about exposing themselves to public anger unnecessarily by, for example, arresting people for simply enjoying their freedom of assembly and speech rights. We would all be better off, I suspect, if roles were reversed, and the government actually feared the people and not the other way round!
There are economic benefits to be derived from widespread gun ownership, to be sure. There would be many new shops selling and repairing guns and their accessories, along with a cluster of new jobs, perhaps. But that’s not the raison d’etre of this proposal.
Will there be those who use their guns to settle personal scores? No doubt. But should we punish the rest of the people because a tiny minority of them will commit crimes? I think not.
I am not suggesting that any adult person should be able to own a gun. There would have to be a system in place to screen applicants for specified crimes and other pertinent issues. Individuals would be required to undergo some form of training in the use of firearms before they are allowed to own arms. And those who committed crimes with their guns would have them permanently confiscated, by operation of the law. But it should not be up to some ruling party politician to decide who can or cannot own a gun; that decision ought to be the subject of an opinion of the people expressed through the constitution.
I would sweeten the deal for those opposed to my proposal by suggesting that freedom to own arms be instituted on an interim basis and be subject to public review every ten years. It may also be necessary to remove the licensing power (not the enforcement power) from the police by setting up a separate bureaucracy wholly funded by those who want to own guns. In other words, nobody who is not a gun owner will be forced to pay for the enjoyment of this right through taxes. If all goes well, and politicians begin to fear the people, then I would be happy to get rid of such a provision at the earliest possible opportunity. Those who say that an MDC-led future government will be more enlightened than ZANU-PF are mistaken purveyors of naivety. We heard similar stories in 1980. Nothing should be left to chance.
We know that the government will always have more and bigger guns, but I suspect that any government that consistently and willfully violates the rights of an armed people will soon find itself in serious trouble. It is precisely for this reason that the Zimbabwe government (including the current ruling coalition) will find this proposal to be truly alarming: they want to be the only ones “armed and dangerous”!
I know that many of my liberal friends will see this as an outrageously retrogressive suggestion, if not outright, right wing insanity. But if you asked me who, between a historically and potentially murderous and intrusive bureaucracy and a populace chastened by decades of political repression, should be armed, that would not be a mind-wrenching decision for me.
Umchini wami, mchini wami!