OT -- Right to Bear Arms -- Opinions Please

I don't know how many of you are interested, but I wrote a short ethics paper about the right to bear arms in society. I just wanted some constructive feedback from outside sources that I do not normally get an opinion from.

So if you're interested, I hope you enjoy the paper. Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated.


The right to bear arms has been debated in many different times and civilizations throughout human history. With the advancement in weapons technology, this ethical debate is still at the forefront of some of the more controversial political debates of our time. Is it a human right to be armed with a weapon in our modern society? Is the right to bear arms fundamental to democracy and individual freedom? These questions form the core of the debate surrounding weapons, in particular firearms/guns, and the right to bear arms. Although the technology is always changing, the ethical argument surrounding the right to bear arms remains.

The right to bear arms has been a topic that has been discussed for thousands of years. Although the technology has changed, the root of the argument remains the same. For example, Plato believed that arming “wardens” to defend a country was essential to maintaining the state. "Further, at all seasons of the year, summer and winter alike, let them be under arms and survey minutely the whole country; thus they will at once keep guard, and at the same time acquire a perfect knowledge of every locality. There can be no more important kind of information than the exact knowledge of a man’s own country...” (Plato, “Laws”) Although Plato believed that the ruling class should control access to arms, it was still at the forefront of his argument regarding political control. While Plato believed training the populace in combat was essential, he also believed that the government should limit the access to weapons to prevent revolution and unrest.

Although Aristotle was a student of Plato, and agreed that weapons and the right to bear arms were important to freedom and democracy, he disagreed with Plato on a fundamental issue. It was not the government and ruling class that protected the freedoms of the population by remaining armed, but instead was the population itself. Aristotle argues that an armed population is essential to the welfare of a free state: "When the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name — a constitution . . . Hence in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens." (Aristotle, “Politics” Book 3) Aristotle also talked about how an armed population could determine the “fate of the Constitution.” "But on the other hand, since it is an impossible thing that those who are able to use or to resist force should be willing to remain always in subjection, from this point of view the persons are the same; for those who carry arms can always determine the fate of the constitution." (Aristotle, “Politics” Book 7) Both Plato and Aristotle believe that armaments play a central role in maintaining political power. Although they disagree on who should be armed, government entities or the people, who is armed is still at the forefront of their argument about political control.

Niccolo Machiavelli also discusses the importance of arms in a society: “Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed.” (Machiavelli, “The Prince” Chapter 6) Machiavelli was essentially conveying that arms determine, whether or not a “prophet,” political ideal, or aristocratic class was successful or not in asserting its power. Without an armed following, there is no realistic chance at political power. Even when ruling a population, Machiavelli warns of the consequences of trying to disarm them: “But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. “ (Machiavelli, “The Prince” Chapter 20) Machiavelli is clearly stating that the trust to defend the country should rest on the population, for when you take that responsibility away, it ferments distrust and resentment toward the ruling class.“The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws.” (Machiavelli, “The Prince” Chapter 12) In this statement, Machiavelli correlates the relationship between good laws and the public's right to bear arms. It is the freedom to bear arms that checks political power and tyranny, as the threat of revolution is ever present in an environment where the population is armed.

The founding fathers of the United States also felt there was a fundamental need for the public to be armed in a free state. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution says: “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.” (US Constitution, 2nd Amendment) The founding fathers were for the most part avid historians and well educated, who were familiar with Roman history, as well as classics like Plato's “Laws,” Aristotle's “Politics,” and Machiavelli's “The Prince.” Without a doubt the same ethical arguments surrounding arms that are discussed in those classic works were also debated during the forming of the Constitution. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46) Here, James Madison makes the connection between disarming the public and government control. This was a common belief among the founding fathers, and that is why they specifically worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did. The ethical argument that in order to have a free society, that society must be armed was center stage in the 2nd Amendment debate.

Today, this ethical argument about the right to bear arms continues to be debated. The most notable of recent events being the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller. Again, the ethical argument regarding arms and the right to bear them took center stage in the nation's capital. The law in Washington D.C was: “District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns...” (D.C vs Heller) The Supreme Court eventually overturned this law citing it as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” (D.C vs Heller) The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity for the 2nd Amendment, and explained some of the reasoning behind it. “The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” (D.C vs Heller) Despite arguments about public safety, the 2nd Amendment was upheld due to belief that the right to bear arms ultimately protects the rights of the population from oppression.

Although there are many different opinions in regard to the ethical debate surrounding the right to bear arms, there is a glaring similarity in these arguments: Whoever controls the arms, controls the political direction of the state. Whether or not they are arguing for more government control of arms, or less control, the issue of protecting the individual rights and freedoms of the population are at the center of the argument. The significant difference in these opinions is the degree in which the population should trust government and depend on government entities to protect their rights. In the end, it is up to the individual to observe history and form their own opinion on whether or not it is a fundamental right for a person to be armed. This debate has been on-going for thousands of years, and will continue to be debated in the future. Whether it is Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, the Supreme Court, or the founding fathers of the United States: the ethical discussion about the right to bear arms has continuously been argued throughout history.



Bibliography

Plato. (348 BC). Laws. (B. Jowett, Trans.). Athens, Greece: Plato.

Aristotle. (350 BC). Politics. (B. Jowett, Trans.). Athens, Greece: Aristotle.

Machiavelli, N. (1515). The Prince. (W. K. Marriott, Trans.). Italy: Niccolo Machiavelli.

Continental Congress. (1787). The United States Constitution. Philadelphia, PA: Constitutional Convention.

United States. (2008). District of Columbia v. Heller. Washington D.C: United States Supreme Court.

moved to Off TOpic where it belongs oh my brother

My bad. Thanks for moving it.

no problem Vic, this way guys will venture out onto the whole board, I actually like how they have the OT forum

as for our question

I have no problem with legally bearing arms, otherwise hillbillies might stop beating their wives for a day to read the constitution and that is A SCARY THOUGHT

Dont take away my gun, but damn it i aint paying taxes hahaha

I have guns

I'm not a big gun advocate.

There is the NRA catch phrase "if guns are made criminal, then only criminals will have guns", but in the current system, it is all too easy for criminals to get guns.

Unfortuneatly any movement that makes it more difficult to obtain weapons, ie: registering for hand guns, or even rifles(which should not affect a law abiding citizen much), as well as the assault rifle ban(which raises the question of "at what level do we set the limit?" cause at some point everyone will agree there needs to be a limit), is seen as anti gun, or as initial steps in a complete ban, and fought tooth and nail by the NRA and gun industry.

So we see both a political aspect which curtails some common sense law making, and a private industries interest(which is a bit disturbing) in pushing against gun laws.

As far as your paper goes, I did not realize that both Plato and Aristotle weighed in on the matter, It looks to me as though Plato was pro gun control, merely arming a police force, while Aristotle looks to be pro gun.

I do question the idea of an armed population being able to check tyranny and oppression in modern times, at least in this country. I cannot imagine a civilian uprising, that believed in conventional weaponry, that would, even for a minute challenge the US military. And though that may lead one to attack the assault rifle ban for that reason, in that assault rifle's or even larger weaponry would provide a better check on martial oppression, I think it has been shown that it's not necessarily heavy weaponry that poses the biggest defense against gov't oppression, instead stealth, combined with easy to access explosive's(fuel, fertilizer, etc) provide more of a threat then any high tech weapon.

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

The one area I would expand is where you quote the Second Amendment itself.

The words Militia and Regulated need to be understood as they were used at the time. Militia, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, means "the whole People." It is NOT the National Guard or some organized body. It is simply the people.

The word Regulated didn't mean trained, or it didn't just mean that. Instead it means ARMED. In other words the statement is that the Militia mus not just have arms, it must have QUALITY arms and be able to effectively employ them.

I must compliment the liberal scholars, beginning with Lawrence Tribe, who had the intellectual honesty to concede the accuracy of this view beginning 20 or so years ago.

You might also want to contrast the Platonic view and the desire for stability with the revolutionary origins of the USA, the Declaration of Independence and the famous Jefferson letter where he talks about the need for occasional revolutions to ensure human freedom.

Lastly I am THRILLED younguns are reading the Greeks, Machiavelli and the Constitution. Renews my faith in the future.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The one area I would expand is where you quote the Second Amendment itself.

The words Militia and Regulated need to be understood as they were used at the time. Militia, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, means "the whole People." It is NOT the National Guard or some organized body. It is simply the people.

The word Regulated didn't mean trained, or it didn't just mean that. Instead it means ARMED. In other words the statement is that the Militia mus not just have arms, it must have QUALITY arms and be able to effectively employ them.

I must compliment the liberal scholars, beginning with Lawrence Tribe, who had the intellectual honesty to concede the accuracy of this view beginning 20 or so years ago.

You might also want to contrast the Platonic view and the desire for stability with the revolutionary origins of the USA, the Declaration of Independence and the famous Jefferson letter where he talks about the need for occasional revolutions to ensure human freedom.

Lastly I am THRILLED younguns are reading the Greeks, Machiavelli and the Constitution. Renews my faith in the future.

I got interested in that sort of content in middle school. I was fascinated with the great leaders/rulers of history, and my interest just kind of grew from there. I absolutely love history.

Thank you for the excellent feedback. This is a midterm paper and is going to be expanded upon for a final paper and presentation later on with a group. You've given me some excellent ideas for expanding on the research a bit.

It is supposed to be a research paper, so that is why I did not state my opinion. Although I revealed my bias with the research points I selected.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

The one area I would expand is where you quote the Second Amendment itself.

The words Militia and Regulated need to be understood as they were used at the time. Militia, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, means "the whole People." It is NOT the National Guard or some organized body. It is simply the people.

The word Regulated didn't mean trained, or it didn't just mean that. Instead it means ARMED. In other words the statement is that the Militia mus not just have arms, it must have QUALITY arms and be able to effectively employ them.

I must compliment the liberal scholars, beginning with Lawrence Tribe, who had the intellectual honesty to concede the accuracy of this view beginning 20 or so years ago.

You might also want to contrast the Platonic view and the desire for stability with the revolutionary origins of the USA, the Declaration of Independence and the famous Jefferson letter where he talks about the need for occasional revolutions to ensure human freedom.

Lastly I am THRILLED younguns are reading the Greeks, Machiavelli and the Constitution. Renews my faith in the future.

Yeah I wish my students were interested in Government. I get comments like "Obama is Satan it says so in the bible or Obama is a muslem he shouldnt be allowed to be president." It makes me sad sometimes.

What do you teach? Bible study at a Tea Party?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

What do you teach? Bible study at a Tea Party?

I teach US Government Wolf.

What school

marble no offense

its called Watts Riots, check out how armed citizens in america do against the national guard yet alone the military

still love ya hahaha

wolfs like holy shit i think ive met OU hahaha

Wolfgangsta wrote:

What school

Why Wolf are you going to come to Oklahoma and watch me from a distance?

bwahahhaa

Birdofthad wrote:

marble no offense

its called Watts Riots, check out how armed citizens in america do against the national guard yet alone the military

still love ya hahaha

One small part of one city Bird. Think about it with 100 million armed people and it changes more than a little bit.

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

I disagree with that but marble. I think the entire bill of rights for the most part is equal. As for the rest I will keep my opinion to myself. I just will say there is some flaws in your argument. IMO. I do agree with the right to bear arms though.

Birdofthad wrote:

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

True but you're missing the point. Will American Tanks fire on American civilians over and over and over again over a period of weeks and months? Or will the soldiers at some point say "Screw this?"

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

I disagree with that but marble. I think the entire bill of rights for the most part is equal. As for the rest I will keep my opinion to myself. I just will say there is some flaws in your argument. IMO. I do agree with the right to bear arms though.

You WUSSY! Step up!

The reason the right to bear arms matters more is it helps protect the others. There is no other right that does that.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

True but you're missing the point. Will American Tanks fire on American civilians over and over and over again over a period of weeks and months? Or will the soldiers at some point say "Screw this?"

well theyve done it before and would have kept doin it had they not won

Birdofthad wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

True but you're missing the point. Will American Tanks fire on American civilians over and over and over again over a period of weeks and months? Or will the soldiers at some point say "Screw this?"

well theyve done it before and would have kept doin it had they not won

That's simply untrue. They have NEVER had to do it over and over again for an extended period. NEVER.