What would ancient philosopher Plato think about the Second Amendment?
Integrated into the fabric of this nation since its earliest days, guns always remain a mark of pride and dignity for majority of the Americans. Whether for sports shooting, hunting or personal safety, majority of gun owners counts their right to bear arms vital for their freedom as a citizen.
The inspiration for “the Second Amendment” is often drawn from the Plato’s philosophy and his ideal state, whose well-armed citizen-soldiers continue to inspirit American ideology of freedom and self-reliance. The right of owning and bearing arms for hunting, defense of self, family and state is a crucial part of American tradition for centuries and has separated them as a free and sovereign nation from other nations. The Greek Philosopher Plato, who lived almost four centuries BCE, in his famous work “The Republic”, seemed to lay down the foundations of a modern society like America while he discussed in his theory how societies progress form oligarchy to democracy and finally to despotism. At every stage, the control of arms plays the curial role.
Fundamental Political Power, “Arms”
Democracy, the most cherished government system in America, according to Plato, is acquired when the citizens of his ideal state enforce the revolution with the arms or the fear has caused the oligarchy to withdraw. Plato states that;
“A tyrant does not begin his worst tyranny while an armed revolution is a credible threat and until he disarms his victims”
- The Republic
In The Republic, which is a series of teacher-student dialogues, the teacher explains:
“Then the parent (the people) will discover what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom; and, when he wants to drive him out, he will find that he is weak and his son (the tyrant) strong.”
Student: “Why, you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence? What! Beat his father if he opposes him?” Teacher: “Yes, he will, having first disarmed him.”
The opposition to the second amendment of US constitution and gun-control policies is now perceived to be a credible threat to the democratic and natural right of American citizens employed by a veiled impending tyrant. The people Plato’s ideal state “were trained periodically (once in a month) in use of arms to sharpen their military skills” (The Republic)
Thus, forecasting the need to buy ammunition by gun owners of America to sharpen their shooting skill in the peace time too.
Plato considered arms a fundamental source of political power and wanted the citizens of an ideal state to be well-armed and well trained to check against the tyranny of state and foreign intruders. He considered the control of arms equivalent to the control of the state since it is unlikely event that those who are able to use or to resist force should be willing to remain always in subjection.
“These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work”
-The Republic, Book VIII --
Plato stated that it was hardly surprising that dictators always disarmed their subjects as they mistrust people and therefore deprive them of their arms. He writes in The Republic;
“Oligarchs and tyrants mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms”
Plato paving the way towards “The Second Amendment”
“Whosoever controlled the arms, controlled the government”
The justifications of Plato’s Republic for well-armed citizens can be summarized as follows;
- Repelling invasion
- A natural right of self-defense
- Suppressing insurrections
- Safeguard against a tyrannical governments
- Participation in law enforcement and political matters
- Enabling people to organize a militia system
Necessary Explanation of the Second Amendment;
The second amendment actually doesn’t “provide” a right to bear arms, rather it “Preserves” it by making it illegal to infringe on the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is implied as a given. Also, a lot of people misunderstand the first half of the second amendment, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. It is commonly argued that only a “well regulated militia” is meant to bear arms, but that is not the case. The phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, actually means, “Since armed government (military) is necessary to preserve a state of freedom…” then goes on to say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” so the entire amendment reads, “”Since armed government (military) is necessary to preserve a state of freedom, the ability of the people to bear arms to defend themselves from tyranny by said armed government cannot be taken away.” – I would also like to add that constant attempts by government and legislators to infringe on people’s rights are illegal.
The gun permit process is illegal. This is the only constitutional right you need a permit to exercise. – Article 6 of the Constitution paragraph two states that the constitution is the supreme governing law of the land, and that it (amendments included) supersedes all other laws. It goes on to say that judges are bound by law to uphold the constitution as supreme law, and that any laws or treaties contrary to the constitution are not valid. Therefore any law that contradicts the constitution, or in the case of gun control specifically, infringes on the right of the people to bear arms, e.g. the permit process, or weapons bans, ARE ILLEGAL and INVALID. Guys like Bill Maher, and Piers Morgan will argue that the constitution and the intent of our forefathers may no longer be relevant. That in modern society people being armed is unnecessarily dangerous, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The hard truth is that the men who founded this country did so with a specific set of ideals in mind, one of which was that the people should not be ruled or oppressed by the government, but should in fact, be served by it. These ideals were meant to be permanent and lasting. These ideals, this document (The Constitution) are meant to define what type of society and government this country is expected to maintain. And in my opinion, as citizens of this country, we (“the people”) are meant to preserve and defend this at all cost. This would depict our patriotism and reverence towards our country and its historical values.
“Whosoever controlled the arms, controlled the government”
The justifications of Plato’s Republic for well-armed citizens can be summarized as follows;
- Repelling invasion
- A natural right of self-defense
- Suppressing insurrections
- Safeguard against a tyrannical governments
- Participation in law enforcement and political matters
- Enabling people to organize a militia system
Guns and Patriotism
The history of Americans is different from other western countries in many aspects as they were subjugated, they were enslaved, they were made devoid of their natural freedom, they struggled under the colonial system, they fought and finally snatched their freedom. Now patriotism demands maintaining this freedom by keeping an eye on some hidden tyrant planning to revoke the democratic and constitutional rights or some intruder who might want to subjugate them again under a colonial system. How is that possible? As Plato said in his The Republic, the commencement of the filthy tyranny starts with the tyrant disarming his people and leads to abolishing the democratic and constitutional rights;
These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work”
-The Republic, Book VIII --
Some Misconceptions about the Guns;
The most employed argument by gun-control associations is that the guns are the cause of murders and lawlessness in the American society which, when viewed closely, are fallacious. Just because a drunken car driver runs over someone and kills him doesn’t mean that it’s the car’s fault and hence car ownership is illegal just because cars are involved in deaths. It is sometimes thought that gun-control laws would decrease crime rate which is also wrong. Criminals don’t follow gun-control laws and it will only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns for self protection. Criminals always acquire guns illegally and the recent massacres were identified with illegally purchased weapons. If absolutely nobody own a gun in America people would still be murdered in many other ways which will lead us to knife-control soon. Murder is totally possible without guns and is a pure matter of social education and moral training.
It is just because of discipline and education that the American military troops, who are always in possession of arms and ammunition, never kill their comrades. It is an unperceived fact that the crime rates are on the higher side in Chicago and Washington DC where the private firearms ownership is illegal as compared to the America where firearms are legal. Keeping a fire extinguisher in your house doesn’t mean that you want to set your house on fire.
In a nutshell it can be said that the right to bear arms should not be conceived merely for the self defense against criminals but also against the oppressive government which patriots might have to overthrow by force. Buying arms and ammunitions in America is a symbol of preserving and celebrating the freedom which makes them exceptional in the world. Slogans like; “Ammunition is your right” and “buy ammo” is quite natural and patriotic in this part of the world which is embedded in the foundations of this land. The second amendment was intended to protect the gun ownership of those able men who can participate in defending the country when required and maintain its peace. This makes it clear that keeping and possessing the private arms is essentially patriotism. It seems like the Americans have their deep ideological roots since the Greeks and its great philosophers who seems to anticipate the second amendment and right of possessing private arms. Keeping semi auto rifles is by no standards against the constitution and any attempt to connote such meaning would be seen as illegal and unconstitutional.
In the next article we would explore and try to find how some other schools of philosophy or philosopher have predicted the pro-gun legislation in America, implicitly or explicitly, and how they have provided multidimensional justifications for the possession of private arms.
