The Right to Bear Arms?

"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."

Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

    The U.S. Congress is currently debating proposed gun control legislation, and it appears at this point that there will not be a ban on military-style assault weapons. The President had appointed a commission headed by Vice-President Joe Biden, which conducted hearings and issued recommendations. Among other proposals under consideration are universal background checks, a national gun registry, and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips. As expected, all of this has met with stern resistance from the National Rifle Association, which has traditionally opposed all restrictions on gun ownership. At this point there appears to be too much political opposition to a ban on assault weapons.

    The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. But what exactly does it mean? The amendment ties gun ownership to "a well regulated militia" being "necessary to the security of a free state." The amendment is modeled on similar provisions in the Virginia and Pennsylvania constitutions, which explain that "a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained in arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state." The underlying idea is that the people possess a natural right to self-defense, that governments possess only the powers granted to them by the people, that the right to bear arms is a bulwark of individual liberty, and that the safest way for a democratic society to provide for its national defense is through an organized militia composed of the entire body of the citizens themselves.
    In actual practice, however, the militia concept did not work very well. During the War of 1812 the militia proved unreliable in the field, and it wasn't even clear under whose control they were, the state or the federal governments. Thus it became painfully obvious that the federal government would have to rely more heavily on a regular army.
    Originally members of the militia were each expected to provide himself with a "good musket." In the early 20^th Century, however, the militia were organized into the "National Guard," and provision was made for the federal government to issue the militia the same military equipment used by the Regular Army. This, of course, would include all of the weapons of modern warfare: tanks, aircraft, missiles and artillery. These, in turn, are kept under lock and key in designated arsenals. Thus there is no longer a need for the "militia" to have their own firearms.
    What, then, does the "right to bear arms" mean today? First of all, it has to be acknowledged that what the Founding Fathers specifically had in mind were military weapons. They were not enshrining in the Constitution the sacred right to go deer hunting. Rather, the Second Amendment serves a more serious purpose: the right of self-defense, and, by extension, the right of armed resistance to the government.
    But can the Christian countenance such an idea? Our Lord specifically enjoined non-resistance. "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also . . . But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt. 5:39, 44; NKJV). Given our Lord's plain instructions, can we really justify shooting someone?
    Any attempt to ban military assault rifles would be frankly unconstitutional. Yet it must be borne in mind that a firearm is a lethal weapon: it has the potential to kill human beings. There is an obvious need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and madmen. Certainly a prudent regard for public safety would require the registration of firearms and universal background checks. If a license is required to operate a motor vehicle, if proof of age is required to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, then why not to own a weapon? If the "militia" consists of the whole body of the citizenry, shouldn't it be "well regulated"?
    But beyond that can a Christian really justify owning a semiautomatic assault rifle, specifically designed to kill as many people as possible quickly and efficiently? We hesitate to judge here. I once lived in a crime-ridden inner-city neighborhood (in Philadelphia) and know the dangers fist hand. But I have never owned a gun, and have lived to tell the story. Let each examine his own conscience and act accordingly.

Other blog posts of interest (click on link):
You Shall not Murder 
An Eye for an Eye 
Peace on Earth 

PEACE ON EARTH

The Angel Announces the Savior's Birth

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, / And their spears into pruning hooks; / Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, / Neither shall they learn war anymore."                                                     – Isa. 2:4b; NKJV
    During this Christmas season several news items came to our attention. One, of course, was the horrific shooting incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. But there was also an article in the Dec. 10 issue of Newsweek magazine about "Moral Injury," and more recently USA Today carried an interview with Grover Norquist about his steadfast opposition to tax increases (12/17/12). They all, in a curious sort of way, are connected.
    The big question in the wake of the school shooting is how to prevent future tragedies like this occurring again. One proposed solution is to outlaw military style assault rifles like the one used in the incident. The NRA will undoubtedly argue that it is not guns that cause violence, but the people who use them, and in one sense this is perfectly true. However the rifle in question is a military weapon – it was designed specifically to kill as many human beings as possible. No one is going to use it for deer hunting, for target practice, or for self defense. It has no legitimate civilian use. It makes no more sense to make it available to the general public than it does to put tanks and fighter bombers on the civilian market.
    Obviously more needs to be done to bolster school security. How was a heavily armed gunman able to enter an elementary school? For that matter, why did the gunman's mother leave her gun cabinet unlocked when she knew that she had a mentally disturbed son? But probably the most important thing we can do to prevent future attacks is to improve our mental health system. Almost all of these attacks are carried out by young, emotionally disturbed males, and their acquaintances knew this long before the attacks. We need to find a way to identify these people and get them help before they commit an unspeakable crime.
    The Newsweek article discussed the diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Up until now the standard view has been that it is a fear-based disorder – they live in constant anxiety of getting killed. But the counselors who have spent time talking with these GI's and vets say that a different story has emerged. What these combat veterans are suffering from is guilt – guilt over having killed innocent civilians or not having saved the life of a comrade. This has forced the military to face a deeply troubling question: is there something about killing that violates the human conscience? For the Christian the answer is obviously "yes." Human beings "show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . . ." (Rom. 2:14-16). Even a hard-boiled atheist cannot escape this basic fact of human psychology. Either he must admit that the pangs of conscience reflect some sort of objective reality, or else he must hold that the conscience is irrational and that there is nothing inherently "wrong" about killing other human beings.

    All of this raises a serious question about America's foreign policy. Soldiers find themselves in these morally difficult situations because of the nature of the assignments given them. We send them overseas to put down an insurgency. But once there they find that it is often difficult to tell friend apart from foe. They all look alike, they all dress alike, they all speak the same incomprehensible foreign language. In the heat of the firefight, when the bullets are flying, it is inevitable that innocent civilians will be killed. The GI has to live with this on his conscience potentially for the rest of his life. It is no wonder that he is emotionally traumatized.
    Which brings us to Mr. Norquist. He was asked by business journalist Maria Bartiromo how he could say that taxes should never go up. His answer was, in part, "The federal government has been taking about 18% of GDP in taxes for the last 20, 30 years. That is more than sufficient to run a reasonably sized government."
    That all depends on what constitutes "a reasonably sized government." Tax rates are considerably higher in a number of European countries. What Mr. Norquist fails to mention is what the US government spends that money on: most of the budget is devoted to defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What does Mr. Norquist think we should cut? Does he really think that the elderly should not receive medical attention? Reforms obviously need to be made to the major entitlement programs (a point seemingly lost on Mrs. Pelosi), but the fact remains that the U.S. spends 5% of its GDP on defense, more than France (3.2%), Britain (3%), Italy (1.8%), or Germany (1.7%). Wouldn't it make sense to bring our defense spending more in line with that of our NATO allies?
    We got Osama bin Laden. Isn't it time to say "mission accomplished," and bring the troops home?

    Which brings us at last to "the reason for the season," why Christ was born. War, violence, and murder have unfortunately been a part of human life since Cain slew Abel. Human society is fundamentally disordered, and death is the price we pay for our depravity. The only real hope for mankind is divine salvation. We need forgiveness, reconciliation to God, and inward cleansing. And to accomplish this a babe was born in Bethlehem.

You may also enjoy:
American Militarism