After yet another horrible shooting, the Second Amendment is being attacked by the liberal community and there seems to be little or no reasoning on their part. I could bring up the fact that the shooter was not stopped until someone with a gun stopped him. This person was one of many police officers who arrived on the scene after the massacre had already claimed 13 lives. Had a civilian been able to carry, surely the massacre would have ended sooner and lives been saved (lest we forget the mall shooting in Oregon). As far as I am concerned, this would be enough to convince me to support the second amendment. Do we or do we not have a responsibility to defend innocent life? However, in light of our nation’s constant bickering on the subject, I will not use this idea to defend a right I already believe in. Instead, I want to approach the question reasonably. First, let us consider the second amendment.
“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.”
These words have been interpreted various ways by various groups of people. So, in order to look at these words correctly we must also observe the context of their writing. Since the Bill of Rights, on which this statement is found, is a list of amendments concerning the Constitution of the United States, we will look at relevant portions of the Constitution and at the history surrounding the statement made.
Constitution
Article 1 Section 8 according to the power of congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Article 2 Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article 2 Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article 4 Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
History
What was a malitia?: “From the earliest years of English settlement, colonists had depended on local groups of part-time citizen soldiers to defend themselves from the Indians or at times to maintain law and order. By the time of the French and Indian War, American colonists had come to rely more on British troops and volunteer provincial units for protection, but even though the militia system had deteriorated, Americans held fast to their faith in the concept of the citizen soldier. Beginning with the Stamp Act crisis and extending throughout the Revolution, the Americans’ experience with the British Army only strengthened their hatred of standing armies as implements of monarchy and tyranny and a threat to civilian government.”[1]
A militia was literally a group of citizen soldiers whose goal was essentially homeland security. Britain attempted to keep military style rifles from these citizen soldiers by creating their own gun-control agenda just before landing troops in Boston.[2] The only way that citizens survived and defended the newly forming Union, was that they (civilians) did have military-style weapons at their disposal.
What this means
All of this means simply: that modern-day firearm laws and ‘regulation’ do not currently represent the second amendment. First of all, the second amendment recognized the citizen-soldier as a necessary component of the security of a free state. In so, it provides the people a right to keep and bear arms. It also provides that this right ‘shall not’ be infringed. This means that any government who opposes the second amendment either opposes the freedom of the United States or the security of the United States.
Furthermore, congress has a right not to limit the citizen-soldier, but to call the citizen soldier to service, to organize the group of citizen soldiers, to arm citizen-soldiers and to discipline citizen-soldiers. Congress, according to its own constitution, does not have the right to limit the types of weapons available to citizens, but instead to provide those weapons for citizens if it wishes to do so.
The president of the United States does not have the right, according to his own constitution, to limit the citizen-soldier’s right to keep or bear any arm (weapon) he chooses to keep and bear. Instead, the President has the right to call the citizen-soldier to service.
If we are to define treason as an act against one’s country, gun-control here becomes one of the highest acts of treason because it declares enmity with either the freedom or the security of a free state according to our own constitution.
If the United States federal government fails to allow states to operate freely and as their own state, then the federal government becomes the same model of Tyranny that Britain was in the late 1700’s.
What this means for us
This means that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require the registration of or licensing of weapons owned by civilians. It also means that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require its citizens to be licensed in order to carry. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to limit the sorts or calibers of weapons available to civilians. It is unconstitutional for the federal government not to provide training to citizens who regularly use firearms. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to not discipline the misuse of firearms by a citizen.
The idea is also present that the reason for allowing civilians to keep and bear arms is not for personal defense, but for the security of a free state. When a government takes that right from its citizens, those citizens either are not free, or are no longer secure.
Take what you will from this. As for me, I support the Constitution of the United States. I support freedom and I support the security of this free state. This is why I oppose gun control and support discipline and proper training. If the second amendment becomes less than it was written to be (and it has) then we lose at least 1/3 of our own constitution and America is no longer free or secure. This is not a matter of self-defense, of recreation or of sport. It is a matter of opposing tyranny and of standing for freedom.
Scripture?
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:1-7 ESV)
Within context, Paul is telling the believers in Rome first to live peaceably with everyone so long as it depended on them (Romans 12:9-21) and to live in such a way that they do not owe anyone else anything (Romans 13:8-14). Thus, our submission to the government God has placed over us works so that we may maintain peace and that we may not owe the officials in that government anything. Furthermore, if authority is given by God and worldly governments are to do God’s work, then they will be held accountable directly by God. Let us not forget that, even in Paul’s time, the Roman government was represented by a group of tyrants and oppressors and that this government would eventually sentence Paul to death because he opposed their worship practices and preached the Gospel of Christ.
Thus, as we submit to the action of our government, in order to maintain peace, we also hold our government accountable for their actions even if we must incur some human punishment for doing so. Our government must operate according to its constitution, else it fails to be the governing authority of the United States.