Second Amendment Follies

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:  “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.” This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments. These amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights and place clear limitations on the government's power.

While almost all citizens appreciate most of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights, a disturbing number do not like the Second Amendment and would get rid of it if they could. In the processes, they twist reality into a convoluted mess of arguments against it. Some of their nonsensical arguments are listed below:

• “Since the amendment contains the word ‘militia,’ it applies only to members of the military.” This argument is patently absurd on its face, as are almost all of the anti-Second Amendment arguments. The reality is that our founding fathers preferred militias to a standing army. We cannot use 21^st century definitions to define what things were in colonial America. When the Constitution was written, a militia was made up of volunteers who came to fight, bringing their own arms and ammunition. Our founders knew better than to try and disarm the populace. Otherwise, there could be no militia
• “The ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is a collective right rather than an individual right.” This argument falls flat when it is pointed out that it is a right of “the people,” not just of the government. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." It should also be pointed out that if part of the Bill of Rights does not grant individual rights, then consistent interpretation would mean such is true of the entire Bill of Rights. There would be howls of protest and who knows what else should such an idea be embraced by politicians.
• “Since our rights are granted to us by our government, that same government has the right to take those rights away.” This argument fails miserably, and our founders recognized the fact that rights are not granted by government but by our Creator and are then to be secured by government. The Declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,,,” Our rights come from God, not from government. One of those rights is life, and we have the right to protect our lives and those of our loved ones, without interference from government.
• “The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle-loading muskets and rifles, not to ‘assault rifles.’” The absurdity of this argument is almost too obvious to need pointing out. Muzzle-loading muskets and rifles were the “assault weapons” of that day. Today, any weapon the anti-gun people want to ban gets referred to as an “assault weapon.” They need to at least know what they are talking about, but that may be asking too much. By the logic of this argument, the freedom of the press would only include primitive printing presses or quill pens and parchment. It certainly would not include computers with word processing programs, and it would in no way include television, radio, email, social media, or the Internet as a whole. Looking at the entire Bill of Rights through this lens certainly makes this argument about the Second Amendment look like the foolish drivel it is.
• “Semi-automatic rifles are not needed by civilians, because they have nothing to do with hunting.” The answer to that is that the Second Amendment likewise has nothing to do with hunting. Without the Second Amendment, none of the other parts of the Bill of Rights could exist. Experience told our founders that we would never have had a chance to gain our independence from Britain without an armed populace.
• “The Second Amendment is obsolete and no longer needed.” This implies that somehow people have changed for the better with time. It denies that there is a need to be alert and ready for attacks from those who would destroy life and limb and make slaves of others. The reality is that things are not getting better and “more civilized.” Instead, things continue to get worse, just as predicted in the Bible. “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13, NASB). This Scripture is talking specifically about those who would pervert God’s truth and deceive others into believing falsehood, but it also certainly describes the state of the world today.
• “Since Jesus was a pacifist, we should disarm ourselves and follow His example.” This statement is totally wrong, because Jesus was not and is not a pacifist. He came the first time to provide salvation by His grace because of the great love of God toward guilty sinners. This does not negate the fact that He will come back in power and great glory to bring judgment to unbelievers. He said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34, NASB). It is interesting that He said to His disciples, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one” (Luke 22:36, NASB). He also spoke of home defense. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed” (Luke 11:21, NASB). “Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matthew 12:29, NASB).
• “‘Common sense’ and ‘reasonable’ gun-control laws will prevent shootings.” The big problem here is that “common sense” and “reasonable” are, in many cases, buzz words for finding a way around the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms. Disarming potential victims does not create fewer victims, but more of them. If a bully is menacing children on a playground, it would certainly do no good to tie the hands of all the potential victims behind their backs and then hope that would deter the bully. Such thinking is totally absurd, but it is common among those who believe in “gun-control.” They will put up signs that say, “gun-free zone” and expect those signs to deter criminals. If that kind of thing worked, it would be beneficial to put up signs that say “crime-free zone” all over the country and signs along the border that say “no trespassing.” Such would be naiveté of the highest order.

 Much more could be said, but the fact of the matter is that guns are not the problem in our society today. The problem is sin in the heart of mankind, and the only real answer to the problem is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its power to redeem sinners. The Gospel is “... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, NASB). Sinners need a Savior, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can redeem us. Those who ignore that fact will continue to experience the meaninglessness and frustration of living, without answers, in this world full of evil. “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore” (Galatians 1:3-5, NASB).

Other articles on this topic are found here.   

The Election is Over

Ever since the election, we have been hearing about how unfair it is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. There are a few realities that must be faced before that argument goes very far.

The first is that there is NOT a national presidential election. What? How can I say that? I can say it because it is true. There are 50 separate state elections (plus D.C.), and the goal is to win as many states and electoral votes as possible. Extra votes in one state election do not transfer to another state election, just like winning a game by a large margin does not give an advantage to the winning team the next time the two teams play. When I coached basketball, we beat a team by 50 points. Three weeks later, that same team beat us by two points, giving each team a win over the other. It would have done no good for me to petition the league that my team should get two wins because of a 48-point differential in the two games. Such an action would have been ludicrous. A vote in a California election does not transfer to a ballot proposition in Colorado, nor does it transfer to any other state’s presidential electors. Each state has its own elections.

The 1960 World Series between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Yankees should serve to illustrate this point. The object of the World Series is not to score the most runs but to win four games. The Pirates won the series four games to three. The Yankees won their three games 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. The Pirates won their four games 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, and 10-9. The Yankees scored 55 runs on 91 hits, while the Pirates scored only 27 runs on 60 hits. Regardless of those statistics, the Pirates won the series fair and square. There were no marches and riots by Yankee fans demanding that Major League Baseball award the series to the Yankees because they scored twice as many runs as the Pirates. Such would have been considered an absurdity. Yankee fans simply had to accept that their team was outplayed in close games, and the result is forever in the record books.

The same is true of the 2016 election. Regardless of the popular vote, Donald Trump won fair and square according to the rules. No amount of protesting and lawless rioting can change the rules after the fact. The electoral college plays an important role in that it prevents New York, California, Illinois, etc. from controlling every election and totally marginalizing rural America and those who do not live in large cities.

The second reality that must be faced is that we will never really know who won the total popular vote, because states do not count absentee ballots once it is obvious that there are not enough of them remaining uncounted to change the winner of that state's electoral votes. In every election there are hundreds of thousands to even millions of uncounted absentee ballots. This makes no real difference, in that there are never enough of these uncounted votes in a given state to swing that state’s electoral votes. However, there are usually more than enough uncounted absentee ballots in all states combined to potentially swing the entire popular vote. For an article on this topic, click here. (Note:  If the Internet sources from which I got this turn out to be unreliable, then I will withdraw this second point. However, this point is of far less importance than the first, because in our Constitutional Republic, the popular vote is not what determines the presidential election, anyway.)

Another reality that must be considered is that in some places, there is a huge chance of many thousands of illegal votes. At present, there is no way to actually determine how many such votes get cast and counted, so there is no way to determine their impact on the outcome. This problem will never be solved until and unless all states go to a system of voter ID.

Based on historical trends, it is not at all unrealistic to believe that George Bush may well have won the popular vote over Al Gore in 2000, and that Donald Trump may well have won the 2016 popular vote. We will never know for sure who won those popular votes, but it doesn’t really matter, because our system is the electoral college. Love it or hate it, that is our system, and those who are demanding that the electoral college be done away with need to also demand that every vote be counted, including the many absentee ballots cast by our military members stationed overseas. 

Shortly after Barack Obama took office, he famously said, “Elections have consequences, and I won.” Another familiar statement from that time was, “Get over it.” It’s time to take some of their own advice and get over it. Trump won. Clinton lost. Eight years ago, and then four years ago, there were those who thought the world had come to an end because of the outcome of the election. Now, there are those on the other side of the political aisle who think the same thing. Here is the truth:  The world did not end then, and it has not ended now. All the whining, marching, demonstrating, signing petitions, and rioting in the world is not going to change the outcome of the election or our method, according to the U.S. Constitution, of electing a president.

Changing the Meaning of Words

Much could be said, and much will be said and written about the Supreme Court's decision on the "same-sex marriage" issue. The following statement by Chief Justice Roberts sums up the legal situation quite well.

"This court is not a legislature … Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be … The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage … Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law…" (Chief Justice Roberts).

This statement is well-thought out and well-reasoned. However, it is interesting to note that the Chief Justice used almost the exact opposite reasoning in his opinion on Obama Care. We need justices who will consistently interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say. “Words mean things."

The bottom line on the "same-sex marriage" decision is that no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the right or authority to change the definition of marriage. God originated marriage, and His definition is the only valid one. Our government has now given "hearty approval" (Romans 1:32) to something of which God does not approve, and more than that, He calls it sin.

Truth is not determined by what people like or what makes them feel comfortable. It doesn't really matter if people don't like the truth. Truth is truth. God's Word is truth (John 17:17), and it would be very wise for those in leadership of our nation to heed that reality before it is too late.

The Second Amendment, Concealed Carry, and Truth

The debate over the Second Amendment is seemingly an endless one. Even though there are those who try to make it mean something other than what it says, it is really not difficult to understand.

 

“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.”

 

I once heard a talk show host explain the meaning as follows:  “If someone is a member of the military, he or she has the right to bear arms while on duty.” This is quite obviously an absurd interpretation of the text of the amendment, because it reverses the actual meaning, and it makes the Second Amendment different from the rest of the Bill of Rights, which is a listing of the individual rights of citizens. The Supreme Court has ruled the obvious:  the Second Amendment is an individual right. The amendment clearly means that the people have a right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms, because it can be necessary to form a militia (made up of people bringing their own arms) in order to secure freedom. That’s what it says. That’s what it means.

 

A year ago, my wife and I moved from California to Colorado, a free state. Yes, I am aware that a number of those in positions of authority in Colorado are attacking gun rights in many ways. All too often, those who opine the loudest, and also those who make the laws, are those who know nothing about guns. Vice President Joe Biden has offered advice, specifically for women,  that a shotgun is much easier to handle than an AR-15. Check out this video to see how ridiculous this advice is.

 

Some of the things our politicians are attempting to do are clearly motivated by politics rather than reality, such as declaring “gun-free zones” in certain places. Anyone with any measure of common sense knows that another name for a “gun-free zone” is a “shooting gallery.” Most mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones.” One does not have to be the proverbial “rocket scientist” in order to know that criminals do not, by definition, obey laws, and anyone who wants to shoot a bunch of people is going to find a soft target area where there is little, if any, chance that anyone will shoot back. One Colorado lawmaker even said that if “high capacity magazines” are outlawed, those who own such magazines will shoot all of the bullets out of them, and then they will be worthless and will have to be thrown away. That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. That’s like saying that a car has to be scrapped after it runs out of gas. I guess we’d better plan on really big gas tanks. Of course, the new regulations concerning magazines have accomplished nothing other than driving a highly successful business, along with its hundreds of jobs, out of the state.

 

Regardless of the politically-driven naivety (or perhaps “lunacy” is a better word) of some lawmakers, Colorado is still a breath of fresh air (in more ways than one) compared to California. In Colorado, one may carry a handgun openly or inside a vehicle with no permit, and concealed carry permits are not difficult to obtain, since Colorado issues permits on a “shall issue” basis. In California it was nearly impossible to keep one’s constitutional rights and obtain a concealed carry permit. Of course, not too many criminals buy guns legally or bother to get concealed carry permits, so the oppressive laws only work against those whose lifestyle is such that they obey the laws. In Colorado, a concealed carry permit cannot be denied unless a background check proves someone is a felon, so almost everyone who applies is granted a permit. Regardless of the paranoia some have about guns, it is a much more secure feeling to know that almost anywhere we go, there are very likely quite a few armed citizens present. This is security, not danger. Statistics bear out that more guns do not make the situation more dangerous, regardless of what some politicians try to say. We need to remember that many politicians are agenda-driven and couldn’t care less about truth, reality, facts, or statistics.

 

In reality, even a concealed carry permit is an “infringement” on the Second Amendment. By getting the permit, we are getting permission to exercise that which is already our constitutional right. Notice that the Second Amendment does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away,” but rather that it shall not even be “infringed” upon. I have great respect for the few “constitutional carry” states, where the Second Amendment is the only gun permit a citizen needs. This is as it should be everywhere in the country. The following states have adopted constitutional carry:  Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, parts of Idaho, and parts of Montana. Several other states are considering it. Regardless of the infringements on the Second Amendment that exist in various places, I still consider myself blessed to live in the United States of America, where freedom was purchased at a dear price, even the freedom of those who oppose the very tools that brought about that freedom.

 

There is no doubt that the Bible fully justifies defense of self and the helpless. That is another topic for another time, but it does not take long to find the many passages that teach this. Several years ago, I knew someone who said he would never own a firearm, and that if someone broke into his house with intent to do harm to him or his family, he would talk to them and convince them not to do anything foolish. This is just a bit naïve. As long as we live in a world occupied by sinners – that’s all of us – there will be a necessity to be aware that some will allow evil to run their lives, and such people will harm others. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)

Gun Control or Sin Control

Every time there is a vile crime committed with a gun, we find ourselves bombarded by a plethora of proposals allegedly designed to prevent gun violence. Some of these proposals are utterly absurd, such as declaring certain places to be "gun-free zones," which is tantamount to declaring those areas to be "shooting galleries" by announcing that it is likely to be filled with unarmed people. Most mass shootings tend to occur in "gun-free zones." Who wants to have someone shoot back at them? NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” He is right. Anything else violates common sense.

 

Anti-gun people, in spite of their absurd proposals, are thought by some to be heroes, while gun owners are vilified in the media and by many politicians. Taking guns out of the hands of potential victims in order to stop the criminals makes as much sense as a teacher punishing the whole class except for the one student who is causing problems.

 

Other proposals involve outlawing "assault weapons" (a made-up term that does not apply to any legally-owned gun) and "high capacity clips," which is another indicator that the people who talk the most about guns are those who know the least about them. A "clip" and a "magazine" are not the same thing. But hey, who cares about accuracy and truth if it will hurt the agenda? This stuff is reminiscent of the old argument from several years ago that we needed to outlaw the "Saturday night special," another made-up term that describes no firearm that ever existed.

 

New proposals and recycled ones continue to emerge, quite often from those in Washington who demonstrate hypocrisy by having armed bodyguards and, in some cases, by carrying firearms themselves. They seem to have the attitude that they and their children deserve to be protected, but everyone else and their children can just be targets.

 

Of course, there is this little thing called the Constitution that gets in their way, and most of their proposals violate the Second Amendment by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is a tough one for them to get around, especially since the Supreme Court has declared the obvious – that the right to keep and bear arms, just like all of the Bill of Rights, is an individual right of U.S. citizens. Most of the "gun control" proposals are unconstitutional, silly, ridiculous, and absurd. Nevertheless, they are generally presented as "common sense" measures to prevent gun violence. In truth, most of them have no effect and some even have a reverse effect.

 

Just to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, I might as well add my own idiotic proposal, because it makes as much sense as most of what is coming out of our politicians. Following is my proposal:

 

We know that a large percentage of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. All we have to do is make a new law (Isn't that always the answer? Make a new law.) that says all criminals must submit to a background check and purchase a "gun stealing license" before they are allowed to steal a gun and then wait fifteen days before stealing it. After they steal it, they must register it. That way, after they commit their gun crime, they will be easier to catch. This will work because we know that criminals always obey the laws. If they see a sign that says "gun-free zone," they simply slink away and find something else to do, so obviously if they know it is illegal to steal a gun without a background check and without a license, they simply will not do it.

 

Does that sound absurd? Obviously it does, so I fully expect some elected official to pick up on it and propose it, because it is very much like all of the other foolish gun-control laws and proposals.

 

It really is time to start dealing with the problem instead of blaming other people or inanimate objects for the evil things committed by criminals. The problem is what the Bible calls "the exceeding sinfulness of sin" (Romans 7:13).  "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Those who commit crimes are responsible for what they do. We are all responsible for our actions. This concept seems to have been lost in our culture.

 

Sin is a real issue in this world today. Human beings need to be saved from their sin by the Lord Jesus Christ. The necessity of salvation has been illustrated since the Old Testament Law was given to Moses. The Bible clearly points out that the law does not make anyone righteous. It only points out how short we fall of reaching God's perfect standard of righteousness. The same is true today. Congress can make all the laws it wants, and the President can hand down all the executive orders he wants, but none of these things will stop violence, because none of them can possibly change the nature of man. Only salvation by grace through faith can give man a new nature, forgive his sin, and declare him to be righteous.

 

The message we need today is not more patriotism, more Americanism, more gun control, less gun control, more welfare, higher taxes, lower taxes, etc. The only message that can truly change lives is the message of the Gospel:  "... I declare to you the gospel...by which also you are saved...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (I Corinthians 15:3-4, NKJV).