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.