HOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT REFLECTS BIBLICAL THOUGHT
In my previous article, I established the Biblical principle that citizens should be armed for two basic reasons. The first of these reasons is that we need to be able to protect ourselves in a fallen world against those who would do us harm. The second of these reasons is that we need to be able to keep government from growing tyrannical, for it will always tend to do so. In practical terms, what this implies is that Hellish thought and ideology are always behind any movement aimed at disarming a populace, regardless of the intent behind the movement.
Because there exists a malevolent Enemy of our souls, whenever a noble principle is made clear in Scripture, it is a natural and expected thing that Hell will put its full force and influence behind thinking that is exactly opposite, giving rise to the evil (unbiblical) principle on the subject. But because such a principle is typically too hideous or irrational to be trumpeted clearly and openly, the leaders of Hellish thinking will instead attack the noble principle by degrees until it is so weak that it is effectively destroyed, after which it may be openly supplanted by the evil principle in public discourse or through widespread practice. Abortion is a perfect example of how this works.
The noble principle is that human life in the womb is sacred and is to be cherished. The evil principle is therefore that human life in the womb is worthless and meaningless, and may be taken and discarded at will. But because such a principle was originally too hideous for a decent people to openly embrace, the haters of human life have subtly attacked the sanctity of life in the womb by degrees. First there was the insistence that abortion be considered acceptable in the case of rape, then of incest, then of the mother’s health, then of possible birth defects, then of financial and social realities, etc. Once these cracks in the foundation of the noble principle were created and then widened, it wasn’t long until the principle was abandoned altogether, leaving us now in the position where the American womb is the most dangerous place in the world.
This abortion example dovetails nicely with the issue of gun control, for the same tactics are being used under cover of the Left’s feigned indignation at the slaughter of innocent school children in Newtown and elsewhere. Now I want to be very careful in how I say this – especially because my own heart is still so heavy over the Newtown school massacre – but I don’t for an instant believe this slaughter truly bothers those on the Left to any marked or lasting degree. How can they support the slaughter of thirty-five hundred children a day and then claim to be bothered by the slaughter of twenty? The stark truth is that if Adam Lanza had gone to work for Planned Parenthood, he could still be killing that many children every day, and be considered completely acceptable to the Left for doing so.
Now let us move on to discussion of the noble (Biblical) principle dictating the necessity of the citizenry to bear arms in order to keep tyrannical government at bay. In order to understand what is at stake we must simply look at Hell’s counter (evil) principle, which is this: Only the government should have weapons. But because such a principle is at first too irrational for a wise and free people to stomach, the noble principle it seeks to replace is initially attacked by degrees, which in our day comes to us in the guise of the gun control movement.
The first degree used here is that of labeling certain firearms with the ominous-sounding term of assault weapons, which should be immediately recognized as ridiculous and inflammatory. By nature, all weapons are designed and built for the purpose of assault, and so the term assault weapon is as redundant as is the term wet water. We must be quite wary here, for the dark genius hidden in the subtleties is often hard to detect. Perhaps if we frame the Hellish argument from the standpoint of the (fictional) Water Control Lobby it will become more readily apparent: We don’t want to ban private ownership of all water, we just want to ban private ownership of wet water – you can keep all the rest. Trust us.
The mere acceptance of such a thought forces a crack into the foundation of the noble principle, and this crack is then widened by ever-stricter limitations upon an armed citizenry (style of weapon, size of weapon, look of weapon, number of weapons, magazine capacity, etc.) until the population is finally ready for the full implementation of the evil principle, which in this case is a disarmed populace. But beware, for Hell always owns a disarmed populace, who for the sake of perceived safety first lose their dignity, then their freedom, and then their lives. It is far better to be a nation of wolves governed by sheep than to be a nation of sheep governed by wolves.
And so we must now answer the question which necessarily arises here: Just how armed should citizens be? The men of ancient Israel were its army and therefore armed (Numbers 1), and the Jewish citizens of the Persian Empire were apparently as armed as its military (Esther 9:5). When Jesus recommended that His disciples arm themselves with swords (Luke 22:35-38), he was essentially recommending that they carry the same weapon as the common Roman soldier, who also functioned as a police officer. Our wise Founders and Framers had the same idea when they simply stated that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (Second Amendment). In each case, the noble principle dictates that the free citizen be able to meet and overcome the threat against himself or herself. So what would this look like in real life?
In my first year as a Sheriff’s chaplain I had an interesting conversation with a seasoned deputy. As we were riding along responding to calls, he told me that he didn’t understand why people trusted law enforcement so much with their safety. When I asked what he meant, he told me that once the call to 911 came in, it would routinely be at least ten minutes before a patrol car could get to your home. And here are the haunting words with which he ended the conversation: Ten minutes is an eternity to have someone in your house. Hell, one minute is an eternity to have someone in your house. That statement changed things about my life, my family and my home forever.
In my community, there is generally one patrol unit on duty for every ten thousand or so citizens, and that patrol unit is typically staffed with one brave deputy charged with protecting me and my family from the threats faced by the community. Here is how he or she is armed (apart from less-lethal options): a loaded and chambered semi-automatic handgun with several high-capacity magazines, a select-fire (fully automatic) AR-15 with several high-capacity magazines, and a loaded 12-gauge shotgun with several rounds of buckshot and slugs in reserve. If this is the level of personal armament deemed legally necessary for my protection by my local government, it by definition becomes the default position to which I should (or may) be armed in order to protect myself and my family from those same dangers.
Furthermore, this same standard must be applied even when we consider the admirable American military, for we have no assurance that they will always be so admirable and not be pressed into service against us by tyrannical leaders. Here it seems that the noble principle dictates that the American people at the very least retain the ability to arm themselves to the level of the infantryman in order to forestall or repel such an event (however unlikely that may seem now). Nor is this principle necessarily against the idea of citizens owning artillery, tanks or aircraft for the same reason. I can’t imagine owning any of these things, but I can imagine that our government would show its people a great deal more respect if some of us did.
Finally, we must not gloss over the fact that in a fallen world there will be those who occasionally abuse this noble principle to the point of inflicting tragedy, mayhem or terror on others. It must be understood that when dealing with sinful human beings, perfection is never attainable. This means that we must choose between living with the (very) painful and relatively small imperfections of the noble principle, or of living with the large and devastating imperfections always realized by a disarmed populace who have followed the evil principle to its inevitable conclusion under the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and others.
Hell’s goal is that of seeing the American (and every) people disarmed, and we who understand what is at stake must hold fast to the noble principle of a well-armed citizenry in order to keep this from happening. Dignity, freedom and life are chief attributes of the image of God in us, and we who worship Him must guard these things as the precious jewels that they are, knowing well that the lapdogs of Hell are ever straining at the leash to destroy them.