Should Christians Be Pro-Gun? (III)

Pro-Life or Pro-Glock at a Deeper Level

It’s time to close off the writing of Rev. Lance Lewis, a P.C.A. pastor in the Philadelphia area. Rev. Lewis wants to know how evangelicals can continue to claim to be both pro-life and pro-Glock. Pro-Glock? Well, what pro-Glock means, I think, is pro-gun or pro-handgun. It is clear from Rev. Lance’s description of Saturday Night Specials, that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Rather than laying out a cogent case why the Second Amendment no longer applies to Christians, Rev. Lewis wants to take his question to a “deeper” level. Without a doubt, we are taken to a “new” level, but I’m not entirely convinced that it proves to be a “deeper” one. For instance, Rev. Lewis asks, “What rights do we enjoy as American citizens that are worth taking someone’s life over?” The short answer is: life itself. As an American citizen I have the right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is to say, if an assailant wishes to take my life or the life of a loved one, I have the right to defend myself and them. And, I might add, I don’t need Rev. Lewis, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer to tell me how, when, and where I can defend myself as a free American.

To make his point, however, Rev. Lewis creates a hypothetical case—don’t you just love those? Here’s the scenario: The government decides that we can no longer own property for the express reason of congregating as a church. “For that matter they decide that it’s illegal for Christians to gather anywhere for the purpose of worship in any sense of the term and will confiscate immediately any building whether public or private (including homes) used for that purpose and sell it to someone else. Would we take up arms with the intent of shooting and killing the police who came to seize our property?”

So here’s my answer: I will worship the God who saved me by his grace. If the government tells me I cannot worship him, I will defy it (Acts 5:29). If the government confiscates our place of worship, I’ll search for another one. If they take my home for worshiping God, I will worship him still. If they sell my home, I’ll look for another one. The point is, of course, that the Church has been persecuted before and did quite well thank you very much. I just finished writing an English biography of Dr. Herman Bavinck. Bavinck’s father’s family (as well as Geerhardus Vos’s family; they were in the same congregation in Bentheim, Germany!) experienced horrible persecution from the State Church and met in barns and wherever they could. Therefore, if the police showed up merely to take my house and I could leave with my family and guns, I’d walk away and start all over.

But there are other scenarios. Think, for example, about Waco, TX and David Koresh. I personally think that Koresh was theologically way off base. Nevertheless, that was no excuse for Janet Reno and BATF to go onto their compound and do what they did. Look, Koresh might have been a loon, but what specifically did he do to have such a stand-off and loss of life? If Rev. Lewis is searching for scenarios that would justify the taking of human life, they are legion. Just ask the folks in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, or Hussein’s Iraq, just to name a few. Apparently, Rev. Lewis has an aversion to ever taking a human life for any reason. I suggest that he re-read Genesis 9:5-6 for starters.

But in Rev. Lewis’s world, the question of shooting back is a moot issue. If you are totally unarmed, what do you intend to do if the police show up unlawfully to confiscate your property? Throw spitballs at them? Negotiate? If we’re unarmed, it really isn’t a question of shooting back, is it? Historically, property has been confiscated and Christians have still survived. In case Rev. Lewis hasn’t figured it out yet, violence is the last resort. Those unfamiliar with guns seem to think that gun owners will start shooting at the drop of a hat or at the least provocation. Someone’s been watching too much TV and too many Hollywood movies. Here’s the reality: an armed society is a polite society. I would add to that that an armed society notices precipitous drops in crime.

Listen to what economist John Lott, Jr. says. He writes, “While higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, and the death penalty all reduce murders generally, none of these measures had a consistent impact on mass public shootings. Nor did any of the restrictive gun laws. Only one single policy was found to effectively reduce these attacks: the passage of right-to-carry laws, which permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.”[1]

Reverend Lance the Riddler

In a paragraph entitled “Ok Lance riddle me this,” Rev. Lewis expounds his point in more detail—sort of. We are confronted with more hypothetical scenarios, so let’s play along. He writes, “It’s 3 o’clock in the morning, you hear a commotion in your house and are convinced that someone has broken in and intends to rape and murder your family. Do you just sit back and let them do so just to preserve their life? Good question.” (Please note: at 3:00a.m., Hillary Clinton is waiting anxiously for that international crisis call that will never come now, thanks to Barack Obama.) Indeed. How to answer this difficult riddle? A decent start would have been for Rev. Lewis to cite Scripture and comment what the Lord thought about the whole matter (Comp. Ex. 22:2). According to this text, an answer to Rev. Lewis’s question is: breaking and entering; burglary.

Well, I’ll begin by asking a question. If someone arbitrarily, randomly breaks into your house early in the morning hours, how do you become convinced that they are there to rape and murder your family? You wake up from a deep sleep, you hear a commotion, the adrenalin gushes, taking your fine motor abilities to near zero, but somehow, upon awakening, you have discerned the purpose of the intruder. You’re a genius! A clairvoyant! You should open up a psychic reading room—a Christian psychic reading room, of course. Why, you could even set it up in your church and give readings immediately following the Christian yoga classes.

Of great import in Rev. Lewis’s question is that he doesn’t answer it. So what do you do? If you sit back and do nothing you are the sleaziest coward on the planet. You’re not spiritual, but highly irresponsible, unbiblical, and nauseating. Who in his or her right mind would sit back and listen to the screams of terror and horror from a wife or children and do nothing? Here’s what you do, in case you’re at a loss: you (the man) get up and take care of business. You put an end to the carnage or die trying. You might call 9-1-1 knowing that the fastest they’ll get there is about 10 minutes—on a good day—and the whole thing will be over by then. I’m sorry, folks, but I really struggle with someone who sets up a scenario like this one and makes it sound spiritual to be a sniveling pacifist. Any man worthy of the name “man,” will take decisive action.

Here’s Rev. Lewis’s non-solution solution. He tells us that he’s going to “present a couple of possible solutions,” but does nothing of the sort. Instead, we get more questions that he doesn’t answer. I cannot begin to tell you how helpful all this is. “If the issue is that owning a gun is necessary to protect my family then why stop at just having one gun in my home?” Aha! A point of agreement! Indeed, why stop at one? Didn’t God give us two hands? One 12-gauge shotgun would do the trick on an intruder, but that tends to mess up the carpet and wallpaper badly and makes the wife grouchy. Seriously, does Rev. Lewis now intend to dictate how many guns are enough? There’s an easy answer to the question of how many guns are enough: just one more. In reality, who does Rev. Lewis thinks needs to decide this question? Should we have a government agency that dictates to free men and women how many guns they may own? Is there a quota?

But I do agree that you shouldn’t have just one gun. That’s why in our household everyone has their own. I also have two big signs in my front yard. The first one reads, “The owner of this property is armed and prepared to protect life, liberty, and property from criminal attack. There is nothing inside worth risking your life for!” The second one reads, “The two houses to the right also contain armed citizens; the two to the left don’t.” My neighbor on the left, who hates guns, didn’t like the sign. I asked her why. She said, “Well, then the burglars will automatically come to my house because they know I’m not armed!” Bingo. Actually, I just made all that up, but it does make a point, doesn’t it?

Next (non-solution) question: “Why shouldn’t I arm myself and family in case we’re attacked while out? Is it more likely that I’ll be attacked at three in (the) morning while in my home or at 9p.m. while walking home?” Yes. Both are possibilities that we need to be prepared for, but 80% of crimes against innocent citizens take place outside the home. There was a case recently when a man was returning home from a picnic with his two sons and they were all murdered by an illegal thug, who should have been in prison or deported or both. If they had been armed, they could have defended themselves. Now they’re all dead and the bleeding heart liberals are trying to figure out how to rehabilitate the MS-13 gang member who murdered them. I have a suggestion. Again, however, Rev. Lewis offers no answer, but he does ask yet another question.

Next slide: “But let’s say I do feel the need for a gun to protect my family and possessions. How many do I need?” Is this a rhetorical question? Does Rev. Lewis really not know? I’ve got a headache. This man is the pastor of a congregation and he cannot decide how many guns would be sufficient? The answer is: it’s up to you. None or a hundred. It really doesn’t matter. Each person; each family will be different. Good grief!

Next slide: (they just keep on getting better) “Why must I demand that the government protect my right to own multiple firearms one or more of which might fall into the wrong hands?” See how enlightening this is? In the first place, I don’t demand that the government protect my right. I have individual freedoms and the only power the government has, according to the Constitution, is the power that “We the People” grant it. The Second Amendment guarantees my individual right to keep and bear arms—plural—and that right shall not be infringed. What is so difficult about that? But even if the Second Amendment had not been written, the Founding Fathers believed that every free man and woman had a God-ordained right to protect their life. The Second Amendment merely put in writing what the Framers believed was granted by the Creator.

Finally—whew! I’m getting worn out by all these solutions!—, Rev. Lewis asks, “Why would the NRA stand against a proposed law in the Commonwealth of PA that would require me to report if my gun is lost or stolen?” Conventional wisdom might answer, “I don’t know.” One of the best ways for Rev. Lewis to get an answer to his question is to call or email the NRA and ask them. One “solution” might be that the NRA believes that the government interferes too much in our lives already. This would be in keeping with the views of economists Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell along with a host of others who believe that less government is a better solution than more government.

Perhaps Rev. Lewis is unaware that historically when governments have required such close tabs and registration, bad things have happened, i.e., they know exactly where you and your guns are located. Free men and women don’t need or desire that type of government intrusion. On the other hand, doesn’t common sense dictate that if a registered firearm is stolen from a law-abiding citizen’s house that the citizen will, voluntarily and without coercion, report this to the authorities? Underlying Rev. Lewis’s article is a basic distrust of law-abiding citizens to do the right thing without government coercion; intervention. In other words, Rev. Lewis favors the criminal and suspects the law-abiding citizen who has passed a comprehensive background check to obtain the firearm. The rules of engagement are already loopy enough without adding to the problem.

Our dear social engineers in California have decided that no semi-automatic handgun magazine may contain more than 10 rounds. A handgun purchased illegally may have a dual-stack magazine holding up to 20 rounds. The social engineers want the homeowner to call out in the night, “I’m armed! I have a gun.” Unfortunately, no such legislation has been passed requiring the intruder to announce that he has a gun. You may only shoot the intruder if he is in your house. If he’s outside, peering in the window, you may not shoot him. Of course, he can shoot you if you come outside. The whole politically correct thing is just dopey. And it’s worsened by articles like Rev. Lewis wrote that are biased and based on ignorance rather than fact.

Non-Lethal One More Time

I’ll end by returning to the notion of non-lethal assault prevention. I do this because Rev. Lewis does it at the end of his article. Under ideal circumstances, non-lethal weapons can be very helpful—if the victim is alone and accosted by only one person. If I’m with my family and my wife and children cannot run fast, non-lethal force is less of a viable option. If I’m in my home, I might have only 1.5-2 minutes to evacuate my house, wake the neighbors, and call 911 before my assailant is back on his feet. If I live in a rural area, flight, taser, or pepper spray may be a very poor choice. Viewing the carnage of dead bodies, the investigating officer might say, “He chose poorly.”

Rev. Lewis forgets two major considerations in his Polly Anna-esque article: adrenalin and the will to live. If I awake from a deep sleep because of a noise and believe there is an intruder in my home, I’m going to get an enormous adrenalin rush that will almost completely shut down my fine motor abilities. If Rev. Lewis wants to go hand-to-hand with someone who might be armed, that is his call. In such a hand-to-hand scenario, I don’t want a 23-22 squeaker in the last two seconds. That might be fun to watch in the NFL, but in this scenario I want to win 100-0. What Rev. Lewis is really doing is irresponsibly suggesting that Christians put themselves at great risk for the sake of the bad guy. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

The article would have been greatly enhanced if Rev. Lewis had merely stated that he is anti-gun and a pacifist. I wonder if he’s for women in combat too? Once again, the PCA label is attached to an article whose author is uninformed on basically every point he raises. He poses questions, but never answers them directly. It’s my hope that Rev. Lewis will retract this article and apologize to his congregation for such a poorly thought out piece. It’s still a free country—at least until America foolishly elects a Marxist and the whole country embraces Socialism—and Rev. Lewis is free to express his thoughts, but maybe next time he’ll engage his mind before his fingers move across the keyboard.

---

[1] John Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns, Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard about Gun Control is Wrong, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2003), p. 30. See also, by the same author, More Guns Less Crime, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 200o).

Should Christians Be Pro-Gun? (II)

A Passionate Anti-Gun Stance
I am responding to Rev. Lance Lewis, PCA pastor at Christ Liberation Fellowship in Philadelphia. He relatively recently (9.15.2008) posted some comments on his blog site entitled “Pro-Life and Pro-Glock?” I called Rev. Lewis’s church office and got his voice mail. I left a message and my phone number if he wanted to get back to me and offered to email him what I’m writing about his blog. To this point, he has not returned my call. I want to continue in this issue responding to precisely why Rev. Lewis has such—and I use his terms here—a passionate anti-gun stance. Therefore, without further ado let’s unpack Rev. Lewis criteria for being anti-gun.

His fourth heading deals with his passionate anti-gun stance. He begins, “I do not believe Christians should support, own, or encourage the use of these weapons of individual destruction.” The most obvious question to Rev. Lewis is: why? Ultimately, what Rev. Lewis does is to manifest how ill informed he is on this matter. For instance, he opines, “I realize that the Supreme Court recently ruled that citizens have a constitutional right to bear handguns.” What!? I suppose Rev. Lewis is referring to the recent Hellar v. Washington D.C. decision, but he misses the mark here—horribly! The Supreme Court decision had to do with the lifting of the handgun ban that had been unconstitutionally foisted upon D.C.’s citizens. But here’s the important point: that landmark decision did not rule that citizens—of D.C. or anywhere else in America—have a constitutional right to bear handguns. I would further argue that the Second Amendment only put into writing what the Founding Fathers believed was a God-given right to free men.

You would think that Rev. Lewis might provide us with some substantive reasons and statistics concerning why he believes Christians should not own guns, but he doesn’t. Apparently, the best he can do is to misinterpret Hellar v. D.C. and give us his personal opinion (“I simply disagree with that decision as I don’t believe it promotes the culture of life that we as believers should seek to cultivate in this country.”) Rev. Lewis has not even begun to tell us why gun ownership promotes or does not promote a particular “culture of life.” He might take comfort in the fact that yesterday, the day before that, and the day before that, and on and on, 66 million gun owners neither murdered nor killed anyone. The (incorrect) insinuations are that non-Christian and Christian gun owners are the problem and adhere to a culture of death! This casts great aspersion on law-abiding, upright citizens, and suggests that they are a kind of less sophisticated, Neo-Neanderthal, redneck sub-culture.

In point of fact, however, this perception is contrary to reality. Statistics, which Rev. Lewis seems to want to ignore, direct our attention to a quite different scenario. For example, when the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, “93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense.”[1] So who actually owns guns in the United States? It is indisputable that “In a nation where at least half of the households have a gun, it would be difficult to regard gun ownership as an unusual or deviant status.”[2]

After declaring that he does not believe that Christians should support, own, or encourage the use of these weapons of individual destruction—note the tendentious language—the Rev. proceeds to his next thesis in this section, namely that “The handguns manufactured and sold in this country today are designed and built for one purpose and one purpose only; namely the destruction of human life.” (Emphasis his.) Once again, we are faced with an unsubstantiated statement. Rev. Lewis’s modus operandi appears to be truth by declaration. I don’t know who he’s been reading or where he’s getting his information, but what he just said sounds very much like Pete Shields’s book Guns Don’t Die—People Do.[3] Shields argues that guns are “good for only one thing—to kill.”[4] Assuming for a moment that Shields is correct—which he isn’t—then his argument cuts both ways. That is to say, “whatever technical attributes guns have that make them suitable for committing crimes necessarily also make them useful for a variety of lawful applications.”[5]

But beyond that, let’s respond to Rev. Lewis’s thesis about the reason handguns are manufactured. First, there are folks who enjoy hunting with handguns. That is their primary use for the weapon. Second, a number of people buy handguns not to destroy human life, but for self-defense. These law-abiding citizens hope and pray that they’ll never have to use the gun in self-defense, but if the occasion presents itself, they are prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones. Statistics point us to the reality that handguns are used 2-3 million times a year in America to stop violent crimes. In the overwhelming preponderance of these events no shots are ever fired and no one is killed. The showing of a gun is, in the majority of cases, sufficient to send the assailant packing. No harm; no foul. We need to keep in mind that many criminals are cowardly thugs and seek weak (hopefully unarmed) victims. At the sight of a gun, they turn tail and run. Did you ever wonder why criminals don’t attempt to rob police officers? It’s because they are clearly armed. All this has totally escaped Rev. Lewis. He concludes, therefore, “Thus in my view they (guns) have no place and can serve no constructive purpose in a society that strives to value life.” Apparently, he doesn’t understand that an armed society is a polite society. (In subsequent issues, I will return to the blatant misconceptions that many people hold about guns and their applications, but for now I want to proceed with Rev. Lewis’s article.)

But what about automobiles and swimming pools, both of which take their death tolls yearly? Rev. Lewis retorts, “A handgun is not like an automobile. A reckless individual can misuse a car ending someone’s life. Yet the manufacturer did not make the vehicle with the intent that it would be utilized in this way.” That’s very helpful and explains why I have so much difficulty driving my gun to the church every day. Rev. Lewis’s explanation has some weight, but that does not rule out the fact that over 6,000 teenagers leave home every year in our country, never to return home alive. This explanation from Rev. Lewis also elucidates why the military issues long guns and handguns to the troops and not cars. It simply proves the time-honored adage: never take a car to a gun fight.

The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution thought differently about the matter. Gordon Liddy writes, “As former English colonials, they were, of course, particularly aware of the history of England, a history that included a king’s attempt at gun control which reads like recent acts of Congress—and which cost that king his head. Those who believed in God understood that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a God-given right—a moral obligation, in fact, because God, having given us our lives and blessed the unions that resulted in our families, holds us accountable for preserving those lives. Even those Founding Fathers who did not believe in God understood the right of the individual to keep and bear arms to be an inalienable natural right.”[6]

It is important to note that “All of the Framers of the Constitution understood…that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms preexisted, and existed independently of, any government they could or would create.”[7] Richard Henry Lee, who was a main player in the Bill of Rights said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”[8] Patrick Henry not only said, “Give me liberty or give me death,” but also stated, “The great object is, that every man be armed.” As to the perennial “militia” question in the Second Amendment, George Mason affirmed the following: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.”[9]

Rev. Lewis continues to move farther and farther afield with his statements. If handguns serve no constructive purpose in society, should we take them from law enforcement officers? If Rev. Lewis answers in the negative about taking handguns away from law enforcement officers, then who in our society will be armed? The short answer is: the cops and the criminals. In other words, law-abiding citizens will be fair game for every criminal because they’ll know that the populace has been disarmed. The disarming of the public has been a major ploy of every dictator including Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Amim. Did it ever occur to Rev. Lewis that law-abiding citizens are not the problem regarding guns? Is the prevention of crime by law enforcement or a private citizen a “constructive purpose”? If an armed woman is able to fend off a rapist with a handgun, is that a “constructive purpose”? If an armed father is able to stop a child predator from sexually assaulting his child, might that qualify as a “constructive purpose”?

I would argue that it is precisely because we value life as Christians that we take a realistic view of these matters of self-defense. Christians desire a peaceable life, yet, they understand (because of total depravity) that there are people on God’s green earth, who are not peaceable nor do they want a peaceable life. Rev. Lewis, as a PCA pastor, would do well to refresh his memory on what the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms say about preserving life (our own included) as well as taking it lawfully.

Deeper Questions
Rev. Lewis takes us to his fifth paragraph which is in the form of a question: “This leads me to question how long evangelicals can continue to claim to be both pro-life and pro-Glock?” Then he states, “I don’t believe we can convince those we accuse of promoting the culture of death if we are among the main champions of the latest version of the Saturday night special.” What? In the first place, it is not a foregone conclusion that honest, hard-working Americans who own guns are promoting a culture of death. Perhaps in Rev. Lewis’s mind this is the case, but it should be clear by now that he hasn’t presented us with one fact. Gun owners in America—apart from the criminals that Rev. Lewis keeps trying to protect—do not walk around with a “Wild West” or “Road Rage” mentality. It is more than a substantial stretch to contend that gun owners promote a culture of death. Good grief!

Second, it is crystal clear that Rev. Lewis associates every handgun with a “Saturday night special.” That simply isn’t the case. (I’m assuming that by SNS, Rev. Lewis is not referring to the half-price beer and buffalo wings at Chili’s.) Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, defines a SNS “as small, cheap handguns.”[10] In fact, SNS’s comprise only about 20% of total handgun production.[11] Oh, and by the way, most American handgun owners don’t hold the gun sideways while they shoot either. Someone’s been watching too much TV and too many Hollywood movies.

Third, this is a very disturbing question coming from a man who has finished seminary and is apparently clueless about the substantial differences between being pro-life and pro-gun—SNSs notwithstanding. Typically, the pro-life movement is associated with the protection of the unborn. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder, the slaughter of the defenseless, innocent unborn (or partially born) life. Apparently, Rev. Lewis equates abortion and gun ownership. How, I’m not certain, but somehow, by a leap of illogic, he does. One can only guess how he connected those dots.

I have heard secularists use a similar argument with being pro-life and pro-death penalty among Christians. Is Rev. Lewis pro-capital punishment or not? It would be interesting to know. That’s for another time, though. The thread of connection, however, seems to be “death.” Abortion causes death; guns owners possess weapons that are specifically designed for the destruction of human life. If this is what Rev. Lewis is arguing, then he should not expect others to follow this flimsy, fallacious reasoning.

Other comments by Rev. Lewis leave me in a quandary. For example, he asks, “But shouldn’t citizens be able to arm themselves in case the government seeks to overthrow our rights by force?” Well, that is precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind, isn’t it? Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Jefferson quipped, “The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.” In other words, the Founding Fathers had a healthy distrust for government and desired that the citizens be armed for their own protection. So the short answer to Rev. Lewis’s question is: yes. The Founding Fathers distrusted government and had seen, first hand, how oppressive England had been and how it attempted to disarm the citizenry. Both England and the colonists understood that an unarmed man was a slave to the whim of government. Rev. Lewis, as an American, should know this!In our next installment, we’ll look at what types of guns the Founding Fathers thought the citizens should have. This will take us into the wonderful world of long guns and assault rifles. As just a hint, I will point out that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have guns that were on par with those of standing armies. Stay tuned.

[1] Richard Poe, The Seven Myths of Gun Control, (Roseville, CA: Forum, 2001), p. 158.

[2] Gary Kleck, Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America, (NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), p. 21.

[3] Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die—People Do, (NY: Arbor House, 1981).

[4] Ibid., 38, 46.

[5] Kleck, PB, 14.

[6] G. Gordon Liddy, When I was a Kid, This was a Free Country, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2002), pp. 19-20.

[7] Ibid., 20. Emphasis added.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 21.

[10] Kleck, PB, 85.

[11] Ibid.

The Bail-Out

The Lies Just Keep on Coming
Thomas Sowell is a first-rate economist as is Walter E. Williams. Dr. Sowell wrote a very informative piece entitled “Bailout Politics” for Townhall.com. He opens with these words, “Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis” (p. 1). Why does he say that? Well, it’s precisely because the “Congressional ‘leaders’ invited to the White House to devise a bailout ‘solution’ are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost” (Ibid.).
Who might that be, some might wonder. Let me give you a couple of names. How about Barney Frank (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT). We won’t even mention Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is still working on her GED and trying to get her I.Q. into double digits. Five years ago Mr. Frank vouched for the soundness of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He did so for ideological reasons. What, precisely, did Mr. Frank say at that time? He authoritatively stated the following: “I do not see [any] possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury” (Ibid.). Few in his own party are calling him on this. We’ll had no apology from Mr. Frank in the face of a proposed $700 billion-plus bailout that the American people clearly do not want. But the question is: Why would Mr. Frank make such a statement? It’s because it is part of his liberal program to supply people more “affordable housing.” Affordable for whom? For people who could not afford a loan in the first place as well as a number of illegal aliens who also received sub-prime loans.
Mr. Dodd said that rather than cutting back on loans the institutions should be pushed to do more to help subprime borrowers get better loans. Brilliant. To this point, Mr. Dodd has not apologized either. The roots of this problem actually go back to 1980 to then President Jimmy Carter. What we see him doing with Habitat for Humanity is simply the cheap version of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Carter wanted precisely what Frank and Dodd wanted and that is the reason why both interest rates and inflation were in the double digits during his administration. Sound economists fondly called Carter’s debacle the “misery index.”[1] In 1980, thanks to the ineptitude of Mr. Carter, unemployment rates hovered around 7.5%. Today’s inflation rate just became 5%, having been between 1% and 3% for a decade and unemployment is 6.1% Why didn’t I hear any Democrats squealing back when Carter was the president?
Of course, we know this is all Bush’s fault, but realistically, it isn’t. He attempted to get our useless Democrat-majority Congress to do something about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and didn’t get to first base. Now the ideologues on the left have the audacity to blame Republicans. Allan Greenspan made similar points when testifying before Congress in February 2004. Sowell concludes correctly that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer.” (p. 2). Moreover “Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.” (Ibid.)
From his vantage point, Sowell asserts that “If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.” (Ibid.) What should be done with these companies then? It appears that both the American public and Dr. Sowell want us to let them die. “Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense that letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.” (Ibid.)

The Proposed Bailout and Communism
Martin Masse wrote an article today (Marx’s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those backing the Wall Street bailout). For those who have never read Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto (1848), it outlined ten measures that were to be implemented after the proletariat took power. Proposal Number Five delineated the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state and the fifth proposal specifically was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Sound familiar? What happens when the government favors a massive “injection of liquidities”? This ought to be a signal of a government takeover of giant financial institutions. For those with a memory, similar voices for government intervention were heard following the 2001 bursting of the dot.com bubble. But where are all the free market proponents now? Marx might wonder too.
There is something terribly wrong with this picture. “The taxes that will need to be levied to finance this package may keep some firms alive, but they will siphon off capital, kill jobs, and make other businesses less productive. The “bailout” is little more than an invisible tax that redistributes—key word to remember—resources to debtors and those who made very unwise investments. For this reason, Masse asks, “So why throw this sound free-market analysis overboard as soon as there is some downturn in the markets?” (p. 1.) The conventional wisdom out there today is the fear factor of an impending second Great Depression. As is increasingly the case, conventional wisdom isn’t very, well, wise.
Those who have spent some time studying economics know of the Austrian School and its main proponents of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Back in the day, Austrian School economists warned against the dire consequences of having a central banking system based on “fiat” money, that is, “money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can be easily manipulated. Central banks tend to create money out of thin air. “When money creation is sustained, a financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more credit creation and to even higher prices” (p. 2.) The net result is that prices get distorted and either malinvestments or investments that should not have been made under normal market conditions accumulate. “With ‘liquidities’ in overabundance, more and more risky decisions are made to increase yields and leveraging reaches dangerous levels” (Ibid.).
The psychological problem in such a situation is that consumers are on a “high” and everyone believes that the boom will go on and on and on. A few raise their voices to warn about the obvious, but people are overly confident so the warnings fall on deaf ears, by and large. Eventually, the pyramidal scheme comes crashing to the floor. Then credit shrinks and those in risky or high-risk businesses want out, to call back loans and to put their money in safe places, which they should have been doing all along. Bad investments have to be liquidated and in times like ours, that means really taking it on the chin financially and prices have to come back to realistic levels.
So what is the problem with the government solving this for us? There are a number of issues that need to be addressed here. First, as I’ve already mentioned, why in the world would we expect those who completely mismanaged the problem in the first place to fix it now? Is Barney Frank or Chris Dodd supposed to advise us when they were two of the biggest culprits? Second, central banks and governments cannot transform unprofitable investments into profitable ones (Ibid.). There is no abracadabra here. Third, calls for throwing more money at the problem are misguided (Ibid.). “Injections of liquidities started more than a year ago and have had no effect in preventing the situation from getting worse. Such measures only delay the market correction and turn what should be a quick recession into a prolonged one” (pp. 2-3).
While many on the left yakked about recession as if it were a dirty word, those who know anything at all about the way the free market works were cognizant of the fact that a recession is a necessary correction in times of economic prosperity. One of the key reasons I’m opposed to the bailout is that it will not aid the free market, but in its present form will actually contribute to its destruction and put us further down the path of Socialism.

What Does ACORN Stand to Gain from the Bailout?
Some—maybe even many—have no idea what ACORN is. The acronym ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. At the eleventh hour it was leaked that the Dems were trying to funnel part of the bailout money to this “hyper-partisan organization involved in criminal voter fraud.”[2] And this is supposed to be a “crisis” bailout? ACORN stood to profit from a whopping 20% cut of the bailout that would be allocated to what is called the Housing Trust Fund, that supports ACORN.
What few in the media and on the left will tell you is that ACORN is a “hardcore supporter for the Democratic Party, and employ bare-knuckle tactics” (p. 1). Not only is ACORN embroiled in a number of voter fraud lawsuits, but they are also one of the organizations “accused of pushing banks into making many of the unwise loans at the heart of the current crisis…” (Ibid.). Congress has already twice funneled money to ACORN and what is more than just a little ironic is that “An organization that possibly contributed to our current financial profits [sic] is now being considered to make money off of it. And by ‘money,’ I’m referring to your tax money” (Ibid.).
What is also interesting and disconcerting about ACORN is the relationship between it and Senator Obama. One of Obama’s (and Hillary’s) mentors was the communist radical Saul Alinsky, “who advocated extreme acts to achieve social goals…” (Ibid.) It is well known that after finishing Harvard, Mr. Obama went to work for ACORN in Chicago. In fact, “Mr. Obama then became a trainer for ACORN, teaching others how to employ ACORN tactics in voter registration guides” (Ibid.). Why is Mr. Obama now wanting to pump more taxpayer money into Fannie and Freddie? They are government creations that pay their executives millions of dollars, but are shielded with our tax dollars “from suffering the downside risk of the market.” (p. 2.) Now both McCain and Obama agree that we’ve got to bail them out. McCain remains an enigma on this and it will be interesting to see how Sarah Palin responds to the bailout in the Thursday vice-presidential debate. Obama has an added dimension to his relationship with ACORN that McCain doesn’t have. “Public records show that the top two recipients of Fannie/Freddie campaign contributions are Sens. Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.” (Ibid.) It’s probably just a coincidence that each man received over $100,000 from ACORN. Dodd, you’ll remember chairs the Senate Banking Committee. Obama, the Messiah, is simply going to perform a miracle and change the bailout into a terrific profit—for his cronies, but not for the taxpayer.
The Pelosis, Franks, and Dodds bear a great deal of the blame in this debacle, but you’ll never hear one of them accept any responsibility. Instead, they’re trying even now to find a scapegoat among the Republicans. But in reality, it’s the Dems that have resisted repeated attempts to reform “Fannie and Freddie, and pushed those organizations to become ever more reckless in their policies.” (Ibid.) What should happen now is that the American voter should punish the Democrats for their unwillingness to abandon their ideology of “affordable housing.” The Dems want ACORN to get as much funding as possible for obvious reasons: more voters on Election Day. And remember: ACORN is notorious for voter fraud and voter fraud is in one sense the “worst crime against democracy.” (Ibid.)
Mr. Blackwell closes with these well-chosen words: “ACORN is a discredited organization, and far too many of its leaders and workers have been prosecuted for felonies against democracy. The idea that a single dime of taxpayer money would ever go to such a group is an outrage. And Mr. Obama needs to explain his involvement with them.” (Ibid.) Indeed, just as he needs to explain his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers, and a host of other shady characters. With these liaisons, Mr. Obama shows less character than Bill Clinton, if that’s possible.

Concluding Remarks
Mark Hemingway wrote an interesting article for National Review Online about the so-called “crisis.” He pointed out that we, the people, have been part of the problem because of our lack of involvement in political things that matter most. Our tendency is to amuse ourselves to death. The word “muse” means “to ponder,” “to reflect,” and “to say meditatively.” The prefix “a” means “without.” In other words, when we’re amusing ourselves we dial the brain activity way, way down. You see, we haven’t required things of our government and elected officials. We don’t call, write, or fax them. There are times such as President Bush’s abortive immigration reform bill that finally lit a fire under people and they responded very well to that ridiculous bill and it was defeated—roundly and soundly as it should have been.
How do we change things? Hemingway says, “The public needs to see every relevant scrap of paper: every balance sheet, expense report, and executive pay stub—and most importantly, every lobbying contract, memo related to meetings with lawmakers and anything else related to their dealings with Congress.” We have been virtually totally indifferent to the antics of Freddie and Fannie for a long time; too long, in fact. “For years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wreaked havoc in the mortgage markets. Between the two, they own around 50 percent of the $12 trillion mortgage-securities market—effectively a monopoly.” Did you know that? $12 trillion dollars is more than I make a year! We’re not talking billions, but rather trillions! So as Freddie and Fannie sowed their seeds of economic ruin—and make no mistake: they did!—with shady accounting practices and foolish loans that no privately run business would or could have gotten away with, they simultaneously fattened their “coffers and heaped money on their executives.”
So we all ask now: Why didn’t Congress do anything sooner? The short answer is because Freddie and Fannie were sending campaign cash to our elected leaders that effectively bribed them “to keep their mouths shut and vociferously defend their accounting practices.” Do you remember the “Keating Five”? During the savings and loan “crisis,” banker Charles Keating tried to discourage senators from launching an investigation of why the S&Ls went belly up. I wonder why. Hemingway also offers this valuable insight: “After Enron failed due to the company’s dubious accounting practices, Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley—ostensibly to ensure that companies properly disclose financial information to investors. And yet, Fannie and Freddie were exempted from key components of the act.” (Emphasis added.) Clearly, as we move forward, you must let your elected officials know that “the collusion with members of Congress to cover up Fannie and Freddie’s failure is unprecedented, and normal oversight measures can’t be trusted.” There should be an investigation and everyone in Congress—everyone—who knew what was going on (read: was getting paid to look the other way) should be investigated and, if guilty, fired or impeached. Their names should be written large across the front page of every newspaper.
What right do our elected representatives have to demand that taxpayers cough up close to a trillion to prop up irresponsible “actors in the financial sector” and in Congress. Having the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama attempt to solve this is asking them to be judge in their own case. The only perceived benefit is that Obama would probably just vote “present.”
When will we the people have had enough? Congress wants a $700-plus billion bailout, while Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) is asking Congress for another $250 billion to help rebuild New Orleans. When does the taxing stop? Currently, we pay federal, state, and local taxes on our land, our wages, our cars, tractors, and mules, our cows, our goats, our pants, our coats, our ties, our shirts, our shoes, our dresses, our tobacco, our booze, our gas, our coffins, and our graves. American citizens pay cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, federal unemployment tax, fishing license tax, food license tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, inheritance tax, IRS interest charges that amount to tax on top of tax, IRS penalties (another tax on top of tax), luxury tax, marriage license tax, medicare tax, property tax, real estate tax, social security tax, sales tax, school tax, state income tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal, state, and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utilities tax, vehicle license registration tax, and a litany—a long litany—of other taxes. And here’s the kicker: not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous nation in the world. We had no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and mom stayed home to raise the kids. Oh, yes, did I mention that we didn’t have to dial or press 1 for English?

[1] Walter Williams, “Politicians, media out to scare us,” The Orange County Register (9.28.2008).

[2] Ken Blackwell, “An ACORN Falls from the Tree,” www.Townhall.com (9.30.2008).

Should Christians Be Pro-Gun?

Pro-Life and Pro-Glock?

Rev. Lance Lewis, PCA pastor at Christ Liberation Fellowship in Philadelphia recently (9.15.2008) posted some comments on his blog site in the form of the above formulated question. In this installment, I want to take a few moments to respond to my colleague on the issue of Christians and guns. By way of clarification, I am in favor of the right described in the Second Amendment. I believe it extends to every United States citizen. It seems clear to me and others much more knowledgeable in constitutional law that the Second Amendment, like the others, describes an individual right. The Second Amendment does not require every U.S. citizen to have a gun, although it is important to point out that there was a time when certain states did require it and, in light of the current state of affairs in our country, it might be advisable for the citizens to arm themselves, even though it’s not required.

The language of the Second Amendment clearly states that we have the right to keep and bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed. As I respond to what Rev. Lewis wrote on his blog site, I will, as much as possible, use his own words. That is to say, I will allow him to state his case and then I will respond to what he asserts. There will be points of agreement between Rev. Lewis and me, but there will also be points where we differ and disagree.

His piece begins with a description of a fictitious Star Wars weapon United Federation of Planets Attack Phaser. I’m not certain what that is, but I’m pretty sure that Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama would want to put more controls on it. John Edwards probably wishes he had one to fend off the reporters at the bathroom door, especially since Rev. Lewis informs us that the UFPAP is equipped with a Variable Power Setting. Even in the language of Star Wars that sounds like a selector switch that gives the owner full auto capabilities. The worse thing that could happen is for one of these puppies to fall into the hands of decent, law-abiding citizens. Nope. Every UFPAP should be rounded up and given to the Klingons, of Star Trek fame, for safe keeping.

It should be clear by now that I am not a Star Wars fan (I know perhaps what might pass as the bare minimum about Star Wars, except that Darth Vader has asthma), so I will forego further discussion about it. Rev. Lewis seems well pleased with Star Wars, which, of course, is fine. I would just add that the UFPAP with VPS sounds like something I’d like to fire.

What becomes patently clear from Rev. Lewis’s position paper is that he is opposed to owning a gun for self-defense, which is his prerogative—to a certain degree and in a certain sense. There are some biblical qualifiers, however, that we need to take into account. I’m relatively sure that Rev. Lance knows what I’m about to say, but I believe it will be helpful as a review. First, we know from Exodus 22:2 that the Lord was not against self-defense. In fact, the text is clear that if there is an intruder in your home and you kill him, there is no harm; no foul. Self-defense is totally justified.

Second, the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q/A 135) makes it equally clear that one of the duties required of Christians in the sixth commandment is the following: “The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others…” (Emphasis added.)

Third, the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day 40, Q/A 105), after giving a spiritual interpretation of the sixth commandment states, “Moreover, I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself.”

It would have greatly enhanced Rev. Lewis’s thesis and position if he had made reference to these documents on his blog post. Surely, he had to apprehend that Christians who held a view opposite from his would cite these references. Therefore, he should have explained carefully why he thinks these documents are wrong. He did not and therefore his post suffers enormously.

But this isn’t the only great hole in his post—or holodeck from Star Trek. As we shall see, Rev. Lewis will have a bold type heading suggesting that he is going to deal with a particular issue (i.e., non-lethal personal defense weapons), but where he never mentions that form of personal self-defense at all. On balance, this was an ill-conceived and poorly thought-through and explained post as will become increasingly evident as we proceed. That being said, let’s begin.

The Reality of Non-Lethal Personal Defense Weapons

The third heading in Rev. Lewis’s article deals with non-lethal responses to assailants. For an article that purports to be an aid to us in non-lethal self-defense, it might have been helpful for Rev. Lewis actually to have listed what some of those non-lethal responses are. I mention this simply because this type of writing will increasingly typify and characterize his post. At times, his words are illogical, while at other times they are irrational. In other words, in his paragraph on non-lethal responses one would expect something along the lines of: You can choose pepper spray, a civilian taser, or a duck call. Something. Rev. Lewis doesn’t mention any however, which is a little odd.

Therefore, allow me to pick up the slack and mention some of the most common non-lethal responses. First, there is the civilian taser. These can be purchased for somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000, depending upon the make and model. A well placed taser shot will knock a person down sending approximately 50,000 volts through his body for about ten seconds. If the person still gets up, you can repeat the procedure simply by pulling the trigger on the taser. The initial shot will not only incapacitate an assailant for about two minutes, providing most people with ample time to flee from the scene, unless you’re Michael Moore, who needs about two days.

In addition to the outlay of cash, a taser requires that you practice using it—preferably on someone you don’t like, such as a neighbor or Elder. You’ll also need to know how to carry the taser so that in the event that you’re accosted, you’ll be proficient in using it both quickly and effectively. This isn’t always the easiest part of being armed with a taser. A drawback of being armed with a taser is that it requires you to be in close proximity to your assailant. In most cases, however, that isn’t much of a problem, since if you’re cornered by someone with a knife or gun, you will be in close proximity. Therefore, you’ll have to be about twenty-one feet or less from your attacker when you fire the taser and—and—you must hit him with it. For those who are new to this, twenty-one feet does not give you much time to react and there is no room for error. If you miss, your assailant is on you and you’re dead meat, or at least in hand to hand combat, where most people do not want to be since they are not skilled in hand to hand.

Second, there is pepper spray. This is a reasonable and at times viable non-lethal response to an assault. Two key matters must be considered however. First, your attacker must be very close (six feet or less) for you to employ pepper spray. It is effective when used properly, however, and should provide you with an opportunity to escape—unless you’re Rosie O’Donnell.[1] Second, the wind can play an enormous role in when, where, and how you use pepper spray. For example, there have been instances when the victim aimed the pepper spray at his assailant only to have the wind blow the spray right back into their own eyes. Clearly, this is an undesirable side effect.

Third, experimentation is being done in excessively bright light that brings on nausea. There is also some ground-breaking work being done in the area of incapacitating noise. As far as I am aware, these are only in the hands of the military at the present due to their experimental nature. Possibly, some law enforcement agencies might have this as well.

Fourth, if you want your assailant to fall down laughing, you might want to try hitting the panic button on your cell phone. This particular procedure is very well documented as a sure means of bidding farewell to this life.

Finally, if you are somewhat proficient in hand to hand grappling (this is not for the faint of heart, most women, and Bill Maher, Chris Rock, or David Letterman), then you might want to attempt the “raw naked choke hold.” When properly applied to an assailant, this choke hold causes unconsciousness in ten seconds. Keeping it on your assailant for twenty seconds or more will cause permanent brain damage (except in the cases of Al Gore and Michael Moore—oh yeah, and in Anne Lamott) or death. So since we’re discussing non-lethal techniques, make certain you keep a close eye on your watch while you apply the hold.

Here’s the caveat for all encounters of the close kind: The adrenalin will flow in buckets, which means that your fine motor abilities will go into “shut down” mode. Therefore, prior to an assault you had better give some partially sanctified thought to what you’re going to do and how you’re going to do it. And be realistic! This is no time for Polly Anna-esque theories. You could very well end up in close combat to the death, so you need to decide beforehand what your tactics will be. If your United Federation of Planets Attack Phaser with Variable Power Setting hasn’t arrived from eBay, you’re going to need an alternative plan.

Ironically, in the section that ostensibly purports to tell us about non-lethal resistance, Rev. Lewis provides us with no insight or information about how we might defend ourselves in such a fashion. Instead, he states, “…I am convinced by Scripture that all humanity has a duty to protect and preserve life and that those who believe in Jesus Christ should take care to do all within their power to see that no harm comes to anyone.” (Emphasis added.) Let’s reflect upon that statement for a moment. It is clearly biblically true that Christians are to have a high regard for the sanctity of life. After all, Scripture teaches us that man is created in the image of God. As such, even if he doesn’t acknowledge it, he has intrinsic value. Simultaneously, Rev. Lewis’s assertion begs an ethical question: Does Scripture require us to have an absolute regard for life? Please keep in mind that I’m not asking whether the Word of God is absolutely true. It is. I unashamedly confess the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. This is a question of a different order. I’m asking if the absolutely true scriptures require an absolute regard for human life in any and all circumstances.

Dr. Jochem Douma reminds us that Scripture nowhere demands an absolute respect (eerbied) for life.[2] Rather, Scripture teaches us an absolute regard for the sovereign Lord God Almighty (cf. Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Eph. 1:20; Col. 1:16; Gen. 1:29; 9:3, 6; Rom. 13:4). He concludes that these verses teach us that the Bible does not teach an absolute regard for life.[3] A couple of simple examples can suffice here. In the case of a loved one, who might be kept alive another few hours or days, the ethical decision can be made to remove unnecessary medications and/or other artificial means of keeping him alive and opt for giving water and nourishment until he passes into the next life. At the same time, if Scripture propounded an absolute value for all of human life, how would the lex talionis (the death penalty) ever be justly or justifiably applied? That is to say, given the numerous cases that required the death penalty in the Old and New Testaments it would be quite difficult to argue for an absolute value for everyone.

While it is true that we are called to live in a peaceable manner in the Kingdom of Christ, we also know the reality of total depravity or radical corruption. Not everyone, therefore, desires to live peaceably with his neighbor. The fact that our prisons are filled to overflowing is a clear manifestation of this truth. Should Christians have a high regard for all life? Yes, they should. Does this mean that we should do everything in our power to see that no harm comes to the life of a convicted murderer? No, we should not. God’s Word tells us that there is to be life for life. There is nothing biblically wrong about retributive justice (cf. Obadiah 15; Jer. 50:29; Hab. 2:8; Ex. 21:24; Gen. 9:6, Rev. 16:6; 18:6-7). One of the recurring themes in the wisdom literature of the book of Proverbs is that the wicked fall into the snares they set for the righteous (cf. Prov. 1:18-19, 31; 10:16; 11:8; 26:27; 28:10; 29:6. Comp. Ps. 35:8; 141:10).

Finally, it would have enhanced Rev. Lewis’s article if he had provided his readers with some scriptures to support his position. Unfortunately, even though we received two paragraphs of Star Wars, we are not the recipients of one shred of biblical text. In our next installment, we’ll listen and respond to Rev. Lewis as he gives us his (non) reasons that contribute to his passionate (his term) anti-gun stance and his question of how long evangelicals can be both pro-life and pro-Glock.

---

[1] In Ms. O’Donnell’s case, she’d simply have her armed body guard shoot you. You see, Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t want you or me to be armed, but it’s okay for her body guards to be armed to the bicuspids.

[2] Jochem Douma, Rondom de Dood, Vol. 10 in the series Ethische Bezinning, (Kampen: Uitgeverij van den Berg, 1984), p. 23.

[3] Ibid., 24.

Gun Control is Not about Guns, but about Control (III)

“A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone”

Some Biblical Texts to Think About

In our last installment, I promised that we would take a look at some biblical texts that address the issue of citizens being armed. Of course, this will not be an exercise where we look in 2 Hesitations 5 under “Gun Control” and find a pat answer. My Presbyterian tradition does, however, offer this explanation of how we should view Scripture: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…” (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. Emphasis added).

Are there, then, lessons we can learn from the Word of God that might help us to decide as Christians whether it is biblical to carry a weapon or to defend oneself and loved ones? In other words, must “Pacifism” be the default setting for everyone who is a Christian? There are those such as Herman Hoyt, Myron Augsburger, David Gushee, Glen Stassen, John Yoder, and Jim Wallis—just to mention a few—who believe that being a pacifist is what Christians must be. Others, including me, are not convinced that this is the case.

As I unfold why I hold to my position, I will have recourse to both the Old and New Testaments, based on what I cited from the Westminster Standards above. In addition, when the apostle Paul wrote to his young friend Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…,” he was, of course, referring to the Old Testament and the extant New Testament writings that were then available. Since approximately 10% of the New Testament is comprised of quotations from or allusions to the Old Testament, it should be patently clear that the Dispensationalists are simply dead wrong.

Naturally there are differences between the testaments, but that is not to say that the entire Old Testament has been abrogated. A detailed lesson in hermeneutics is for another time, but it is safe to say that some things in the Old Testament have been clearly abrogated (i.e., the dietary laws, animal sacrifices, etc.), some have been altered (Passover and the Lord’s Supper; circumcision and Baptism; no theocracy, the state wielding the sword and the Church exercising admonition and excommunication), and many texts left unaltered. With that as a brief background, let’s proceed.

We’ll begin by taking a look at two Old Testament texts. They will be treated separately, but we need to keep in mind that they belong together. The first is found in a portion of what is known as “The Book of the Covenant.” (Ex. 21-23.) In Exodus 22:2 we read, “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.” The clear indication is that the man of the house is expected to protect his family. He must provide spiritual guidance and leadership, love, and, when and if necessary, protection. In fact, this Old Testament text goes so far to say even if the thief broke in with no intention of murdering or raping (how can you possibly know the intentions of an intruder in the middle of the night?) if you kill him, it is not murder. He had no business in your home uninvited and God grants you the right to defend yourself and loved ones.

A negative twist on this concept is found in Jeremiah 2:34-35a. God is upbraiding his people for insensitivity to the “guiltless poor” and he tears a strip off of them by saying, “Also on your skirts is found the lifeblood of the guiltless poor; you did not find them breaking in. Yet in spite of all these things you say, ‘I am innocent; surely his anger has turned from me.’” Ostensibly, if the poor had broken into an Israelite home and attempted to burglarize it, the occupant would have been justified in killing him. As it stands, Israel was guilty of another kind of killing of the poor that was not lawful.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah have always been fascinating to me. God continues his line of covenant faithfulness and trustworthiness for his people. They are allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall and repair the city. They meet resistance and obstacle after obstacle. In Nehemiah 4:14, the nobles are addressed in this manner: “And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, ‘Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.’” (Emphasis added.) Apart from the clear and obvious redemptive-historical work that God was doing with his people, there is the command not to be a pacifist. This is not a new development in Israel’s history, since they had been required to fight before. In fact, as we shall see later, it was not uncommon for the Israelites to have swords in their tents, but that’s for later.

Israel under Oppression

One of the most chilling verses in Scripture is found in Judges 2:10: “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel.” You really do have to ask: How did that happen? When you reflect, however, it becomes clear that the spiritual ruin presaged political and cultural collapse as well. Abandoning God, the Israelites were oppressed horribly every time Israel forsook the ways of the Lord God Almighty. In Judges 5:8, we read the following: “When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?”

The choice of new or strange gods ultimately meant a kind of war was raging, but it is also instructive that Israel had been disarmed. The mentioning of the paucity of weapons shows that Israel normally possessed them, but their occupiers confiscated Israel’s arms for all the obvious reasons. Another example of this is found in 1 Samuel 13:19-23.[1] In this text it is clear that not only did the Philistines confiscate Israel’s weapons to defend themselves, but certain trades were also forbidden as a result of the oppression. The Philistines took their weapons and then told them what they could and could not do. It was easy, of course, because the Israelites were disarmed. That was not normal for Israel.

In fact, Larry Pratt has argued that the Israelite army was a militia army that came to battle with each man bearing his own weapon.[2] When armed men were needed, there was no scarcity in the Israelite camp (cf. Num. 31:3). When King David needed 400 armed men, we are told that they simply strapped on their swords and left 200 others to guard the baggage (cf. 1 Sam. 25:13). There is no hint of pacifism here nor is there any inclination that the government was in favor of more “sword control” laws. Realistically, sinners will always cause problems. In the account of Cain murdering Abel, we do not find God passing rock or club control, whatever Cain used to commit his crime. Rather, the Lord provided a means by which murderers were to be dealt with in a God-prescribed manner (cf. Gen. 9:5-6). This truth has evidently been lost on many in America today. They somehow foolishly believe that the more guns are controlled and the more difficult it is to own one, the safer we’ll all be.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! The unvarnished facts are that the more our illustrious elected officials want to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns, the more dangerous our neighborhoods and freeways become. A person who wants a “Saturday night special” will find one. Gangs seem to have an almost unlimited supply of weapons at cheap prices. Why should a citizen, who undergoes a FBI background check via computer at the gun shop not be able to walk out of the store with the gun if he or she passes the check? Why do I need Pelosi, Boxer, Biden, or Obama to tell me—a free man—if, when, and how I may defend myself? I am granted the right by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.

You see a major part of the problem in the United States is that we want to make it next to impossible for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves and we are soft on criminals. Today with the Supreme Court ruling about guns, the media will be up in arms. We’ll hear about Columbine, Virginia Tech, and how horrible it is for law-abiding citizens to have guns. The Second Amendment was granted by the Founding Fathers to protect the citizens. Many today still have not learned that lesson. The misinformation about guns is about as thorough as any other piece of propaganda I know. In the articles that follow, I’d like to try to rid the world of some of the false notions that are alive and kicking in the United States today and to attempt to bring some sanity and rationality to the discussion.

---

[1] Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, ‘Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.’ But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle, and the charge was two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads. So on the day of the battle there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people with Saul and Jonathan, but Saul and Jonathan his son had them. And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash.

[2] Larry Pratt, “The Bible and Gun Control,” (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0801.htm [2003]), p. 8.

Gun Control is Not about Guns, but about Control

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed

If it is true that Americans cherish what the First Amendment says about the freedom of speech,[1] it remains a mystery why there is so much confusion and misinformation regarding the Second Amendment. Our Constitution begins with the words, “We the People of the United States.” “The people” are mentioned in amendments 1, 4, 9, 10, and, of course, 2. Elsewhere, “the people” are referred to as “persons” or “citizens.” Throughout the Constitution it is hammered home that “the people” have rights, but the government does not. It has power that is granted to it by the people, but its citizens have rights. You can check it out for yourself. For whatever reason, a number of social engineers want to limit the scope of “the people” in the Second Amendment, but are fine with it referring to individual rights in the rest of the Constitution.

Stephen P. Halbrook has written a fascinating new book entitled The Founders’ Second Amendment. Origins of the Right to Bear Arms,[2] in which he chronicles in well over 300 pages what the Second Amendment intends. In other words, he’s not telling us what he thinks off the top of his head, which is what happens in a number of cases today when the discussion centers on the possession of firearms and the right of citizens to have them and use them.

Historically, it is interesting that the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists about the Second Amendment found these two opposing factions sharing two assumptions: “first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.”[3]

As I write this installment, there is currently a landmark case regarding Second Amendment rights before the Supreme Court (Washington, D.C. v. Heller) and a decision should be handed down sometime in July. The case concerns the right of the citizens of Washington, D.C. to possess a firearm for personal protection. In addition to affecting the D.C. populace, this decision will have far-reaching implications—whichever way it shakes out—for all of us for years and decades to come. Part of the debate deals with whether the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to bear (not bare!) arms, or whether the Amendment applies solely to the National Guard and other such organizations that would qualify as a “militia.” In other words, the Second Amendment is not an argument about short-sleeved shirts, even the Rick Warren aloha variety.

One might think that the argument over individual as opposed to collective rights should be a slam dunk, since it is clear, for example, that the First Amendment clearly applies to individual rights. In fact, those who are most vociferous about First Amendment rights are emphatic that these are individual rights—except for those, of course, who disagree with them. When these staunch defenders of the First Amendment shout down a visiting speaker with whom they, the enlightened bleeding heart liberals, disagree, they are merely saving the country from having to listen to a raving, rightwing nut case. You do see the difference, don’t you? It never ceases to amaze me that the liberals who hypocritically enjoin First Amendment rights are the first ones on college and university campuses (or campi) to shout down guest speakers and lecturers and refuse to allow them to speak. Of course, that is fair because the liberals are right and those who oppose their views are wrong and not worthy to be heard. But on the individual rights note, when was the last time you heard a discussion about whether the First Amendment applies just to the National Guard or to individuals as well? Or, when was the last time you heard someone questioning whether eminent domain only applied to a select few?

The propagandists have done their ideological, activist, and politically correct work well and have become the masters of misinformation dissemination. They have, in fact, done their work so well that every time a person who fully supports the Second Amendment speaks up on his or her own behalf, they will find themselves on the business end of a flurry of accusations that are almost 100% false, especially with regard to “gun control,” but which accusations form part and parcel of what is commonly called “conventional wisdom.” Few ever take the time to question if conventional wisdom is true. It is, after all, consensus wisdom. But is it really? That is to say, is the conventional wisdom regarding gun control based on irrefutable fact, or is it, like much in our modern society, an emotional, knee-jerk reaction?

I ask these questions because I am convinced that America is rapidly morphing from a nation of sheep into a nation of mind-numbed non-thinkers, and the transformation is, in many cases, almost complete. Mottos and mantras are the reaction d’jour. Guns kill! Why doesn’t someone cry out, “Pencils and pens misspell!”? Or, “Matches cause arson!” Why, for example, don’t we scream, “Water drowns!”? Why isn’t there a concerted effort to shut down privately-owned swimming pools or to banish swimming or surfing in the ocean? We know that cars in and of themselves don’t kill, but rather that people behind the wheel do. Over 6,000 teenagers go out for a drive yearly and never return home. Why are we far more concerned about that than we are guns? We should all take great comfort in the fact that almost every day of the year 66,999,987 firearms owners, give or take a few, kill no one.

Apart from illogical thinking, here is the chilling part: Our clueless, effeminate, politically correct society (and many of our politicians are worse!) has no historical understanding of gun control, even though they clamor for more of it constantly, as if more laws would be beneficial. There is already law upon law, in excessu, on the books already. We do not need more gun laws. In point of fact, we could and should make do with substantially fewer. Moreover, an inordinately high number of those laws are directly in contradiction to the Second Amendment and actually do “infringe” on our rights to own and carry a gun. The granting of the individual right does not mean that each and every citizen is obliged to own and carry a gun, but that if they choose to do so, they may. I would add that it seems clear that free men and women may choose to carry those weapons openly or concealed.

The propagandists have done their job, however, so that when I write words like I did above, some people go apoplectic. They envision people running around shooting any one and every one at the drop of a hat. Remember: Yesterday over 66 million gun owners killed no one. That also holds true for the day before yesterday and so on for a long, long time. You see, if you listen to the propagandists’ lies—and many have—then you will not understand that an armed society is, in fact, a very polite society. An armed man is a free citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. According to the Second Amendment, free men, who have never committed a felony, are granted the right of possessing and carrying a firearm. If, on the other hand, you don’t know your rights, you might as well not be granted any. The screeds and propaganda about guns and gun control are, de facto, the precise opposite of what the anti-gun lobby portrays the right granted by the Second Amendment to be. Allow me to give you an example of how happily inconsistent we are on this ethical issue.

The New Orleans case during hurricane Katrina is a recent example that demonstrates how thoroughly the anti-gun lobbyists have done their work. The leftists clamor vigorously and rigorously about the rights taken away from U.S. citizens by the Patriot Act. They are equally vociferous about not wiretapping phone calls from potential terrorists. That, to their way of thinking, is a violation of rights. Leftists are also ultimately concerned about the rights of terrorists at Club Gitmo in Cuba and how America is violating the Geneva Convention by keeping them there. Their protests are clear indications that they have never read or understood the Geneva Convention, but are merely mouthing the talking points and toeing the party line.

I preface my remarks about New Orleans and Katrina as I have done for a reason. No bleeding heart do-gooder raised any qualms when citizens of New Orleans had their guns confiscated during Katrina and the aftermath. When we take the time to lay the propaganda aside and begin to think and read for ourselves we come to understand that many despots employed the strategy of disarming the citizenry in order to defang them of any resistance. Names like Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Hussein, and Castro come to mind immediately. Our Founding Fathers understood this completely. Some of the citizens of New Orleans still have not had their legally possessed firearms given back to them. Some Americans are so foolish, so leftwing, and so inconsistent that they see no problem with the government acting in an unauthorized manner and seizing a freeman’s firearm and violating his Second Amendment right. For those who are gleeful about the confiscation of guns just remember this: If you grant the government the power to take your firearm, you are also giving them the implicit power to take whatever they want to take from you whenever they want to take it. Be careful what you wish for, because what might please you in the confiscation of guns one day might very well come around and bite you tomorrow. Many still fail to realize that less government involvement in life is far better than more involvement. Sadly, ironically there are those pitiful souls who still believe the lie: I’m from the government and I’m here to help you!

The “Wild West” Fallacy

But who wants to live in a society where citizens openly carry loaded weapons or carry them in a concealed fashion? That’s a good question and it needs to be answered realistically. Far too often, that question is answered emotionally, in terms of having listened to propaganda, or from a predisposed fear of guns. Rationally, this is a misplaced fear. Let me ask you this: Who do you think will intentionally harm you with a gun? Would it be a law-abiding citizen, who has gone through a FBI background check and had no criminal record and had never been committed to a hospital for mental problems or a criminal, who bought his or her gun illegally? The answer is simple for those still in possession of a modicum of commonsense.

What leftists, ideologues, and other uninformed people fail to understand is that an armed society is a polite society. Unfortunately, many have fallen prey to what I’ll call the “Wild West” fallacy. That is to say, they have bought into the lie that everyone in the “Wild West” went around shooting each other for no reason. We need to realize that there was not a lot of “trail rage” back then because the trails weren’t all that crowded. In actuality, many of the shooting deaths resulted from outlaws getting drunk in saloons, cheating at cards in saloon poker games, or arguing over a prostitute and stepping out in the street to settle the argument with a gun. In other words, much of what passes for the “Wild West” mentality was outlaws and drunks killing other outlaws and other drunks. Moreover, more than once, honest, hard-working citizens protected themselves and their families against an outlaw because they too were armed. Today, the restrictions are ludicrous, favoring the criminal time after time. He can buy an illegal gun from the trunk of a car, but the law-abiding citizen in many states not only has to undergo a background check, but he or she must also wait a period of about ten days before he can actually pick that gun up.

A couple more silly examples will suffice. In some states, if a burglar breaks into your home you have to announce, “I have a gun!” This will, ostensibly, scare the intruder away. But what if it doesn’t? What if there is more than one burglar and they are both armed? By announcing that you have a gun, the criminals can follow the sound of your voice and they know exactly where you are. Why isn’t there a law that the burglar has to announce to you that he has a gun? The short answer is that since they are criminals they wouldn’t play by the “home invasion” rules. Precisely. And they don’t play by the rules when they get their guns either. If our politicians, social engineers, and anti-gun lobbyists spent more time and effort in ridding our communities of drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and thugs, they would be placing their efforts in the proper direction.

We have such a distorted view of what the “Wild West” really was like, but even so, why don’t we hear anything today about “Wild Memphis,” “Wild Washington, D.C.,” “Wild Detroit,” “Wild Miami,” or “Wild Los Angeles”? Criminals murder innocent citizens in those and other cities on a regular, daily basis. Why don’t we hear about “Wild Philadelphia,” which like LA, is losing police officers frequently because criminals are allowed back out on the streets by liberal judges before they serve their sentences and murder again? Why, pray tell, are thugs getting weapons, when many citizens (like Washington, D.C., which has one of the highest murder rates in the country) cannot have them or the process of getting a firearm is like trying to get into the gold vault at Ft. Knox?

These and other aspects of the Second AmenThese and otdment must be addressed. Before we spend time on that, however, I want to return to what Scripture says about possessing weapons. There is a great deal of imagery in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments about soldiering, warfare, and being trained for battle. While there is surely a spiritual dimension to this, did you ever stop to consider that men in Israel kept their sword in their tent? If there were a war or another need, the Israelite simply went home and got his sword and he was ready to do battle. It would seem, too, that he was somewhat trained to use it.

---

[1] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition Government for a redress of grievances.

[2] Stephen P. Halbrook, The Founders’ Second Amendment. Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008).

[3] Edwin Meese III, David Forte, & Matthew Spalding (eds.), The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 320. Emphasis added.