Homophobia, Islamophobia, Hoplophobia, and the Second Amendment

Aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, FL

June 12^th, 2016 is a day that will be indelibly etched into the American psyche. Already, there is clear evidence that the culture is shifting. With the first major, albeit not the only, Islamic terrorist attack on American soil since 2001, one of the biggest shifts has been America’s treatment of the LGBT community. Even most moral conservatives who believe homosexual conduct is wrong have agreed that what happened at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida was tragic regardless of who was attacked, have prayed for the victims and their families, and are actively involved in looking for ways to prevent attacks like this from happening in the future.

Homophobia

"Pastor" Roger Jimenez

I say most because there are some people who just haven’t quite figured it out yet—lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people are deserving of love and mercy. Predictably, Westboro Baptist Church praised the shootings and exactly nobody was surprised. But other people who call themselves Christians and should know better also praised the shootings. One pastor named Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento, CA praised the shootings.

“People say, like, ‘Aren’t you sad that 50 sodomites died?’ Here’s the problem with that. It’s like the equivalent of asking me—you know, what if you asked me, ‘Hey! Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?’ Um. No! I think that’s great! I think that helps society! You know? I think Orlando, Florida is a little safer TONIGHT now that 50… you know the tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. I mean the tragedy is I’m s… I’m… I’m… I… I… I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the JOB! Because these people are predators!”

First of all, this guy is young and young people say dumb things. I would encourage him to read 1 Timothy 4:12, a verse I am sure he was required to memorize at some point as a youth:

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

The problem is that he’s not the only “pastor” saying these kinds of despicable things. As pastors, I would also expect that at some point that they read at least some of the Book of Ezekiel:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

– Ezekiel 18:23

For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

– Ezekiel 18:32

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

– Ezekiel 33:11

Now before I get someone asking me if I think people in the LGBT community are wicked, from a correct Christian theological perspective, everyone is a sinner and therefore wicked. In other words, God does not rejoice in the death of anybody. God wants everybody to hear the gospel and have a chance to accept Christ as Savior.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

– 2 Peter 3:9

The internet is forever

One of the first politicians to come out with a statement was Florida Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. He posted on Twitter, but later deleted his tweet forgetting that the internet is forever. He tweeted the New International Version of Galatians 6:7 which says, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows,” as if it was the fault of the people in the club that they were shot. Perhaps a little reminder is in order for Lt. Governor Dan Patrick who seems to want to turn America into a theocracy and people like “Pastor” Roger Jimenez and others like him should meditate on these words as well.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

– Deuternomy 18:20

I have written extensively on how Christians could better communicate to all people the love, mercy, and salvation offered by Christ in previous blogs. Just to remind those Christians who may have forgotten, if Jesus was for the Old Testament punishments, ask yourself why He didn’t throw the first stone at the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11)? Why did Jesus not berate the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-26)? Yes, Jesus told both women the truth, but he balanced the truth with love, grace, and mercy. I just hope that the LGBT community will not associate these people with all Christians and Christianity.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

– James 4:6

When people experience tragic loss because of an act of reckless hate, they are not just saddened but humbled as they come to grips with their own humanity. In response to this tragedy, ask yourself honestly, who was more humbled and who was proud?

Islamophobia

I have been angered by politicians who have used this tragedy to push their agenda and in many cases hammering a square peg into a round hole.

There are just no pictures that make Trump look good.

Donald Trump said he did not want congratulations for “being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” Of course he has not been right, still is not right, and I am willing to bet that he will not be right anytime in the near future. Is there radical Islam? Sure there is. I am not going to stick my head in the sand and I do not think anyone else should either. Are there valid reasons to ensure that no short cuts are made for refugees regardless of where they come from? Of course there are. Should we altogether ban Muslims from coming into the United States? No. Would banning Muslims coming into the United States have prevented the shooting on Sunday? Not even a little bit since the perpetrator was born and raised in the United States.

While I am not negating the possibility that the perpetrator of the attacks was motivated by Islamic extremism, as more evidence comes to light, it is not completely evident that the perpetrator was completely fueled by Islamic fundamentalism, but rather confusion about his sexual orientation and revenge against men who turned him down.[1] People who know him reported him to the FBI because of his interest in the lectures of Anwar al-Awlaki. The perpetrator was frustrated with racism and perceived injustice.[2] Any one of these things could have driven this man to murder 49 innocent people and neither Muslim control nor gun control would have prevented it. I for one will let law enforcement agencies conduct their investigation and let them rule on the possible motive, if any.

In spite of many terrorist acts being perpetrated against Americans by Muslims, not all Muslims are potential terrorists. As I said, my head is not in the sand and my eyes are wide open. I do understand that there is a problem with extremism within Islam that has to be addressed. Even many American Muslims think that their own religious leaders have not done enough to address radical Islamic extremism.[3] However, I have had a lot of one-on-one contact with Muslims in a lot of Islamic countries, made friends with many right here in the United States and I have found them to be a gracious and hospitable people.

Even among the mainstream of Islam, Muslims have a very negative view of violent extremism. According to Pew surveys, groups like Al Qaeda, Ansar Al Sharia, Boko Haram, and ISIS are viewed unfavorably by the majority of Muslims. The results of a Pew survey released in November 2015 showed that nearly three quarters of Muslims worldwide surveyed have a negative view of ISIS.[4] In the United States, the percentage of Muslims with a negative view of Islamic extremism is even higher.[5]

Many Americans are concerned about the possible implementation of Sharia Law. Sharia Law is a complex system of Islamic Law that differs from one tradition to another. Muslims in and from countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have a negative view of Sharia. Even in most countries where Sharia is viewed favorably, the type of laws practiced do not include the cutting off of hands or stoning deaths of people who violate Islamic law. Of the 50 countries that are majority Islamic, only 5 strictly observe Sharia. On the other hand, there are Islamic countries that reject Sharia as a form of national jurisprudence. For instance, homosexuality while still taboo is legal in Mali (90% Muslim), Jordan (92% Muslim), Indonesia (87% Muslim), Turkey (96% Muslim), and Albania (59% Islam).

Sharia laws may seem austere and even backwards to Americans, especially Americans who are concerned about Sharia being implemented here. However, most Islamic scholars teach that the moral code of Sharia should only be practiced within Islamic communities, much as many churches advocate and practice biblical church discipline, and the punitive aspects of Sharia are not to be practiced outside of Islamic countries.

I understand that there are verses in the Qur’an that can be interpreted to advocate violence against infidels, the most infamous of which is Sura 9:5 which is sometimes called the “The Verse of the Sword.”

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Most fundamentalist Muslims use this verse to justify terrorism against unbelievers. The problem with using this verse to justify violence against unbelievers, according to many Islamic scholars has to do with the verses before and after Sura 9:5. These verses tell Muslims to make treaties and be at peace with unbelievers who choose to make treaties and be at peace with them. Sura 9:6 tells Muslims to help unbelievers who seek protection. Sura 9:5, according to these scholars must be interpreted in that context.

I have always said to my Christian friends, “A text without a context is a prooftext for a pretext.” Cherry picking verses to fit your personal beliefs is just plain wrong. Many conservative Islamic scholars are giving the same warning to their fellow Muslims and encouraging them to make peace with non-Muslims. Just as it is wrong for Muslims to take this verse and verses like it out of context to justify extremism, it is just as wrong for non-Muslims to take these verses to justify Islamophobia.

Not only are there conservative Muslims who do not want to kill non-Muslims, there are Muslims who advocate peace as part of their theology. Sects like the Sufis and Alevis are very peaceful. Their theology prohibits murder of any person regardless of religion. They do not seek to establish a theocracy or Sharia Law. In fact, Sufis are not just very tolerant, they have a syncretic religion that allows them to pray and worship at non-Muslim holy sites.

There are also movements within Islam that seek to develop a critical translation of the Qur’an as it is the only holy book in the world that has not yet had such a treatment. The Quranist movement which rejects all Hadith and is essentially the equivalent of the Protestant reformation of Islam, are very peaceful. Quranist scholars are also doing some very serious scholarly work in textual criticism, trying to get to the original meaning not just in the context of language, but also the historical and cultural context of the Qur’an as well.

So, are there problems in the Islamic world? Sure there are. Do we need to be afraid of every Muslim we see? Absolutely not. However, that doesn’t mean we short cut the refugee vetting process or say stupid things like ISIS is not Islamic or terrorist acts when conducted in the name of Allah are not Islamic terrorism. ISIS is Islamic and terrorism committed in the name of Allah is Islamic terrorism, but it only reflects the teachings and beliefs of one very small population within Islam. There are Muslims who approve of terrorism, but the majority of Muslims who live in the United States and the West do not and just want to live in peace and safety just like the rest of us.

Hoplophobia

Says she does not want to take away guns but has
praised Australia's confiscatory buy-back program.

On the other side of the political aisle, Hillary Clinton came out with what began as a very reasoned response on day one. She wrote on her Facebook page, “we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.” That totally makes sense and I support that sentiment, but what she wrote next shows the typical ignorance regarding firearms shared by too many politicians and journalists, and the misinformation spread by the rest of the gun control advocates who know better:

“This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

This shooting is not even close to being the worst mass shooting in the history the United States. Have politicians and journalists forgotten the shooting massacre at Wounded Knee Creek where the United States Army killed at least 130 Sioux men, women, and children? Have they forgotten the Mountain Meadows Massacre where the Utah Territorial Militia slaughtered 120 men, women, and children who were part of the Baker-Fancher wagon-train?

The second thing Hillary Clinton gets wrong in that statement is claim that the SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle is a weapon of war. This is a common misunderstanding among most people who do know about firearms. They hear the term “assault weapon” and automatically associate that with war. Many news articles and politicians claim that these weapons were made for military use. These weapons are no more “weapons of war” than are any other semi-automatic firearms.

The term “assault weapons” was not a legal or legislative term prior to 1989 and it is a term that was never used by the military, the government, or firearms makers prior to that year. Prior to that, the term “assault rifle” was used to describe weapons used primarily by the military, specifically, the infantry. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons or fire in multiple round bursts. Assault rifles are weapons of war, assault weapons are not.

Could so-called assault weapons be used in war? Certainly they could, just as ranch rifles, Henry or Winchester repeating rifles, or a .357 revolver could be used in war and all have been. An assault rifle is not any more deadly than a hunting rifle just because some bureaucrat/activist defines it as a “weapon of war.”

Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle

The weapon used in the attack in Orlando was the SIG MCX rifle. The weapon fires semi-automatically which means it only fires one round each time the trigger is pulled. Too many politicians and journalists have mistakenly said this weapon was fully automatic. That is incorrect. Rifles that are fully automatic continue to fire rounds as long as the trigger is held down and there are rounds in the magazine. Politicians and journalists have also mistakenly identified the weapon as an AR-15. A more correct description by some media outlets has been “AR-15 style.” The AR-15 was created to be modular so that things like foregrips and other accouterments can be added. Additionally, the barrel can be changed out so that it can fire various size rounds in different configurations. The Sig MCX is designed the same way so it can fire .223 Remington, 5.56×45 NATO, 7.62×39, or .308 Winchester depending on the barrel configuration used.

Typically, weapons like the MCX are purchased as a base model with a standard barrel to receive the 5.56×45 NATO round or .223 Remington round. They are magazine fed and receive a detachable magazine. Standard magazines are usually 30 rounds, but magazines that are smaller such as 10 and 20 round magazines can also be purchased.

The AR in AR-15 does not mean “assault rifle.” It is an abbreviation for the company that produces the weapon, Armalite. So the AR-15 is the Armalite Rifle model 15.

The reason this rifle and rifles like it are called “weapons of war” by politicians and journalists is because its appearance is similar to military issued weapons even though it functions completely differently. The legal definition of an assault weapon under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and similar legislation as applied to rifles is that it is semi-automatic, able to receive a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: collapsible or folding stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or grenade launcher. Grenades available to the general public are non-lethal rounds like Skat Shells and smoke used in crowd control. None of those features make a weapon more deadly. Those features are purely ergonomic and cosmetic.

Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle model 5801

An example of a weapon that is not called a “weapon of war” but functions exactly the same and would not be banned under any past, present, or proposed assault weapons ban is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. The model 5801 is probably the least likely to be viewed as a “weapon of war” even though it functions exactly the same as an AR-15 or a Sig MCX. It is semi-automatic and receives a detachable magazine. It is chambered in 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington. While the weapon comes standard with two 20 round magazines, 30 round magazines can be purchased. It is also cheaper than a Sig MCX.

If the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in Orlando had a Mini-14 Ranch Rifle instead of an MCX, he would have been just as deadly.

A Mother Jones commentary said of the MCX, “It was designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.”[6] All firearms are designed to deliver deadly force whether to a person or an animal, but the primary purpose of assault rifles and assault weapons is not killing. The primary purpose of these weapons is to neutralize threats. Assault weapons, when used for self-defense are used for exactly the same purpose. I think we can agree that police are not in the business of killing “as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.” Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide are in the business of serving and protecting and yet assault weapons are standard patrol issue for most law enforcement agencies.

When police officers have to engage a subject with deadly force, they use that force understanding that doing so could result in death or serious bodily harm. Even so, their goal is not to kill, but to eliminate a threat and preserve life. Many times, just pulling a firearm is enough to stop an attack and preserve life, but sometimes, firing a weapon is also required. Every law enforcement agency, military branch, and firearms safety school teaches their students to shoot center mass. They do not teach to shoot extremities or to shoot to wound. That level of marksmanship is not possible in most duress situations which results in missed shots and collateral damage to innoc. These schools teach their students to neutralize or stop a threat and to continue to utilize the appropriate level of force including deadly force until the threat has been neutralized.

Oftentimes, stopping a threat takes more than one round because unfortunately real life is not like the movies. Bad guys do not die with a single shot and getting a kill shot with a single round is rare. Getting rounds on target under duress also does not always happen with a single shot and sometimes not with a single magazine.

When I was in the Navy, I was required to go through several marksmanship and tactical schools. In one school we were shown a video where a police officer pulled over a van. The subject in the van pulled out a weapon and fired at the officer who then drew his service pistol and emptied it. At close range and probably around two dozen rounds fired between both the subject and the officer, they hit exactly nothing. When the officer went to reload, the subject got back in his vehicle and escaped. I tried to find the video, but was unsuccessful.

Too many agencies only do basic target practice for qualification and requalification. In recent years, many agencies have added exercises that require officers to move, get winded, and fire under simulated duress so that they will be more likely to get rounds on target in actual situations.

In a video found at this link, officers in Palestine, Texas fire nine rounds before stopping the threat from a subject who is attempting to fire back. I will warn you that this video may be considered graphic to sensitive viewers, so I will give some explanation of what occurs in the video.

After the perpetrator goes down, he rolls over which indicates that the threat may not have been neutralized so the officers are forced to fire four more rounds. This may seem excessive to some, but as long as a perpetrator is resisting and is near or has access to weapons, that person is still a threat. These officers were investigated, found to have properly responded, and cleared of any misconduct. Even so, these officers may have PTSD and were definitely required to go through psychological evaluation. No matter what, they are going to relive that night for the rest of their lives wondering if they did everything they could.

There are really two points in these illustrations. The first for second amendment advocates: if you own weapons, train with them often so that you can get rounds on target under duress, and make sure you are keeping yourself mentally, physically, and spiritually fit. The second is for gun control advocates: limiting the capacity of magazines puts people in danger. If this had been a civilian in a fire fight and he had to reload after ten shots, the perpetrator on the ground who still had his weapon could have fired back during the reload. While he may have missed, it is just as probable that the result of this engagement with a civilian would have been a dead defender as well as a dead perpetrator.

Many proponents of gun control say they support the second amendment because of America’s strong tradition in hunting and sport shooting and that assault weapons cannot be used for these purposes. They want to ban certain weapons, but they are not in favor of an all-out ban on firearms.

There are a couple of fundamental misunderstandings in statements like these. First, assault weapons can be and are used for hunting regularly. Second, the second amendment is not about hunting and sport shooting.

Second Amendment

I am going to spend some time on the second amendment, but before I do I want to say to gun control advocates, I understand. I do. You want your children, family, friends, acquaintances, and generally everybody to be safe and not to live in fear. You do not want people to worry about having to get shot to death going to school, shopping, at the movies, a night club, or a sporting event. I understand, I sympathize, and I hope that we can continue to have reasonable conversations about this issue because we want the same thing, though we may disagree on both the ends and the means.

Second, to my fellow second amendment advocates, take some time and listen to the concerns of gun control advocates. I know many of you do engage gun control advocates in debate, arguments, and shouting matches. Some of these conversations have cost you friends. I just hope that the outcome of these conversations does not put you off from continuing to have such conversations. Know that not all gun control advocates are hoplophobes (afraid of weapons) and many actually own firearms themselves. Not all gun control advocates are for the complete disarmament of the civilian populace. Most feel that firearms ownership should be limited to shotguns and pistols for self-defense and rifles for hunting.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

– Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

I want to write not just on what the second amendment says and what it means, but why it was written and included in the Bill of Rights. I hope to summarize briefly the historical context of the second amendment and show why it is still relevant today. I also want to look at the historical context of some of the definitions of the words in the second amendment because more than two centuries have passed since the second amendment was written and some of the words have gained new definitions.

The second amendment is divided into four parts or clauses:

• Well-regulated militia clause
• Free state clause
• Right of the people clause
• Non-infringement clause

A well regulated militia…

The Lexington Minuteman monument
Lexington, MA

It seems that too many people in the debate misunderstand this clause. Second amendment advocates feel that the non-infringement clause somehow abrogates or nullifies the term well-regulated and gun control advocates tend to not understand what the militia is. Since the subject of the first clause is the militia, I will start there.

I do not know the exact numbers, but too many people in the United States think that the word militia in the second amendment refers to the United States Military. The United States Military is actually referred to in Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. The founders would refer to our modern military as a standing army or navy. The militia was every male citizen capable of bearing arms that was not part of the standing military force.

The Founders were worried that a standing army would present a danger of becoming oppressive. They had a good precedent for being worried about the danger that a standing military force presented because more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Revolutionary War started which began as a civil war between the militia of the British Colonies in North America and the standing army of the United Kingdom which was attempting to force the Colonies to accept oppressive taxation without representation.

Richard Henry Lee was an Anti-Federalist which means that he was opposed to the ratification of the Constitution. Ultimately, he gave in, but his response to the ratification of the Constitution was to advocate for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. His most famous Anti-Federalist writings are contained in the Letters to the Republic from the Federalist Farmer. In Federal Farmer 18, he wrote:

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.”

The term “select militia” refers to a standing army trained, equipped and organized for a predetermined period of time and selected from the people. Lee wanted every man capable of bearing arms to be regularly trained in military tactics and formations so that if the country went to war, they could be called up for service and be ready to fight.

In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton wrote about standing armies and militias. Like Richard Henry Lee and most of the Founding Fathers, he was leery of a standing army. Much of Federalist 29 was written in response to Lee’s Federal Farmer 18. Hamilton wrote about the perceived danger from a standing army by recognizing that a force of full-time soldiers could be recruited from the citizenry and then used to oppress the citizenry.

“It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.”

He also wrote:

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution.”

Hamilton agrees with Lee’s definition that the militia refers to every citizen of the United States. The problem in Hamilton’s eyes was that it was impractical for the government to fund the training of every single male capable of bearing arms. Forcing every single male citizen of the United States to train to the level where they would be a proficient military force would take too much time away from the productivity of the populace. To assuage the fears about a standing army, Hamilton wrote:

“… if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

After having just won the Revolutionary War five years earlier, Hamilton wrote that the potential danger of a standing army could be checked by an armed populace regardless of their level of discipline.

We can see from this example of writing from both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that the militia is not the military, but the male citizens capable of bearing arms. The Laws of the United States codified the definition of the Militia as early as 1792 with the Militia Acts. The current definition of the militia is found in 10 U.S. Code § 311 and defines the militia as consisting of all male citizens or those who have declared the intention to become citizens who are between the ages of 17 and 45.

                                                              

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The U.S. Code does not recognize women as part of the militia unless they are part of the National Guard. I think this definition is unfortunate because, while I am old-fashioned and think that men should be protective of women, I do think that women should be able to join the military, arm themselves, and protect themselves. In other words, I feel that because women have proven themselves capable in law enforcement and military service, civilian women are the militia as well.

The word militia in the second amendment is modified by the term “well regulated” in the first clause. Rather than appealing to modern dictionaries, I thought I would appeal to dictionaries used during the Founding Era. Probably the most popular dictionary used in the Founding Era was the 1755 Samuel Johnson dictionary which defined the word as follows:

To Régulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.]

1.       To adjust by rule or method.

Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

2.       To direct.

Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman.

Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife

Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.

Both meanings are applicable. “Well-regulated” means Congress has the right to make laws and regulations regarding the militia. The second amendment does not provide any limitations to regulating the militia so long as the people retain their right to keep and bear arms. In the last section I will write more about infringement, but suffice it to say for now that the term “well-regulated” does give Congress the right to make certain weapons illegal for private ownership. When Congress writes legislation in regards to addressing what kinds of weapons the people may own, that has to be balanced against the context of the second clause of the second amendment which I am calling the Free State clause.

… being necessary to the security of a free State…

Depiction of combat between Greek hoplites

Remember, the second amendment was written in the context of the United States having just won the Revolutionary War against a standing army and to assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists and many Federalists as well that the Federal Government could establish a standing army to oppress the people. In short, the militia keeps the State free because an armed populace can keep a standing army in check. Remember Hamilton’s words in Federalist 29:

“… if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

The concept of a militia composed of members of the general populace goes all the way back to Ancient Greece and probably even before that. There is some disagreement as to when the practice arose, but by the Hellenic period (5^th to 4^th century B.C.) all free-citizens of Greece (men who were artisans or property owners) were required to attend basic military training, maintain armor and weapons, and were called on during conflict to defend the country. Some cultures, like the famous Spartans were militaristic in culture from their childhood. Ancient Rome also fought their wars with citizen soldiers for much of its history.

Many Classical writers attribute a civilian militia as one of the key components to maintaining a free state. The Founders were students of history and philosophy and read the works of the Classical writers—Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Cato, etc. They also were familiar with the work of the Greek historian Polibius who was one of the more notable Classical historians who attributed the citizen militia of Ancient Rome with its swift rise to power and dominance in the Ancient Mediterranean world.

“…the Romans train themselves to a much higher pitch than the Carthaginians. The former bestow their whole attention upon this department; whereas the Carthaginians wholly neglect their infantry, though they do take some slight interest in the cavalry. The reason of this is that they employ foreign mercenaries, the Romans native and citizen levies. It is in this point that the latter polity is preferable to the former. They have their hopes of freedom ever resting on the courage of mercenary troops; the Romans on the valor of their own citizens and the aid of their allies. The result is that even if the Romans have suffered a defeat at first, they renew the war with undiminished forces, which the Carthaginians cannot do. For, as the Romans are fighting for country and children, it is impossible for them to relax the fury of their struggle; but they persist with obstinate resolution until they have overcome their enemies.”

– Polibius: The Histories

While the Colonial Militia was not capable of defeating the standing army of the British and had to rely on mercenaries and foreign troops to ultimately win the war, the Founders felt that a militia was the best way to ensure the safety and liberty of the United States. They also recognized that a general or unorganized militia would not be able to train to the professional level of a full-time military force which most other countries had.

The other reason for having a standing federal military force was the failure of state militias under the Articles of Confederation. Each state was required to maintain, equip, and train its own militia, but funding immediately after the Revolutionary War made equipping the militia prohibitive. The Legislature of the Confederacy spent more time debating what kind of tents the militia should be equipped with than they did actually attempting to equip the militia. On top of all that, whenever an emergency arose that required the calling up of the militia, nine of thirteen states needed to approve of calling up the militia.

In 1786 to 1787, Shay’s Rebellion demonstrated the weakness of the Confederacy’s plan as Daniel Shay led an armed resistance of 4,000 men against the government of Massachusetts. The Federal Government could not afford to recruit, train, and equip a military force, so Benjamin Lincoln, who was a General during the Revolutionary War, raised funds by soliciting more than a hundred private businessman for the funding of a private militia. 3,000 men were recruited, trained, equipped, and paid to put down Shay’s rebellion.

Some of the Founders thought Shay’s rebellion was a good thing. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his famous response to the event, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Many other Founders felt that a stronger central government with a standing military was going to be important for the future of the country, to defend against foreign aggression and to put down domestic rebellions. The states would still be allowed to have their own militias that would come under the control of the President of the United States “…when called into the actual Service of the United States” (US Constitution Article II, Section 2) and the rest of the militia would keep the standing military and the Federal Government in check.

Some argue that the United States’ Constitutional form of government with its checks and balances will prevent the Federal Government from becoming oppressive. The problem is that after more than 100 years of government progressivism starting with Theodore Roosevelt, expanding with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and continuing to expand to this day, all the machinery that will allow the Federal Government to become oppressive is already in place.

The Constitutional form of government was designed so that taxes, laws, and regulation would only be made by representatives in Congress, the legislative branch. The President can veto laws passed by the legislature, but if he or she signs them into law, as head of the Executive branch, the President must enforce those laws, regulations, or taxes. The Judicial branch can review laws and determine whether or not they are constitutional and if not, the legislature must go back to the drawing board.

Since the early 20^th century, the government has established a variety of regulatory agencies within the Federal Government under the Executive Branch. Agencies like the EPA, FCC, FDA, and a virtual alphabet soup of other agencies. The idea behind these regulatory agencies is that most politicians do not have the academic expertise to make legislation regarding regulation in certain fields like environmental studies, communications, or public health issues. So Congress, through legislation created these agencies to be composed of experts within the fields regulated. These agencies, under the management of the Executive Branch create regulations about those fields.

Now let us take the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just as an example of all regulatory agencies. Congress can pass legislation that is general in nature, such as the Clean Air Act which sets goals regarding emission standards. The EPA then writes regulations that explain how these standards are going to be enforced.

The problem is that once the President signs legislation that falls under the purview of the EPA, the public has very little say in how the EPA creates and enforces regulation and Congress has little oversight. If the public petitions the Executive Branch to review EPA regulations, the EPA’s bureaucrats review the regulations and then determine if the regulations will be changed. If, after review, the bureaucrats feel no change is necessary, no change will be made.

The only way Congress exercises its oversight is to call hearings which often do little more than waste time and money, and accomplish even less, but wins huge political points for the loudest members of the congressional panel. Politicians in Congress, especially the establishment of the major parties, both Republican and Democrat, are progressives who are pretty happy with the progressive machinery of the Federal Government as long as someone from their party is President. If their party does not control the Whitehouse, then you will hear blustering congressmen and women moan about the Constitutional violations being committed while doing nothing and then just a few years later, these same members of Congress will be doing exactly the same thing.

The only way the Judicial Branch exercises oversight is if a case regarding an EPA regulation is brought before them.

So let us summarize. Congress is too lazy to write regulations, so they draft legislation that when passed delegates the actual purpose of legislation—regulation—to an Executive Branch regulatory agency. The regulatory agency then determines whether their regulations violate the Constitution and then they execute the law with the help of Executive Branch law enforcement agencies like the FBI, BATFE, Secret Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service. All of this is done with very little in the way of checks, balances and oversight. That is absolutely contrary to what the Founders had intended.

Now throw into the mix that some of these regulatory agencies have their own armed agents. All you need is a tyrant in the White House and they can abuse executive and regulatory agencies and the military will not even be needed to oppress the people. Keep in mind that the presumptive nominees of both parties are unstable authoritarians.

When asking how the militia will keep the standing military in check, modern legislators and judges, when trying to determine original intent, need to consider the historical context of the second amendment, not the technology available at the time. The historical context of the second amendment was that members of the militia should be armed, at the very least, with the same kinds of weapons the infantry had as well as being able to have access to even more powerful weapons.

Which brings us to…

… the right of the people to keep and bear arms…

The writing of the Founders shows very clearly that the term "people" or "the people" always refers to individual citizens. It does not refer to a collective unless, as in the preamble to the Constitution includes the word "we" or some other inclusive language. So, the second amendment means that individuals have the right to "keep and bear arms."

The 1755 Samuel Johnson dictionary and the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary both show that the primary definition of “keep” was “too retain; not to lose” (Johnson), and “To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart” (Webster).

The use of the word “bear” in the second amendment means “To convey or carry” (Johnson), and “To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, 'they bear him upon the shoulder; ', 'the eagle beareth them on her wings’” (Webster).

In the past 227 years, the definitions of those words remain unchanged. Therefore, the second amendment not only guarantees every individual American citizen and legal resident the right to purchase, own, and keep arms in their possession, it also guarantees every American citizen and legal resident the right to carry those arms on their person in public. Furthermore, the second amendment does not stipulate the times or the places when weapons can be carried. Most gun control advocates, including those calling for a complete ban on firearms understand this which is why those in favor of banning and confiscation are also in favor of repealing or changing the second amendment.

The question then should not be can American citizens and residents own and carry weapons, but rather, what kind of weapons can be owned and carried.

Typically when a mass shooting takes place, gun control advocates usually say something like, “Civilians should not have access to military-style weapons,” or “Why does anyone need an AR-15?” When gun rights advocates attempt to defend their right to own weapons, gun control advocates usually respond with, “Nobody wants to make hunting illegal. You can have your hunting rifles and even handguns for self-defense, but you don’t need an assault weapon.”

The response to the second argument is that the second amendment was not written to protect hunting and self-defense. Self-defense was certainly part of the purpose of the second amendment, but as I just discussed, the second clause shows that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the civilian populace to keep the military in check.

Many gun control advocates counter with a claim to the effect of “The Founding Fathers had no idea that there would be weapons available one day that could kill dozens of people in seconds. Surely they didn’t mean to allow people to own automatic weapons.”

I will not try to determine what the Founding Fathers did or did not know about the future. I will say that during the time of the writing of the second amendment there were already advancements in firearms beyond the musket commonly used in the Revolutionary War. Even during the Revolutionary War, there were small arms available other than the standard military issue musket.

The term “rifle” comes from the grooves inside the bore of a firearm that cause the round to spin. This helps the round maintain speed and accuracy, and increases range. Rifles were already in use before the Revolutionary War, but were harder to load and were typically only used by sharpshooters and skirmishers of the militia. Breech loading rifles were easier to load, but were expensive, even for military forces. In spite of their expense, they were used at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. There were also repeating rifles—rifles capable of being loaded with more than one round at a time and fired in rapid sequence. While many of these advancements were not perfected for many more years, the Founding Fathers were certainly aware of them, saw their utility and did nothing to ban them or restrict their ownership.

As to the objection regarding weapons that were capable of mass killings in short order, one needs to remember that the Founding Fathers did not need to have any foresight about that. Those types of weapons existed in their day. They were called cannons and yes, cannons could be purchased by civilians for private ownership. They were vicious instruments of war and indiscriminate killers.

Most people think of cannon shot as just solid metal balls and certainly that is one type of cannon shot called round shot. Round shot, when fired, would roll across the ground, bouncing wildly and the human toll other than just death was amputation. Round shout could only be stopped by losing momentum or hitting a solid barrier.

Other types of cannon shot included grape shot, canister shot, bar and expanding bar shot, chain shot, langrage, and exploding shells to name just some of the rounds used in Founding Era warfare.

Grape shot and canister shot, also called case shot, were essentially the same thing but just had different packaging. These types of rounds were made of several smaller rounds either wrapped in cloth which looked like a bunch of grapes or they were packed into a canister. When fired, the round exploded into a swarm of smaller rounds. These rounds were primarily used as anti-personnel rounds and to great effect.

Bar shot was simply a bar with weights at either end. When fired, it would spin and was used primarily in naval warfare to take down masts, but any person who happened to be in the flight path would be cut in half. Expanding bar shot was the same thing except it had a bar that expanded once it began spinning. Chain shot worked similar to bar shot except it was made of a piece of chain with weighted ends.

Langrage was basically any kind of garbage that would maim or kill when fired. It could be bags of glass or scrap metal. If you watch the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, there was a scene where the protagonists had thrown all the heavy cargo over the side including cannon balls. When they faced off with the enemy, they threw silverware, candlesticks, and Mr. Gibbs’ whiskey flask, into the cannons. One of the villains ended up with a fork stuck in his wooden eye. That is langrage and was used to destroy enemy sails and as anti-personnel rounds.

Exploding shells were rounds that were designed to hopefully explode on impact. These rounds were hollow and were packed with explosives. Often they would explode during firing sending shrapnel toward the enemy. If they did not explode right away, the shells acted like round shot until it exploded. Exploding shells not only killed lots of people but were absolutely demoralizing to enemy troops. By the time the second amendment was written, exploding shell had advanced to the point where they had timers that prevented them from exploding prematurely.

These were just some of the weapons that Founders had in mind when they wrote the second amendment. The average civilian did not own cannons but could. Wealthy militia leaders and merchants, especially seafaring merchants did own cannons. Merchants did not send their ships to sea without cannons to protect shipping from piracy. Merchant ships were so well armed that during the Revolutionary War, nearly 1,700 Colonial merchant ships were given letters of marque adding them to the list of the Continental Navy. Civilian Merchant ships were involved in many naval engagements and added to the naval rosters after the Revolutionary War in conflicts with the Barbary Corsairs, the War of 1812 and beyond.

The idea of the second amendment was to allow civilians to protect themselves, but also to keep the military in check. As such, civilians needed to be able to arm themselves to adequately defend against a standing army.

In the Revolutionary War, the British Regulars were armed with a musket and a sword. The militia was armed with a rifle, other long gun, or musket and either a long knife or tomahawk. When well trained, the militia was evenly matched with British Regulars when their units were of similar size.

The Militia Act of 1792 not only required every male citizen between the age of 18 and 45 to be enrolled in the militia (the draft of the day), but within six months of passage, everyone enrolled in the militia was required by law to have all the same gear as the average infantryman. Militia officers were required to have more gear and militia dragoons (cavalry) were required to have even more gear and a horse. The Militia Act also organized the members of the militia (every male between 18 and 45) into military units of divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies and directed the states to ensure their militias were trained in military science. Sorry Hamilton.

The second amendment said that a well-regulated militia was needed and the Militia Acts ensured it was well-regulated. The second amendment said that The People have the right to keep and bear arms and the Militia Acts prescribed what kinds of weapons at a minimum The People should have. This is completely contrary to the type of gun control laws and proposals we see today. The Founders wanted everybody to have actual weapons of war whereas modern gun control proponents want only the military to have weapons of war.

… shall not be infringed.

Now we get into the part of the second amendment that is greatly misunderstood by many if not most gun rights advocates. Whenever a politician suggests any kind of gun control legislation, many gun rights advocates will say something to the effect of “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” In the age of social media, various memes, many to this effect fill up our news feed during calls for gun control.

Most second amendment advocates confuse the definition of “infringe” themselves. Most people, when they think of the word “infringe,” they think it in terms of lessening their rights. So, when Congress says, “You cannot have such and such kind of weapon, but you can have these other ones,” that is considered an infringement of their rights because it lessens the kinds of weapons that may be legally owned.

The problem is that the government has a vested interest in ensuring that people do not have access to all kinds of weapons. The government has a vested interest in ensuring that only certain people have access to the country’s nuclear codes, that people cannot have access to nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapons, also called weapons of mass destruction. By the strictest definition, those are arms. If we assume that the definition of infringement means not to lessen the types of weapons owned, then the government of the United States has infringed upon our rights by not allowing us to own weapons of mass destruction.

This argument may seem ridiculous, but it is the idea that non-infringement means no lessening of rights taken out to its full and logical conclusion. However, I do not think any gun rights activist wants to own a nuclear missile. Even if they had the money to do so, I do not think anybody wants all the responsibility that comes with having to maintain and secure such a weapon, much less the having the responsibility of using such a weapon if ordered to do so.

The government has taken away an individual’s right to own weapons of mass destruction, but most of us (I say most because there are probably a fringe group of people who probably are in favor of this) as gun rights activists do not feel like our rights have been infringed upon. I think gun rights activists are pretty happy with individuals not being able to own weapons of mass destruction. So if the government saying we cannot own weapons of mass destruction is not an infringement even though our rights have been lessened, what does “infringed” mean?

To get to the meaning of infringement as the Founders understood it, we have to go back to dictionaries contemporary to the time. One definition of “infringe” is “to lessen,” however, even in modern dictionaries, that is not the primary definition and according to Noah Webster in his 1828 dictionary, it was “little used.”

INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

Here you see that Noah Webster primarily defines infringe as meaning the breaking of an agreement, contract or law. Samuel Johnson’s dictionary only defined it that way and the last definition was not used at all in 1755.

Applied to the second amendment, if the government completely took away our rights to keep and bear arms, that would be an infringement. While I personally believe that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that American citizens, as members of the militia, should have access to buy and own many of the same kinds of weapons that the military has, including fully automatic weapons, grenades, and more, if the government makes a law prohibiting the ownership of such weapons, but does not remove our right to own weapons altogether, the government, as much as it pains me to say it, is not technically infringing our rights.

As I said before, legislatures need to carefully consider not just public safety, but original intent as demonstrated in the writings, laws, and context of the second amendment. They also need to think through what their laws will actually accomplish. It is important for legislators at all levels to look not just at our own history, but the history of other nations as they consider what gun control laws, if any, to pass.

When legislators look at other countries for examples of gun control, it is important that they consider not just the laws that were passed, but the specific conditions in that country that make their gun control work. What is their culture like? What other crimes are being committed? What is their political culture like? Is the country isolated in some way?

As I hope to demonstrate in future blogs that while many gun control laws result in fewer gun deaths, they really do nothing to decrease murders, violent crime, and suicide. Some countries have instituted gun control laws that are not working at all. Even in the United States, the success or failure of gun control laws varies from state to state and city to city. Some states have very permissive laws and gun crime and deaths are out of control and other states have very strict gun control laws and gun crime and deaths are low. However, there are other states where gun control laws are permissive and both crime and gun deaths are low and states where gun control laws are restrictive and gun crime and deaths are high. So we, as a nation, not just legislators, need to be actively involved in discussions to determine why gun control works in some places and not others and why permissive laws have mixed results as well.

As long as there are guns in the world, bad people will be able to get their hands on them. As long as bad people can get access to guns, good people should have them as well. Even when an attacker does not have a gun, it is often the case that they are able to overpower their victims and things like pepper spray and stun guns will not always neutralize an attacker. The firearm is the best equalizer ever invented.

Will firearms always save lives? No, but firearms are used more often for self-defense than they are for crime and as the old saying goes, "Better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one."

---

[1] "Orlando Shooting: Man Who Says He Was Omar Mateen's Gay Lover Speaks out." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 21 June 2016. Web. 22 June 2016. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-man-who-says-he-was-omar-mateen-gay-lover-speaks-out-univision/>.

[2] Malik, Mohammed A. "I Reported Omar Mateen to the FBI. Trump Is Wrong That Muslims Don't Do Our Part." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 June 2016. Web. 22 June 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/20/i-reported-omar-mateen-to-the-fbi-trump-is-wrong-that-muslims-dont-do-our-part/>.

[3] Lipka, Michael. "Muslims and Islam: Key Findings in the U.S. and around the World." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 07 Dec. 2015. Web. 22 June 2016. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/>.

[4] Poushter, Jacob. "In Nations with Significant Muslim Populations, Much Disdain for ISIS." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 21 June 2016. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/>.

[5] Nekola, Adam. "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. N.p., 30 Aug. 2011. Web. 21 June 2016. <http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/>.

[6] Follman, Mark. "This Is the Assault Rifle the Orlando Mass Shooter Used for His Devastating Attack." Mother Jones. 13 June 2016. Web. 19 June 2016. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter>.