 |
| Aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, FL |
June 12th, 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 (5th to 4th 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 20th 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 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?
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>.
