It is popular among gun control advocates to claim that the gun in the mind of the second amendment's authors was the muzzle-loaded musket. As such, this is the weapon citizens are constitutionally allowed to keep and bear within a well ordered militia. This is a particularly inane argument. At issue was not the type of weapon, but the use to which the weapons would be put.
The authors wanted to keep the size and cost of the military down so as to keep the populace as free of taxation as possible. This also provided people with protection from an overbearing government, which would otherwise hold a monopoly on military power. If the musket was the only gun in the minds of the authors of the amendment this was because it was the most technologically advanced weapon carried by soldiers the world over. There were also bayonets, swords, horses and artillery in those armies.
The citizen soldiers envisioned in the second amendment would have been similarly armed because they owned all of these weapons. The exception to this would be artillery, which was cost prohibitive for most individuals to possess. Cannon would be held by the militia in its armory. Because of this, they would have been the match of any army in the world.
The authors of the second amendment might be appalled by the size of our standing military and would probably advocate for a return to the militia model to decrease the size and cost of government. Undoubtedly, however, they would not advocate that the populace only be armed with muskets. The overwhelming firepower held by foreign nations, or even by our own government would quickly relegate the people to a state of submission and servitude. This would be completely unacceptable to men like Jefferson, Washington, and etc. As such, they would argue that individuals must be allowed to own modern firearms.
What the framers of the constitution and its amendments would undoubtedly decry are the heinous uses to which these weapons are put. They would also lament the lack of civil responsibility in our society. They believed the freedoms fought for and enshrined in the founding documents must be upheld by citizens serving the best interests of the nation. Their thought was that life and freedom within the United States must ultimately serve the perpetuation of those freedoms. Such an attitude of service seems to be missing, because we serve our individual needs and wants above all others.
The fundamental disagreement Christians should have with all of this is one of lordship. If Christ is Lord, our ultimate service must be to him, instead of the state, our families, or ourselves. Christian actions are to help the Body of Christ advance, irrespective of the needs of the state, or any other organization that claims our loyalty. It is from this perspective that a Christian should approach the question of gun ownership and control.
No comments:
Post a Comment