The Second Amendment reads: 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. Laws have to be interpreted and the Second Amendment has its own history of debate. A
Once I saw what a gun is capable of doing to a human body with my own eyes, my view on guns and violence changed. I wish it would have changed sooner based off the teachings of Jesus.
Interesting. Scot, you are a genius and I love you, so I am going to disagree very carefully. The Second Amendment is not a "moral good" in the way that the First Amendment is not a "moral good." It is no more moral to carry a gun than it is to worship Satan or to scream obscenities at your neighbor or to drum up false news stories about a political candidate, all of which are protected by the Bill of Rights. These are freedoms that our founders saw fit to protect for very good reasons.
I find it interesting that you chose Australia--a country where its citizens are being tear gassed, rounded up, and placed into internment camps for violations of Covid policies--as the lever for this argument. That could never happen in the United States *because of* the Second Amendment. So, pro: They have fewer gun deaths. Con: Their government can basically do whatever they want to them. That's not an acceptable tradeoff. I think we can agree holding people against their will is not a moral good.
The purpose of government and policy is not to effect a moral good because government itself is not "good." This is precisely why these rights--to say what we wish, to worship as we wish, to be tried by a jury of our peers, to own and carry firearms--exist: to guard against what is both necessary and capable of great evil (as we see in parts of Australia).
There are obviously many, many other strong arguments in favor of the Second Amendment, but this only addresses the argument that it is not a moral good, which I do not believe is in working order.
A militia these days, whether armed forces, reserve or volunteer forces, does not usually keep its guns at home, and does not carry them when not under orders in service.
Thank you for speaking to this with such clarity. I preached on this subject a number of years ago, specifically the connection to idolatry. You'd think the connection between swords/guns in ancient/modern times - to say nothing of Jesus dying on a cross instead of nailing his enemies to them - wouldn't be too difficult to draw, but the power of our national imagination to justify our love affair with guns is powerful indeed. This, of course, gets back (as so many things do) to the power of bad theology and dangerous hermeneutics ("Well, in the end Jesus is going to come back to open up a can on everyone anyway, so...") Anyway...I appreciate you lending your voice and platform to this discussion. Thank you.
Aside from being a pastor, I also am a hunter and a target sportsman. I well understand some of the positive uses for firearms and participate. I have fed my family countless healthy, organic, and delicious meals from harvesting wild game. At the same time, I have serious theological reservations with the idea of defensive weapons and the whole culture and system of thinking around how that *actually seems to play out* (in difference to overly tidy ideologies around the issue). I'm not sure how America can address such an issue that goes so deep.
Here in Canada, our system leaves no room for defensive guns (as a purpose of ownership) for civilians - hunting or target sports only. Likewise, we have a strong vetting system and safety course(s) to get a license(s). Among vetted, licensed (legal) owners, this keeps crime very low. Of course, those who are intentioned to do evil can get illegal weapons (mostly smuggled from the USA). But there is a positive way forward to retain the ability to hunt or participate in sports while shifting the culture of ownership away from thinking about using them on people. Speaking of which, I strongly resonate with the last sentiments of the post. I do believe that we need to hold the entertainment industry to account for glorifying such violence and nurturing interpersonal violent gun culture.
If you live in a place with wild hogs, you learn quick that an AR is pretty important hunting and protective tool. Yes, you can get an equivalent rifle that doesn’t look “scary” and still put a magazine in it with enough rounds to take down several hogs, but it’s heavier and more cumbersome.
I am a Christian Pacifist thanks to Lipscomb and Yoder and others… that being said I have no issue with self defense or the second amendment. What I see most in this argument is a class distinction. Wealthy, bourgeois lefties who don’t like guns mainly because they don’t like the people that like guns.
Once I saw what a gun is capable of doing to a human body with my own eyes, my view on guns and violence changed. I wish it would have changed sooner based off the teachings of Jesus.
Excellent post.
Interesting. Scot, you are a genius and I love you, so I am going to disagree very carefully. The Second Amendment is not a "moral good" in the way that the First Amendment is not a "moral good." It is no more moral to carry a gun than it is to worship Satan or to scream obscenities at your neighbor or to drum up false news stories about a political candidate, all of which are protected by the Bill of Rights. These are freedoms that our founders saw fit to protect for very good reasons.
I find it interesting that you chose Australia--a country where its citizens are being tear gassed, rounded up, and placed into internment camps for violations of Covid policies--as the lever for this argument. That could never happen in the United States *because of* the Second Amendment. So, pro: They have fewer gun deaths. Con: Their government can basically do whatever they want to them. That's not an acceptable tradeoff. I think we can agree holding people against their will is not a moral good.
The purpose of government and policy is not to effect a moral good because government itself is not "good." This is precisely why these rights--to say what we wish, to worship as we wish, to be tried by a jury of our peers, to own and carry firearms--exist: to guard against what is both necessary and capable of great evil (as we see in parts of Australia).
There are obviously many, many other strong arguments in favor of the Second Amendment, but this only addresses the argument that it is not a moral good, which I do not believe is in working order.
A militia these days, whether armed forces, reserve or volunteer forces, does not usually keep its guns at home, and does not carry them when not under orders in service.
Thank you for speaking to this with such clarity. I preached on this subject a number of years ago, specifically the connection to idolatry. You'd think the connection between swords/guns in ancient/modern times - to say nothing of Jesus dying on a cross instead of nailing his enemies to them - wouldn't be too difficult to draw, but the power of our national imagination to justify our love affair with guns is powerful indeed. This, of course, gets back (as so many things do) to the power of bad theology and dangerous hermeneutics ("Well, in the end Jesus is going to come back to open up a can on everyone anyway, so...") Anyway...I appreciate you lending your voice and platform to this discussion. Thank you.
Aside from being a pastor, I also am a hunter and a target sportsman. I well understand some of the positive uses for firearms and participate. I have fed my family countless healthy, organic, and delicious meals from harvesting wild game. At the same time, I have serious theological reservations with the idea of defensive weapons and the whole culture and system of thinking around how that *actually seems to play out* (in difference to overly tidy ideologies around the issue). I'm not sure how America can address such an issue that goes so deep.
Here in Canada, our system leaves no room for defensive guns (as a purpose of ownership) for civilians - hunting or target sports only. Likewise, we have a strong vetting system and safety course(s) to get a license(s). Among vetted, licensed (legal) owners, this keeps crime very low. Of course, those who are intentioned to do evil can get illegal weapons (mostly smuggled from the USA). But there is a positive way forward to retain the ability to hunt or participate in sports while shifting the culture of ownership away from thinking about using them on people. Speaking of which, I strongly resonate with the last sentiments of the post. I do believe that we need to hold the entertainment industry to account for glorifying such violence and nurturing interpersonal violent gun culture.
If you live in a place with wild hogs, you learn quick that an AR is pretty important hunting and protective tool. Yes, you can get an equivalent rifle that doesn’t look “scary” and still put a magazine in it with enough rounds to take down several hogs, but it’s heavier and more cumbersome.
I am a Christian Pacifist thanks to Lipscomb and Yoder and others… that being said I have no issue with self defense or the second amendment. What I see most in this argument is a class distinction. Wealthy, bourgeois lefties who don’t like guns mainly because they don’t like the people that like guns.