The Second Amendment and “Certain Unalienable Rights”

The Public Square
42

You’re welcome.

It is interesting to look at the history of jurisprudence and popular sentiment. It doesn’t seem that gun rights were that big of a national issue for most of US history (maybe because they weren’t threatened, or weren’t perceived to be threatened?).

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good run down of major court cases bearing on the right to bear arms: List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia

  1. Cruikshank 1875: The Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment only applied to congress. This was after the 14th amendment, but it would be another 135 years before the second amendment was determined to fully apply to state and local governments.
  2. Presser 1886: The Supreme Court reiterated that the second amendment only applies to congress and the “national government,” but stated that “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.” Interesting principle! This decision also stated clearly that there is no constitutional protection for forming militias, parading, drilling, etc. The defendant in this case was involved in forming socialist militias to fight Pinkerton armies in the labor wars.
  3. Miller 1939: The court upheld a ban on sawed off shotguns on the grounds that they weren’t properly military weapons. The case also upheld the right of the US gov to regulate interstate transfer of guns.
  4. Heller 2008: Fully divorced the second amendment from militia service for the first time. Grounded the right in self-defense, or other lawful end.
  5. McDonald 2010: Fully incorporated the second amendment. The protections and prohibitions of the second amendment (whatever those are!) now extend to state and local governments.

Bearing arms has been mentioned in other places as well, most famously in Dred Scott where Taney famously wrote “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Implying that white people at the time had the right to carry arms “wherever they went.”

Also, to push further on Taney’s racial angle the black codes and later Jim Crow laws in the south often prohibited black men from owning or bearing guns and the Mulford Act prohibited carrying loaded guns in public after the Black Panthers walked into the California Capitol with guns.

1 Like
43

This is somewhat off topic, but in your view how does this work? Say I’m a Christian father living in Mosul Iraq in 2014. A bunch of young bearded guys break in my front door. Do I go for the shotgun? They are almost certainly there because I am a Christian; but I know the sorts of things they will do to my family…

1 Like
44

Fair questions that I’d place under application.

Suffice it to say on the Rittenhouse case, whatever his intentions were in bearing arms that night, he only ever fired the rifle when his life was in danger. He stated that he brought the rifle in case he got attacked, and lo and behold, he was attacked. When someone lit a dumpster on fire, he used a fire extinguisher. When he was violently attacked by a man who had threatened to kill him earlier that night, he used his rifle.

As for the Rittenhouse situation in general, there is going to be a lot more raping and pillaging before we are through all this. I’d strongly recommend that we all get our theology of self-defense squared away for such a time as Kenosha. The crowd in Kenosha was no mere sheep thief, and they weren’t there to peacefully protest either.

Additionally, many Jim Crow-era gun laws were written to be racially neutral but were in practice only applied to blacks (or whichever whites fell afoul of the local authorities).

3 Likes
45

Agreed.

One place my mind has been stirred to think about more through this conversation is the delineation between “non-lethal, active” deterrence while in possession of a weapon, versus the use of the weapon in self defense. Trying to prevent property damage while in possession of a weapon is not the same as intending to employ lethal force to prevent property damage. It can become a razor thin distinction in the heat of an instant, but it’s an important distinction nonetheless. There’s something good for me to work out there, so I am thankful for that.

2 Likes
46

Yes.

And there is whole range between “shoplifter” and “invading army”, with “terroristic mob” somewhere in the middle. The BLM riots were very, very cannily organized, with actual peaceful protestors fronting violent actors physically behind them, throwing missiles like frozen water bottles and fireworks and shining industrial-grade lasers in people’s eyes. These weapons were specifically chosen to maximize damage while minimizing optics (imagine presenting a water bottle to a jury as a deadly weapon!).

The forces behind the BLM/Antifa violence aren’t done, they are waiting. And they aren’t arguing about the ethical niceties of use of force. They learned from Kenosha and won’t make the same mistakes. If we don’t want to be ruled by Antifa (I don’t), then someone will need to be at least as canny and at least as violent.

3 Likes
47

Your inclusion of family into your hypothetical scenario, which I didn’t do in the block you quoted, complicates my answer.

If my life alone was being threatened, assuming God endowed me with a miraculous posture of grace and forgiveness (Acts 7:60), and under the notion that my two choices were to use lethal force or yield (Matthew 24:16-20 teaches us that fleeing is a righteous option, as does Paul’s example), I would follow my Savior in death. I do believe from Scripture perhaps the highest spiritual honor a Christian can attain is to be numbered with the martyrs, and that to resort to (normatively righteous) violence in such a case runs a strong risk of corrupting the picture and nature of the Cross and Christ’s sacrifice.

But do I, as a father, have the authority to decide my wife and children are to give their lives as well by choosing not to protect them, or is martyrdom something the individual must decide himself to yield to or not, even if one is a more righteous choice than the other? After giving it some thought, I’m not convinced I have such authority, or that Jesus’ instruction to “hate our families” (Luke 14:26) means we must not defend them in such a circumstance.

Recently, a pastor made the news for protecting his sheep from a potential mass shooter who had entered the worship service. Did he sin by robbing them of the opportunity to give their lives for Christ, or did he act in accordance with his calling - to protect the flock - in the most tangible sense? I say the latter.

There are other factors to consider in your scenario, such as how striking down a dozen Taliban or whoever would probably only buy one temporary relief and the ultimate consequences such an action would bring on your family and the surrounding Christian community. But to answer your question directly, my position would be to opt for lethal force, not to defend myself, but to defend the vulnerable in my care.

If my family and I lived in an environment like Iraq, I would likely have led us in prayer and fasting knowing that having our lives threatened for our faith was a stark possibility. Perhaps the Lord would have revealed to us that His calling for our lives would be to joyfully give them for His sake and that the thought of using lethal force should not be entertained. But I cannot currently grant that it would be inherently immoral for me to protect my family if someone came for their lives, even on account of them being Christian.

Once again, would love to hear others’ thoughts.

1 Like
48

The thought process you’ve described there, @jackson , is very close what led me to where I stand today.

For me as a Christian, I find the notion of self defense an upward battle to come to biblically. But I don’t find the same to be true when it comes to the thought of defending those under my charge; namely my wife and children. The disposition that Christ commands of me concerning my own life is to not count it as valuable (Acts 20:24, Revelation 12:11, etc.), but rather to be ready to lay it down. But as a husband and a father, part of that laying down of myself is in service to their protection.

As our Father, God protects us. He is our rock and our protector. He is bulwark and place of safety. He delivers us from danger. As Husband, Christ gave himself for the church. He intercedes for her in her weakness. Part of where pacifism finds its error is that it seems to regard these attributes of God as incommunicable, which I don’t think could be further from the truth. God is “The Father through whom all fatherhood takes its name.” And Jesus is the exemplary husband.

Another text which is relevant to me is 1 Timothy 5:8. “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Some may say that the context here is speaking of the provisions of food and clothing only, and not protection. I call rubbish to that. What is food and clothing if not the protection of the body? Do we honestly believe that God calls us to shield our children from hunger and the elements, but not from the rapist or the murderer? I think natural revelation serves us well to regard this as unconscionable. Ought we not blush, and flare with indignation when we read a text like Judges 19:23-26?

So where does this leave me concerning firearms? In simplest terms, I keep and bear arms to protect my family. I don’t do it out of any sense of romantic patriotism or worship of the 2nd Amendment, though I am certainly thankful for my country, and for the legal protections God’s kind providence has afforded me. I don’t keep arms because I have fantasies of fighting zombie Nazis paratroopers one day. Rather, I find in the counsel of God the responsibility to protect those whom God has given me responsibility over, and the time and place in which I find myself happens to afford me the boon of firearms.

Does that responsibility extend beyond the family? I am sure it does, but it gets murky the further out you go – hence a lot of this discussion, I suppose. But to bring it full circle back to the notion of self defense – that one is an uphill battle for me. “Don’t tread on me,” and “From my cold, dead hands,” are mantras that seem to fly directly contrary to the thrust of God’s command for the Christian. Yet these are the mantras of American evangelicals; and I think they should be combated for the idols that they are.

1 Like
49

I’ve found this discussion helpful and encouraging. A number of thoughts, in no particular order.

  • Much of the New Testament’s ethical prescription is directed to the individual rather than the society. Don’t take revenge. Return good for evil. Have a focus informed by the gospel. Be willing to suffer for Christ. That’s good for diagnosing our own motives, but that doesn’t necessarily help us figure out civil dynamics. It informs society but doesn’t necessary lay out a clear societal position. Okay, as a society we are not to be vengeful. But what do we do positively when crime (rather than only sin) takes place. We need to be careful in how far we apply prescriptions against sin to matters of crime. The OT gives us much more help in interpreting this.

  • Generations raised on ‘Red Dawn,’ ‘Call of Duty/Counterstrike,’ and numerous graphic war films should probably be aware of our own temptations to bloodlust (as others have mentioned here before). Killing can be both lawful and murder. One of the first blog articles I read from @tbbayly made the point about counselling soldiers who had committed murder in times of war - but who talks about this distinction today? Without commenting on Kenosha, the attitude of a bloke who goes out with a gun hoping or eager to take a life is a heart filled with murder, whether or not the killing is lawful. Again, I am NOT saying this is what took place in Kenosha, but I think we have to guard against it in our own hearts. Especially those of us who feel the responsibility to stand and defend. I have no ethical or moral problem with being armed, but if we take arms we MUST have an even more rigorous understanding of what scripture says does and does not constitute murder than we do of what lawfully constitutes self defence.

  • I, personally, would put rioters in the night thief category rather than the day thief category. These weren’t 12 year old kids shoplifting sweets. Many were armed, as the trial demonstrated. Their actions could (and did) have deadly consequences, whether intended or unintended. The police (so I’ve read) saw armed citizens standing guard as a help to lawful protection.

  • I would put defending our homes as a lawful use of deadly force. You burn down my home you take away my ability to protect and provide shelter for my family, to say nothing of the actual physical risk the fire presents. Livelihood is somewhere between defending against shoplifters and defending our homes, but I would put it closer to defending our homes, given the circumstances of the riots.

  • Though I’m not normally a fan of individuals using firearms as a deterrent (i.e. you only draw intending to fire, otherwise you escalate the situation and risk losing your weapon), I do think there was a powerful deterrent in having armed citizens stand guard en masse outside businesses or homes. I can see no ethical issue with that. The group is intending to be a show of force to dissuade violence, not to encourage it. And, for what it’s worth, it worked.

  • I definitely agree with @jander’s point about having our culture submit to scripture, but I’m not sure ‘Don’t tread on me’ is problematic. In some ways, it’s a crass restatement of the second table of the law, as if to say ‘respect my rights.’ The very existence of laws against murder and theft imply the rights to life and private property. If you’re just trying to say, ‘consider these rights in their scriptural context rather than solely looking at these through a cultural lens,’ fine. But I’m not so sure defending these rights is problematic in themselves. Remember, the American Revolution was built on the back of two centuries of Protestant political theory - theory derived in a large part from explicitly Christian (and usually self-consciously Reformed) ethical thought. That doesn’t mean we have to agree on the specifics of the Revolution or these individual rights, but we do need to understand the theological legwork that went into establishing them - rather than just dismissing them just as Americana. Not that @jander is doing that. Just a concern I have with the conversation generally.

  • I seem to remember a conversation about an evaluation of the Magdeburg Confession. @jtbayly, @ldweeks? Pastors only work one day a week anyway right?

4 Likes
50

Dear Aaron,

I don’t know that I’ve ever before seen a warning coming from England not to dismiss the thinking behind the American Revolution as Americana!

Smiling,
Daniel

2 Likes
51

The irony is not lost on me!

52

This is helpful. Arson is a potentially deadly action by nature (and sometimes murder is the perpetrator’s intent), and is in a different category to walking in a store and taking something. So meeting an arsonist with arms seems right.

1 Like
53

Do you think there is a meaningful distinction between the guy who comes to set your house on fire, versus the guy who goes to the business strip at night with the molotov cocktail?

Honest question.

1 Like
54

I don’t, assuming he is using the Molotov cocktail or there is reason to believe he intends to do so (and if he’s bringing it to the town square, he probably does).

Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Our neighbors’ businesses are how they provide for themselves and their families. If we are justified in defending our own means for doing so (given Pastor Prelock’s reasoning), it seems we ought to apply that same thought line to our neighbors also.

Molotov cocktails are obviously potentially deadly as well, just like fire. You’ve taken the situation to another level in my view once you start making use of lethal weapons to in the midst of stealing, and that warrants a proportionate response.

2 Likes
55

Potentially yes, but we’re not always able to discern intent beforehand. And I’m not sure the bloke with the cocktails knows exactly what he wants beforehand either. That’s what makes these situations so deadly. Intent can be volatile.

3 Likes
56

Thanks. I am sympathetic on the basis that molotov cocktails and arson are potentially deadly, but I remain unconvinced that protecting the “means of providing for ourselves and our families” is the same as protecting life.

My mind continues to go back to the Old Testament texts I cited concerning restitution for theft and destruction of property. A man’s cattle and sheep are indeed his “means of providing for himself and his family,” but a man’s life is not the price to be paid for them.

57

How would you interpret the judgments in Judges? And the deliverance that often meant the wiping out of a foreign army? Were those deliverances unjust inherently? Not talking about Gideon’s bloodletting at the end of the Gideon story…

58

And to be clear, I agree with your basic premise: theft should not ordinarily be met with lethal force.

I’m just not sure I agree that comparing OT instruction on theft to the riots we saw last summer is either fair or accurate. I think those situations are more complicated, and they may justify more significant force.

2 Likes
59

The short answer is narrative versus normative. God’s dealings with covenant, ethnic Israel can’t be appealed to as overly instructive for our New Covenant context. The conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews, for instance, was justified purely and solely by the fact that God commanded it to happen, not by any sort of just war theory that we might apply in the modern world.

The civil law of Israel, however, gives us plenty of instruction – not in that it serves as the law of the church, of course, but in the way that it helps to exposit the moral law of the Decalogue. Exodus 22:1-4 can be understood as case law that instructs us in the distinction between the 6th and 8th commandments.

60

Agreed. I thought that was assumed.

61

Oh, ok. I’m sorry, I may have misunderstood your question. Can you please reiterate?