Rights ... and then some

"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." Amendment 2, US Constitution

This afternoon, the host of a talk radion show had evidently read where the Canadian government is going to become more aggressive in outlawing guns for everyone. The host kept insisting that the target of the Canadian government would be the "law-abiders". Now I recognize that I opened this post with the US Constitution's second amendment which would have very little to do with Canada, but the US government has tried from time to time to regulate the flow of weapons in this country with limited success. As far as I can tell, not much has been achieved.

I personally do not own weapons any longer, but I would not deny others a right to own a weapon if they so choose. I used to love to shoot though I was never much of a hunter. I liked target shooting and I seriously pursued this avenue while in the Marine Corps, but my time in was running short and I was not really interested in re-enlisting on the off-chance that I might make the shooting team. I watched some of those guys shoot and while I was pretty good in my own right, there was no way I could have mounted a serious challenge to some of them.

The radio host, who happens to be a little older than I, was telling listeners that he was signed up to take a required course so that he could acquire his concealed-carry permit because, as he stated, "I NEED it." I had to wonder how many times he has "needed" a weapon in the past. The fact that he is still alive suggests that he has managed quite well so far without one. I am 47 years old, and I have yet to "need" a weapon to protect myself or my family. I even met a fellow pastor from Missouri who had a concealed carry permit. He also felt a "need" to carry a loaded weapon on his person at all times. I never did find out if he carried his weapon under his preacher's robe while conducting services!

A common sense approach to owning a weapon is knowing precisely what the weapon is intended to be used for. If the "need" is perceived to own a weapon for self-defense, then the necessary next question is: ARE YOU WILLING TO KILL SOMEONE? If the answer is "yes", then the next question is: WHAT CRITERIA WOULD YOU USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER KILLING SOMEONE HAS BECOME NECESSARY? It is necessary to bear in mind that even the best shooters among us would not likely be concentrating on "winging" an opponent while in a fight for his or her life!

I have known some who have owned and carried weapons for years without a permit because they somehow felt a "need" even though they had never personally been threatened. "Just in case" is the usual response. Most of these persons grew up with weapons in their homes. They were serious hunters and even combat veterans. For them, their weapons are nothing more than an extension of themselves.

I have also known some who had no more business carrying a loaded weapon than the man on the moon. Some were prone to panic and over-reacting; making a decision to use deadly force would come just a bit too easily for these persons. Some had never fired a weapon in their lives, but the idea of having the weapon nearby gave them some sense of security, if not control. Either way, persons in these two categories are probably among the most dangerous weapons carriers in the world!

Christians have to look a little deeper. What "guarantee" from the US Constitution removes our responsibility to be witnesses for Christ? What need does a disciple have to carry a deadly weapon "just in case"? What right is being protected for someone who cannot control his or her own emotions? More to the point, what right do I have to be protected from these people who MIGHT have a right to carry a weapon but who do not have a right to threaten my sense of well-being?

We regulate automobiles and demand testing and licensing before we are granted a "right" to drive a car. Is a deadly weapon more or less protected simply because the Constitution specifically mentions "arms" but does not address automobiles?

I am not naive. I am painfully aware of the dangers that surround us every single day. And while it may sound a little hokie, I do agree with the bumper stickers that proclaim, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Do we really want our streets to filled with folks who have a "Tombstone" mentality in that being called a "card cheat" is enough to justify killing a man? Do those who carry weapons really believe themselves to be of the same caliber as the legendary "Doc" Holiday in that they would always be able to out-draw a potential opponent? Remember the criteria. What would cause a person a person to "draw"? At what point has deadly force become necessary? And would this determination be made "in time" or "too soon"?

We have the police for a reason, and the "militia" is specifically mentioned in the 2nd amendment. In the days in which this document was written, folks could not go to a corner grocery and buy packaged meat. They used their weapons to feed themselves and provide for, and protect, their families. They were also expected to take their places in the militia should the need arise.

I do not wish to ban the ownership of weapons outright. This is not a reasonable proposal, and it will never work. But if this nation is a "Christian nation founded on Christian principles", as some fundamentalists insist, and if Christians are truly in the majority, why would Christians feel such a desperate need to arm themselves "just in case"? In case of what?

Does it then become a matter of whom, or what, we trust most to protect us? Then consider our idea of heaven. If we believe what we claim to believe, why does death frighten us so?

The issue is not gun ownership. The issue is about duties. As Christians, have we been cursed with obligations, or have we been blessed with opportunities? Do we care more to exercise our rights or our responsibilities?