Guns and the Second Amendment

Last week’s mass killings in Newtown, Connecticut stirred the burning coals of gun control arguments into hot flame. The appropriateness of regulating gun ownership always ignites our emotion. The opponents of gun control normally cast their pitch in terms of what the Constitution guarantees. But after a week's reflection about what to say about the massacre, the National Rifle Association's spokesman responded to the emotional eruption by dividing the nation into good guys and bad guys, and called simply for more guns, not less. Not a very astute suggestion, but sure to appeal to the vigilante mentality of those who live with the illusion that our country is still an undeveloped “wild west.”

It may take awhile for us to heal from the emotional hit of this latest school tragedy, but as the debate returns to more thoughtful expression of opinion, which the President and Congress are preparing to do, we would do well to actually read the Second Amendment. What a novel idea!

Here it is---it is only one sentence long: “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.”

The first thing that should strike you is how unfamiliar the first half of the sentence is. Opponents of gun control, who feel an appeal to the Constitution should end all discussion, never quote the amendment in full. To do so would not serve their purpose. Proponents of gun control miss their best chance to answer back, though, by not calling their opponents on their truncating of the amendment. The first half of the sentence speaks volumes, particularly when the historical context of the document is brought to bear.

Before expressing the “right” to bear Arms, the authors of the amendment stated the reason to affirm this right. In the early years of our national experience the town militia, which was made up of local citizens, was crucially important. When Americans faced the crisis of War against England for our independence, Congress organized a Continental Army under the leadership of General Washington; but this army was never very large and could not traverse the whole thirteen colonies. Much, if not most, of the fighting was done by local militia forces called forth as the British marched into their regions. Each militia volunteer had to bring his own gun with him. And being familiar with guns, that generation understood the importance of regulation, which is why they couched the "right" in the context of militia activity. "Regulation" was the focused essence of the idea of militia drill and responsibility.

The wartime Continental Congress authored its own governing legitimacy with the Articles of Confederation, but did not see the practicality of providing for a regular army when trying to persuade thirteen independent states to join the Confederacy. Not until the Philadelphia Convention supplanted the Articles did the new Constitution approve the establishment of a regular army. Then with all thirteen states aboard, the first ten amendments were added. Do you see now why the militia was so much on the minds of our founding fathers? The people were the actual defenders of our national safety. The people were called on to do the fighting, whether the enemy was a European king’s army or native Indians. This was their immediate experience; they felt the need for readiness in their own guts.

The militia does not play that role today. Now we have city police departments, state troops, and a national army--the most powerful (and expensive) in the world. Anyone who feels he has to own an assault weapon because our national government is not up to the task of protecting us against madmen and invading armies is delusional.

I don’t mean personally to disparage anyone; the right to own a gun is as inalienable (i.e. American) as the right to pursue any other “happiness,” so to speak. But to make the argument by appealing to a dangling half-sentence in the Second Amendment is to place one’s marbles in a wet paper sack. And it shows a hole in one’s historical awareness.

Interestingly, between the various public mass killings of innocent people, the argument against gun control wanders off into fields untilled by the Constitution. Other than the “right” to shoot what and when we want, the usual contemporary reasons offered for owning a gun include motives of sport and the ability to “stand your ground” when threatened by someone with criminal intent. I must save my comments about these rationales for another time, but it is clear that our founding fathers did not trivialize the issue of gunnery in terms of personal hobbies. And the stand your ground response to criminal threats is a hangover from frontier times and cowboy movies. We should be beyond that, but that is for another discussion.

Opponents of gun control say that the problem is the people, not the guns. Well, why do other countries not have the record of random murders and mass killings that the United States parades? I am told that Americans are 5% of the world population but own 50% of the world’s guns. So if it is “the people not the guns,” what is wrong with “us”? If there is nothing wrong with us, let’s control the guns here as a rational step toward ending the slaughter. At least drop the disingenuous “constitutional” cover wrap for the debate.

Doug Good

The Fiscal Cliff: A Moral Issue

According to Jim Wallis (Christian author and CEO of Sojourners) discussions about the Fiscal Cliff pivot on a moral question: Should we compromise the right of those blessed with ample money to keep their earnings? Should we ask the comfortable to take on increased responsibility for the “common” people.

We could treat the "fiscal cliff” deadline as an economic crisis; statistical speculations are bounced back and forth by the debaters. But with economic predictions as anyone’s guess , and with Congress and the President as the practical determiners of what to do, the issue has become a standoff between Republicans and Democrats. “Politics” will decide it. Wallis’ concern is lost in the muddle, even if it was thought worthy by anyone to begin with.

Should not we take our stand on life’s important matters on moral grounds first? Actually, I guess we are doing this whether we know it or not. As we fight over the politics of the fiscal cliff crisis, we are marking our morality, even though we don’t talk in these terms. The politicians will do what they do and the impact will be either moral or immoral. The great moral leader, Jesus, cleared the air on this. As Wallis puts it, “Jesus said how we respond to the least of these is indicative of how we respond to him. That's because the poor and vulnerable are the monitors of how everybody else will ultimately be treated. History shows how quickly and easily human dignity can be compromised by economic and political powers -- and protecting the most vulnerable is the only way to safeguard us all."

The comeback of the “Christian right” seems to be that by helping the helpless we are encouraging helplessness, we are undermining character strength by giving handouts. Jesus did not seem to be worried about this. Was he too gullible and mushy hearted? Let’s get our moral priorities straight first and deal with secondary effects as they arise (politicians are experienced at this kind of fuddling). If we want politics as our lodestar we can niftily confuse the matter by arguing how America is a “Christian” nation, as is shown signally by Jefferson, that fine Christian (?) slaveowner, who spoke of God-given inalienable rights, the most important of which is our right to make money as the fruit of God’s blessing, and keep it untouched by the unentitled.

Amidst the inflamatory talk about what is “fair” in tax assessments we miss the notion that “fair” is not an accurate determiner of what is “moral.” Fairness is not a basic moral principle. Morality goes well beyond that. “Fairness” applied to “individual rights” is a corruptible measuring tool and lures Christians into thinking that it is moral to deny multiple millions affordable health care. How to provide it may be a “political” question; whether to provide it is not. Letting HMOs incessantly gouge consumers, to some may be good Christian capitalism, but it is neither moral nor good responsible economics. The arithmetic of the political discussion over the fiscal cliff has provided no sure enlightenment. As Wallis points out, “Our principles won't survive unless we ‘find the arithmetic’ to protect the poor and include the vulnerable in these crucial decisions about the nation's fiscal soul. And that moral arithmetic must ultimately be presented to the American people in clear moral values choices."

Is Christ-like morality too “progressive” for “Christian” America?

Doug Good

I understand that Wallis has a forthcoming book (early 2013) On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn't Learned about Serving the Common Good.