A right is a right, right?

The other night, we met up with some friends for a meal out.  It was quite the adventure since all of us are parents of little ones! Our waiter did a good job keeping up with us, the kids were on good behavior, and we had a good time. We haven’t really seen each other in a few months (you might say we’ve had a few other things going).  The three Dads ended up at one end of the table, and the three moms at the other. Almost immediately, one of the guys mentioned the picture of my daughter at the gun range I posted on Facebook a few days ago. I told him about Tactical Defense of Texas, and how the owners had been nice enough to let me take my daughter out to shoot her Christmas present during one of the range’s few quiet weekends.

Cutest shooter at the range!

 While the three of us have a similar outlook on the second amendment and gun control, we come from very different backgrounds.  I grew up shooting what most would think of as old-west style guns, mostly target shooting and occasionally hunting. My other friend has a similar background, but due to his age came into shooting in the “age of the AR” (of which I am a fan). My other friend, however, didn’t grow up shooting anything except maybe a bb gun. As we were discussing different rifles, the new executive orders establishing stricter gun control methods came up in conversation. My friend eventually screwed up the courage to ask the question, “Why do you really need an automatic rifle?”  To which my reply was, “Why don’t you need one? They’re great for hunting, sport shooting, and if needed, defense.” We kicked the subject around a little, and I made the comment that military needs have always driven gun manufacturing, and swayed the public interest one way or the other as far as firearms style. The bolt action hunting rifle many hunters use today was top-of-the-line technology at one time, as was the revolver, lever action, pump, muzzle-loader, flint-lock, and matchlock rifle.  There has always been a drive for more advanced technology concerning armament, from the flint knife onward.

Get out your measuring sticks....

 I will be the first to admit that this drive is mostly from military needs and wants, with the intent of either defending a nation’s borders or expanding a nation’s borders through conquest. (I’m not saying that force is always right, but throughout human history it has been a necessity.) If the job of the government, be it a monarch, prime minister, or president, is to protect a nation and its subjects, then the ability to defend oneself with the best available technology is of the utmost importance. Let’s break it down just a little further.  States consist of citizens, and those citizens separate themselves into groups, from regional to city, even down to precincts and districts. (Granted, depending upon location and the political system one lives in, each level of governance may have different names.)  Humans have always grouped together for comfort and safety. It’s literally an organic process: couples pair up, children are born, families grow, different families group together, forming communities. As a matter of fact, the family is the smallest form of government. In it, you find a ruling body, citizens, laws and culture, and even exchange of goods and services. But without the individual, the family, community, state, and nation are nothing. Each is made up of individuals, and those individuals need to have a means to maintain and keep their property and person safe from harm, be it through negligence or outright aggression.

Can I get these on eBay?

 Therefore, if one simply follows the logic, the individual has the right to the best technology they can afford in order to protect and defend their property. In modern terms, this means that a person should be able to arm themselves to the best of their ability and equal to the aggressor or objects against them. So, does the average person need an automatic rifle? I believe the answer to that question is a resounding YES!

Better mind your P's and Q's, lads!

I know that there are many nuances to each person’s perspective on this. Some see it as only qualified persons (i.e., military and law enforcement) have the right to use firearms to protect others.  Some believe firmly in the benevolence of the government, and trust their leaders and public officers to protect them. That’s fine and good, but it negates the idea that the individual is fully competent to make decisions and be self-sustaining on their own; that there is someone (or some group with power) who knows better than an individual. Some believe that all people are good; that no one person wants to harm another. (I wonder if they grew up completely isolated, or if they ever watch the news.) Others think that removing firearms means removing an aggressor’s ability to efficiently harm a large group of people. People are people, and there are persons in the world who desire to do harm to others. They will find a way, whether it’s with a firearm, knife, or pub glass.

I’ve watched with interest as the more popular pastors and theologians have publicly weighed in on gun

You didn't ask for my opinion, but you know you laughed!

control on both sides of the fence. Obviously, at this point, you know where I stand. Many quote specific passages or verses as if they are the final voice on the subject. (The verses, not the person!) This morning, I was reading through Esther in my Bible reading plan. Esther removes all the arguments for the individual citizen not being able to protect themselves from any threat, public or private. It has a villain, who holds public office, who plans to harm another person he is jealous of, and a plot to harm a large group of people (Jews) by turning the forces of the state upon them at the desire of a one person. In the story of Esther, the tables are turned by her intelligence and how she handled matters of state as queen. In short, a counter law is enacted that allows the Jews to defend themselves and even take offensive action toward those who would harm them. Even then, it’s not the law that saves the Jews; their ability to defend themselves does. No government authority steps in to protect them from those who desire to harm them at the community level; it’s not even said if their neighbors tried to protect them. They are left to defend themselves, and if you read the story, they do a good job of it. It’s the individuals in each community that defend their lives.

 One could argue that the lives of the citizens are in the hands of governments, and authority over life and death is given to governments. They would be correct to a certain point; that of administering justice and punishing the evildoer. While a corrupt lawmaker tries to use the law to commit genocide, another law recognizes the right of the Jews to defend their lives. Here’s the most interesting thing to all of this: God is never mentioned in the entire story, but most theologians make claims that Esther demonstrates the invisible working of the almighty in human events. From the story, it seems that God is all about making things right from the individual up. That means, each individual is enabled by the right to self-defense, and the right to act with force equal to that of the aggressor, whether it is another individual, a group, or a government. A right is a right, right?

Because the Second Amendment is all about hunting.....