I know you said you aren’t using Luke 22:36 to specifically parallel with the 2nd amendment. But I still think we gravely misunderstand the words of Jesus. I put up some thoughts today.
I will certainly not try to convince you of the other side. I will just add an other viewpoint to this subject: I’m french, so we have a radically different view of the state than in america. Ours is more descending from the Roi Soleil Louis the XIVth than the americans fathers: we expect the state to be strong, and we want it to be like that. And with that, the right to bear weapons: to put it shortly, in France citizens do not and should not wear weapons.
To put it more developed, and before being rational, i will just say a word about this: In France, we find it completely out of mind to accord freely weapons to all, and for us it is even madness. “No surprise there is so much mass shootings: the entire country is an arsenal” we say. In France, this the state who protects and the state only, it is a prerogative of its. Our police is traditionally a strong and numerous one, and it is quite liked and trusted by the population, even when we do not like our governement (strangely). Since the rise of djihadism, we have buffed up our police and counterspy agencies and give it more even more powers (wich is not a particularly good news even for a strong-state supporter like me). I say all of this to make understand: there is nothing more opposed than the french and the american conception about weapon-bearing.
To be true, it is the first time I actually understand a bit why you support such things as 2nd amendment.
Now to the point: I think, too, that the people should be a counter-power, and the 2 last centuries of french history (where we have known 2 empires, 2 monarchies and a fascist puppet regime) convince me enough of the idea. Yet, I’m still not sure that weapon-bearing is the solution. In France, we have thrown away these authoritarian regimes without having weapons at home so why should every citizen be armed? Is it really a good solution, when we see the concentration of mass shootings in America?
The most important question is: Can a “well-regulated militia” exist? Then: Is it not preferable to have a well-controlled (professional) army?
My thought is immature on this subject, so forgive me if I say something wrong. I think that our fallen nature make the idea of militia a desperate solution: it is helping (or at least giving more power to) our vices without really helping or improve our virtues. There is so much dilemmas with using weapons for good, that before even know if you should/can shoot or not, the “bad one” had shot ten times, just following his instinct. When you have weapons, you MUST have responsability, a sound reasoning and a not-to-short temper. This where the “well-regulated” come in the game.
To have a well-regulated militia, in my (french) mind, you should have trained your militia, and most importantly trained their minds so they will not use lightly their weapons. This sort of training is found in only one place: army, and maybe police academy. There only they teach not only how to use, but when and why and against who use it. To these kind of trained people only I can trust to wear weapons.
In France our army (the same that we send in Afghanistan) is patrolling in the stations, and even in the streets of the big cities. I encounter them daily, with their uniforms and their assault-rifles. I’m conforted by their presence, because I know they will not use it against me , under no circumstances. Let the same M16 be between the hands of a random people and i would not even go out of my house. That is the main reason for me to have difficulties with weapon-bearing.
BUT… you are absolutely right: if my (until then) democratic government turn silently authoritarian, what could we do? In France we have a tradition of political rioting and protests, and in certain ways, the Strike Right is our 2nd amendment. (Now you know why whe protest so often). So if our government turn authoritarian, we would protest, like we are doing at this moment against an unpopular law.
Is the french way (less weapon, more riots) better than the american way (more weapons, less protests)? I suppose that yes, but my french tradition can blind me.
Do you really think that the weapon-bearing is a good solution to maintain or defend democracy? In face of its downsides, is it still preferable to a less extended right?
Thanks for reading and your ministry,
Your greatest french fan,
I say if man and woman can carry a weapon equally, the main thing is to respect the concept of equality. In some countries where carrying a weapon is not observed, it is not observed by both man and woman, neither the man nor the woman are carrying a weapon!
Now I say we should not let ourselves be carried away by details and stick more on respecting the concepts. The Bible carries quite a few concepts.
So in the respect of the concept of equality in White Western society, can we see also male car-mechanics as well as female car-mechanics if man and woman carry a weapon equally?
It appears to me that this talk about the US 2nd Amendment concerns mostly the males as man is defined as being stronger and protector of the family. In other words and that is seen in many American cowboys or gangsters movies, only the man is allowed to carry the weapon and this perception of things is a perversion, a corruption of society, a betrayal of the concept!
Now the understanding when we watch those 18th century paintings showing US parlamentaries discussing together in a Congress or in Washington, like the signing of the US Independence Declaration , is that only male representative are painted. There is not a single woman signing the Declaration equally? I say as Christians we have the right to readjust the Constitution of the US or any other Constitution including us and readjust it to fit the concepts of the Bible like the Universality of the message of salvation, it is Universal or not? It is only for men and only men shall rule or not?
I am not suggesting, I am not negotiating, I stand for Christ and for the concepts of the Bible! That s the direction I take!
You cannot support weapons of death and follow Jesus. The gospels, the writings of Paul and the other letters reject violence against the government and others. The sermon on the mount clearly calls for nonviolence. Also, the second amendment is only for militia purposes. Gun ownership in America is idol worship.
Who controls the government? The people. Individuals. The only reason a militia can be formed is because the people not only have the responsibility but also the power to thwart and threaten the power in charge that attempts to usurp the constitution. You should try to understand why the formers made it the 1st —before all others—amendment. The powers that be would love for you to take this philosophy and disarm yourself. It is the only way they can survive. But we must obey the constitution. Therefore, we must be armed. The practical element of self protection is assumed. If you don’t have the right to protect yourself, you have no autonomy in any sense. You can be controlled. It’s all the same.
5 replies to "Why Christians Are Ordered to Have Guns"