The 2nd Amendment

“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.”

For a discussion of the constitutionality of personal ownership of firearms, I have a couple thoughts. This is only about the constitutionality of the issue, not whether it is correct, right, wrong, or anything else.

1. We don’t have a “militia”. I believe I’ve heard that the National Guard is supposed to be our militia, but a definition of the word suggests that a militia would be composed of people who are not paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. While National Guard duty is part-time, it is a fixed term commitment and pays a salary. Our National Guard also supplies the weapons to it’s members. The lines that would divide the National Guard from the normal military are now so blurred as to make the distinction “militia” nearly meaningless. Our National Guard, as I see it, is part of our military (with differences), not a militia as implied in the Constitution.

2. We aren’t likely to need a militia (militia as understood in reference to #1). Now, anything is possible, but the likelihood of a civil war in the U.S. is highly unlikely as we have gotten fairly good at arguing our differences without shooting at each other. We also have a strong military defense of our borders, and so we are also unlikely to need a militia to rise up for our defense. Considering the strength of our military and law enforcement in this country, I believe that this statement, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, is no longer true.

Example: If Canada invaded the U.S., I am unlikely as a young male civilian to need to grab my gun and go join other normal civilians like me to fight, as our Army, Air Force, and Marines, and the National Guard units would rush to take care of the situation.

3. It seems that in the context of the 1700′s when the Constitution was written, a militia was the biggest point of why people would need firearms. The Revolutionary war was fought by many people who were using their personal guns to fight. Considering that context, is it reasonable to believe that it was intended for typical everyday people to possess guns without being a part of a well-regulated militia? I know there are many people who would say yes, but I have trouble getting there.

4. IF you, unlike myself, do make the distinction that the National Guard IS our nation’s militia, then that does change how I would talk about it. But I would make one point. If the National Guard is our militia, and they supply the firearms, then there is no need for those people to possess firearms for the purpose of the militia as implied in the 2nd Amendment.

This may be the first time that I’ve truly attempted to find my opinion on the constitutionality of personal firearms, and I have to admit that in my opinion I don’t think that our constitution allows for the idea of personal firearms, unless it is for a member of a regulated militia.

It is my opinion that our government needs to update our gun policies to reflect the realities of the 21st Century, rather than arguing about what was meant by our government 200+ years ago who had a much different societal and international context than we do now.

What Does Truth Have to Fear?

With all of the discussion over Rob Bell’s new book “Love Wins”, you can’t help but wonder why books such as this create such a firestorm.

If we wanted to frame it that way, heresy is not a new thing, so IF Bell’s book does in fact suggest a heresy (I do not believe it will) then it is unlikely to be anything new. So why the rush to condemn it before it is even in stores?

Greg Boyd has endorsed the book, and he responded on his blog to the controversy surrounding this book, and he said something that I just couldn’t stop thinking about. “What does truth have to fear?”

Christians believe that Jesus is the Truth, the Way, the Life. We believe that we receive truth from Jesus, from the Bible, even from Church history and tradition. Truth is from God.

Suppose that Rob Bell is advocating Universalism (I would suggest otherwise), if what he says is untrue, then what would Christians, the Church, or God have to fear from his book being published? Are falsehoods stronger than God’s truth? After enduring two milleniums of accusations and fighting, are any new falsehoods going to all of a sudden destroy Christianity? What are we afraid of?

I can imagine someone at this point would say that Justin Taylor and John Piper aren’t “afraid”, but I think anyone who would jump to criticize a book before it is even published is either a fool, or afraid of the content of the book. Hair-trigger responses are fed by fear, not reasonable debate.

If we find that there is truth in what Bell wrote, does that destroy our faith? Or does it bring us closer to God’s truth? If I learn how to better revere the Biblical texts from a faithful Jew, does that make me a heretic? If I learn the value of praying several times daily from a Muslim, does that challenge my faith? If a Buddhist teaches me how to quiet myself so as to better listen to God, does that mean I’ve rejected Christ? Truth is God’s Truth, so if something is true, then it cannot be opposed to God.

Are there falsehoods? Of course! But just because I may disagree with Buddhists on many things, that doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong. And just because I agree with most Christian ideas, that doesn’t mean that we have everything right.

Truth has nothing to fear from any person’s ideas, thoughts, opinions. If something is true, then it fits within God’s world, even if we don’t understand how. If something is false, then it ultimately will be rejected as such. God’s truth will prevail.

Are Guns a Safety Tool?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9394259.stm

In high school I wrote a paper on gun control, in which I concluded that essentially some gun control is good, but on the whole it is people who are to be responsible for gun violence. Many of my political and social views have changed since that time, so when I ran across the article I linked above, I thought that I might revisit the topic.

I guess that my first question is, why would a neighborhood with an exceptionally low crime rate, where people feel safe enough that locking their front doors isn’t a set habit, feel the need to purchase guns for personal safety?

I can see it coming that someone would say that maybe it’s because they purchased the guns that the place has such a low crime rate. That could be possible, but the article implies that the neighborhood was already a very safe place before the surge of gun purchases. So I think that reasoning falls flat. So what would lead these people to feel they need to purchase a weapon(s)?

I think that the author of the article has it right that Americans to a certain extent equate gun ownership with freedom. The first question that comes to mind then is, why? But the more important question is, is that accurate?

In the world of the 1700′s, and 1800′s, considering the types of governments in place, and the nature of both daily life for most people and also of the warfare of the time, guns were a commonly used tool for most people. In our Revolutionary war, militias were established with people using their own personal weapons, which possibly had a big effect on the outcome of that conflict. With our country’s vast lands, guns were relied upon for hunting, and for protection. With the limitations of law enforcement back then, guns were definately a measure of protection. But in our society today, where law enforcement’s presence is never too far away, are they helpful? Or do they possibly cause more harm than good? We also have our military institutions, the Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army, National Guard. And in my understanding, the National Guard is meant to be the country’s “militia”, though given it’s integration into at least current military conflicts and involvement, I have a hard time seeing the difference. So other than a fading argument for protection, and for hunting by some, much of the uses for guns as reflected in our nation’s history have faded or disappeared.

There are also arguments against the ownership of guns, as gunshot victims are more likely to be a part of the owner’s family, rather than any intruder. Also gun accidents, especially among children. I’ve seen a bit of the kind of impact a death from a gun accident can cause, and it’s not easy to set aside.

In my opinion, guns are amoral. They, like many other things are a tool, neither good nor bad in and of themselves. It is the people who wield them who are ultimately responsible for what happens. However, some tools have more impact than others, and guns are small objects with the possibility for causing huge repurcussions. Is it right, or even good, for such objects to be freely available to all who want them? There are other objects, or substances, that our government with the support of the majority of the population has limited or banned because of the amount of devastation that they cause, so what makes guns different than those things?

I don’t pretend to know the answer, I’m not really against guns, but I fail to see why most people would need them. There are enough safety measures, and actions that people can take to reduce the likelihood of gun violence that resorting to keeping guns for the purpose of protection seems like a simple lack of creativity. I’ve also heard of other country’s who have severely limited, or banned guns, and the country hasn’t descended into chaos and lawlessness as some pro-gun people would suggest. So maybe we just need to challenge our base assumptions, find answers reflected in reality, and re-evaluate.

Would you confuse a Ford F-150 with a F-1 race car?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12417757

I saw this article on the BBC News website today about how Ford is suing Ferrari over use of the term “F-150″, claiming that Ferrari is attempting to “capitalize on and profit from the substantial goodwill that Ford has developed in the F-150 trademark”.

Really? Now, Ford definately has a good name, ever since Henry Ford started his production line producing vehicles at a rate unheard of before. But I ask, would Ferrari, a name long connected purely to Italian super cars and race cars, really need any goodwill related to an American pickup?

I’m completely boggled why Ford would make a fuss about this. You cannot compare Ford’s F-150 pickup sold to millions of people in the U.S. with an Italian race car that nobody but Ferrari would own or use. It isn’t like Ferrari is promoting it’s new F-150 car for sale, or starting a new line of pickups. The Ferrari car in question is a Formula 1 race car celebrating the 150th anniversary of Italy’s unification.

Though this is my own opinion, it amuses me that Ford would take offense as if having a vehicle named the same as a Ferrari is a bad connection. Many would consider any connection with Ferrari as a step-up, or improvement, not something to be embarrassed about.

I’m not a Ford fan, nor a fan of American made vehicles anyways. But regardless of that, considering the decline of American car companies maybe Ford needs to focus more on improving their vehicles than spending time and money suing other companies for reasons nobody can really understand?

The Gospel According to Jesus by Chris Seay

On the back cover of this book there is this quote:

“Imagine a church where 84% of Christians are completely unfamiliar with the essential tenets of their faith, with a crippling misunderstanding of the word righteousness and, in turn, the gospel of Jesus.”

I’ve felt for quite some time now that most Christians in this country are disconnected from what Jesus was really about. Not claiming any superiority, I admit to being clueless myself and have been trying to learn what I can to better follow Jesus. This is the kind of book that I think can help with that journey.

For a variety of reasons we hear a word like “righteousness” and we think, “oh I know what that means”, and never stop to question whether we truly have it straight or not. Yet Jesus would have understood the word differently than the typical understanding in America. Chris Seay here discusses how “righteousness” isn’t morality, but rather that “seeking his righteousness is about being an active agent for his restorative justice in all of creation.” Righteousness is about God’s Kingdom, not personal holiness.

In the last chapter he quotes Saint Augustine who said, “Love God and do what you will.” He doesn’t prescribe any particular version of how a Christian should live or look like. Rather that when we love God, he will set us on a path with big dreams, and we are to act on His behalf. We are meant to live lives of meaning, not just simply sitting in church each week.

I enjoyed this book, and I think it could help many people get a more full understanding of Jesus and what it means to be a disciple.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

A Guy’s Guide to Life by Jason Boyett

“A Guy’s Guide to Life: How to Become a Man in 224 Pages or Less”

Tough job for a book. Jason Boyett hits on most major issues that teenage boys deal with in a typical American family. He focuses on the Mind, Body, and Soul, giving simple, practical advice. He tries to break some of the stereotypes about “Men” and show guys an idea of a man who is deeper than what we usually see in our culture.

I liked the book. I think it would have probably been helpful for me when I was a teenager. I grew up in a good home, with a good Dad, but there were things that weren’t talked about much, likely because of the discomfort of some topics. What I had to find out on my own, would have been easier with a book like this.

He writes with a lot of humor, which is a great way to keep teenagers interested. It is funny, practical, and doesn’t sugarcoat what guys deal with. I think any guy would benefit and be a better person for reading this, and I would suggest it to any young guy I know.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Book Reviews

<a href=”http://booksneeze.com/reviews/blogger/14029?ref=badge”><img alt=”I review for BookSneeze” src=”http://booksneeze.com/images/booksneeze_badge_lg.png” border=”0″ width=”300″ height=”250″></a>

I just signed up to Book Sneeze, so I am hoping to read some good free books. I may have to diversify my book reading selection from my usual types, but that shouldn’t be too difficult. Hopefully doing some reviews will also get me typing in here a bit more, I haven’t been blogging hardly at all. I write more comments to other blogs than I do write my own posts. Will have to work on that.

(Well, the link doesn’t work, which may totally be my doing. But one of the links kind of works anyways, so I’ll leave it. I’ve only had like 4 visitors anyways)