Self-defense, the Bible, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

In our Bill of Rights, the Constitution definitely says that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms not only to defend our state and our nation, but for self-defense and other legal uses such as securing food and for sport.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld these rights.  But what about the Bible?  Should Christians be keeping and bearing arms?  According to Albin Sadar at the American Thinker in an article entitled Do the Bible and Our Constitution Agree That We Have a "Right to Bear Arms"?, the answer is: Yes.

Sadar is writing about a new book by John Zmirak entitled No Second Amendment, No First. As Sadar notes:

Like clockwork, every time there is a shooting, the cry rises up from the left that we need gun control. This demand occurs whether it’s a tragic school shooting or a couple of failed assassination attempts on their least favorite presidential person in the whole wide world.

The logic of a gun-free zone from coast to coast seems to suggest that without any firearms, school shootings and feisty ex-presidents would never be targets. Apparently, it is the very existence of the weapon itself that lures a person to wield it for nefarious purposes.

I grew up hearing the Right’s counterpoint to this logic, summed up in one particular mantra:

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

However, when I used this gun-grab argument twenty years ago on a liberal relative of mine, he flipped the logic on me. He said, “Well, yes, of course. That means anyone possessing a firearm would then be considered a criminal—whether they are an actual criminal or just an ordinary citizen—both would be equally guilty.”

My relative was right. He was also ahead of his time.

There is a lot to unpack in these first few paragraphs. The first thing is that the gun-grabbers raise the cry because they think that emotions will win the day. They do not care about the daily occurrences of shootings in the neighborhoods of Chicago, or the barrios of Los Angeles. These killings and shootings occur regularly in every major city in the United States, yet do not disturb our gun-grabbing friends in the least. The goal is not to stop the killing, the goal is to get the guns of the law abiding.

I would note that the God of creation is also the author of the natural law.  It therefore should surprise no one that self-defense is a natural right.  As for Christians who think it is somehow Unchristian to bear arms, please remember that Jesus was true man and true God.  He said in John 8:58 "before Abraham was I AM.  What Christ is telling them, and us, is that He is the same God as the one in the burning bush.  The same as the God of creation.

The second point is that the Left is intent of repealing the natural law of self-defense. Already, in England, it is de facto illegal to defend yourself. People are treated like little children where the criminal attacker and the one defending himself get equally punished. The Left would like to bring that here, and apparently some Left-wing prosecutors are trying to do so. The solution to such is for juries to nullify such prosecutions. For if they succeed in repealing the natural right of self-defense, they can make you do anything.

Sadar's relative was confusing "mala in se" and "mala prohibita." Mala in se are crimes that are evil on their face. Murder for instance is a mala in se crime. Mala prohibita are crimes because they say they are. Banning an inanimate object because it can be used to murder people would fit the definition of mala prohibita. On that basis, even rocks CAN be used as murder weapons, so should they be banned?  Keep in mind that there are multiple legitimate uses for guns besides murder. But as you can see above, the Left is already chipping away at one of those legitimate reasons: self-defense.

Self-preservation is inherent in life itself, within every living creature, but foremost in human beings. In chapter after chapter, Zmirak points out how this simple fact of life—and of preserving life itself—eventually morphed from a proper, Biblical worldview to an anti-life, Progressive “hive mind.”

On a larger scale, Zmirak covers the historical patterns of how entire nations were able to enslave and control their populations, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Cuba to Cambodia to China to North Korea to many, many other countries. The pattern always began by disarming the citizens. Once the government had the guns, what they ordered was obeyed. Opposing speech would be censored—and lethally, when necessary.

...snip...

In one chapter, Zmirak sees the “Harmony of the Old Testament and the New” with this issue of proper defense. Within that “harmony Zmirak shows how many “progressive Christians” have accepted antithetical reasoning, including championing “[c]onfiscating citizens’ guns, rendering them completely dependent on Caesar for protection against violent crime and defenseless against any mob violence and possible future tyranny.”

My backlog of reading material is getting rather long. But I think I need to prioritize this one as sooner than some of the others on the list. Meanwhile, may I urge gentle readers to read Sadar's article at the American Thinker.