Gun Nuts Need to Learn Interpretation Skills 

“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.”

I’ve heard it said that of all the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the one that gives no qualifiers. It’s like they wrote it down, intending to come back to it, but didn’t want the trouble. 

Hey Tom, this Amendment is only a sentence, do you think we should expand on it? Maybe tell people what we actually mean here? It might confuse people, no?” 

“Pfft. I think it’s pretty self explanatory, Georgie. Whatta you think, Jim” 

“I’m with you, Tom. Just don’t give Alex one, I don’t think he knows how to use it. He’ll just end up getting shot.”

Thus the groundwork for the Great Debate was laid. 

I am not an expert in constitutional law, nor do I espouse to be. My education is in theology. But considering that the last expert in constitutional law who spoke about the second amendment was considered a sleeper cell terrorist, who wanted to take away everyone’s guns, I don’t think expertise matters much these days anyway🙄. Regardless, where my education helps me in this, is that I was trained in the basic skills of interpretation. Albeit, biblical interpretation, but interpretation nonetheless. Even if you consider the Bible a bunch of myths and fairytales, reading of any kind requires a basic set of skills that allow you to take the words on the page, and understand them within the context for which they were intended.

For instance, when I say that I love a good steak with a twice baked potato, I do not mean that I love them the same way that I love my wife.  Though I use the same word (love), I do not mean it the same way. I do not have romantic feelings, and all that comes along  with them, for a steak. That would be weird. 

To use another example, whenever I say I like a Wendy’s #2, I mean the #2 Combo from the fast food restaurant, not another type of number two from a gal named Wendy … 💩. That would be REALLY weird. 

And thus I say, gun nuts need to learn some interpretation skills. And just for clarity, by gun nuts, I do not mean responsible gun owners. Those are two very different groups of people. (Though I did use it as a title for this blog just to grab your attention 😇.) Most responsible gun owners that I know actually favor enforcing sensible gun safety laws. 1) Background checks. 2) Mental health checks. 3) Banning known criminals and people with terrorist ties. Even they will say that certain people should never own or operate a gun. Ever. And, they will say that if you are going to own one, you better know how to use it safely. You are not in an action movie. You are not Bruce Willis in Die Hard. You are a human being with an instrument of death in your hands. You can kill someone with it. And yes, even “righteous kills” will eat your conscience alive. 

Here’s where I think interpreting the second amendment breaks down: everyone focuses on the final clause–“…the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”–and neglects the first two–“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Just to use the words of the amendment itself, the point of keeping and bearing arms was to be able to assemble a well trained militia, to secure the free state. In other words, The Founders (as far as I can tell) were not intending for people just to stockpile guns for fun. If you know anything about British history, you know they had a habit of quelling rebellions against the Crown, and then outlawing the possession of arms of any kind. (The Disarmament Act in the wake of the Jacobite Rising of 1745 in Scotland is an example–no guns, no swords, no dirks.) In the wake of the American Revolution, The Founders wanted to make it so that if democracy failed, and our government became a bunch of tyrants again, that the people could realistically rise up against the government, and overthrow it. 

I don’t think it unreasonable to say that both our government and our understanding of the second amendment have drastically changed since then. But annoyingly, the counterpoints never do. Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun. Criminals will get guns anyway. Bad people will do bad things even without guns. Why do you want to punish responsible gun owners for the sins of those who aren’t? And a monotony of other silly arguments, and caution against boogeymen and spooks and things that go bump in the night. (The guy stealing your stereo may actually just want to hawk it for food to feed his family.)

I, for one, am not trying to take away people’s guns. I personally would rather they all be destroyed. But if you can own and operate one responsibily, or you want to hunt for your food, please do. But please stop treating people whose concern is public safety like a bunch of brainless morons who don’t know what the constitution says. You yourself may be misinterpreting it, and adding meaning to it that was never there. And I doubt you would be favorable of such treatment toward yourself. At the end of the day, shouldn’t the golden rule be more important than the second amendment? Shouldn’t we be more keen to love our neighbor, than we are to shoot them out of suspicion? (That may be a stretch, and I apologize if it is. But I have seen way too many people–gun nuts–jump on soapboxes for scenarios that will never happen.) Emotional arguments and overreactions make for poor policy. 

So I was asked in a thread once, what would I propose for solutions. Because it’s one thing to simply vent our ideologies, or throw out “we just need…” blanket statements. This really only accomplishes us stubbornly cementing our position, good, bad, or ugly. But when we can come to the table with viable option(PLURAL), we might be able to meet in the middle here, and accomplish reasonable changes to our gun policies. 

So here are my suggestions. 

1) A well regulated militia will never be able to stand against a government that can huddle in a bunker, and send a drone to erase that militia with the press of a button, and then spin a story about that militia. Yes, that would have to mean that the soldiers in charge of pressing the button would desire the same outcome, but throughout history, loyalty tends to outweigh morality. It’s called the mob mentality. People who would usually be the most law abiding citizens on their own, start setting cars on fire, and destroying store fronts during riots because “everyone else was doing it.” So the amendment may not even practically function for its intended use. 

2) Enforce the laws that we have in place. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the numbers, but a majority of gun owners do support background checks, and banning sales to people on terrorist watch lists, and/or with mental illness. But as we saw with the Texas shooting, those laws only work when we actually apply them. (For once, I mildly agree with Paul Ryan. I’m shocked too!!!

4) Make gun laws universal, across all states. The common illustration is Chicago. It’s said that Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country; however, the surrounding areas are pretty lax. So unless there’s a comprehensive stop and search procedure for all people entering Chicago, people can just buy guns elsewhere, and bring them in. That becomes much more difficult if everyone had the same laws. 

5) The NRA needs to be shut down in some way, because it is clear that they are no longer functioning as they originally did, and they are turning a continually growing national crisis into a partisan issue. Preventing death is about as non-partisan as it gets. But so long as they remain a billion dollar propaganda machine, who can literally buy our politicians, we won’t see change. (Show me a politician who actually cares about their constituents, and I’ll show you a very poor, one-term politician.)

6) Repeal the Dickey Amendment, which would allow for funds to be allocated to the CDC for research into gun violence, and that research be used to form legislation. 

7) Change the narrative about terrorism. Right now, the common misperception is that terrorists are Muslims from countries out there, when the most common people group to commit mass shootings (defined by the FBI as a shooting that involves 4 or more people) is white Christian males who have been born and raised in the US. We realistically are the greatest threat to ourselves. But when we consider the threat to be “out there,” it’s very easy not to change. 

What do you think? 

Advertisements

The Problem with Theological Righteousness

nonviolence-101-word-cloud-4I always say that it is a miracle that I am a Christian. I grew up in a home with an atheist, a recovering catholic, and an “open for discussion.” There was a brief time when Recovering Catholic, Open for Discussion, and I all went to a Methodist church, but when the family moved from Connecticut to New Mexico, any kind of spirituality was promptly ended.

But then Jesus found a way to save me.  I was saved in the late 90s (February 4, 1999 to be exact), when True Love Waits was at the height of power, Christian music was beginning to sound more like music and not a camp sing-along, and my Youth Pastor’s favorite question was, “Did you do have your quiet time today?” The sins to be avoided were drugs, alcohol, cussing, sex, abortion, and homosexuality.  And greatest of all, I could go to church dressed in street clothes, and no one would look down on me.

As I grew up, I began to find out that to be a Christian meant that I was to vote republican, because they were the ones who were against homosexuality and abortion.  And somewhere along the way there was the great battle between absolute and relative truth; liberalism verses conservative evangelicalism. Suffice it to say, there was always a battle to fight in the name of the Lord, and something had to separate Christians from their heathen counterparts.

I went to school for a Christian Studies degree, and discovered the great disciplines of theology and apologetics. These greatly helped in separating myself from the evil world, because I knew exactly what I was supposed to believe, and I knew how to prove people wrong in theirs.

Theological rightness became the cornerstone of my life. The goal for every Christian was to get their doctrine right, because without proper doctrine there would be no spiritual growth. It was okay to admit the struggles of believing this or that, just as long as there was a concerted effort to get it right—and when I say right, I do mean RIGHT.

Lately, I have been finding that the problem with such thinking is that I was basing people’s standing with God on something other than Jesus. The only distinction that the New Testament makes between people is those who are in the Kingdom, and those who are outside the Kingdom (and usually the people who thought they understood that distinction had it wrong!). There is nothing that makes someone less of a citizen of the Kingdom. Or to put it another way, once God has adopted a son or a daughter, that is exactly who they are. And no sin patterns or wrong belief changes that.

I say this with a little bit of pride, the Keith of even a year ago would have looked at the Keith of today, and called him a heretic who was slandering the teachings of Scripture. But the Keith of today is much softer, kinder, and gracious towards even himself than that other one.  There is less need for me (and others) to get it right, and more need for me to actually have a relationship with God. And that relationship is being built, not on the academic study of God, which has a habit of making him more into a set of facts, but on the contemplative disciplines—silence and solitude, meditation over Scripture, fixed-hour prayer.

And I don’t have it all together. That old Keith likes to come out every once and a while, and go a round or two. But I find him showing up less and less. I’ve made my goal to be like the leader that Henri Nouwen writes about:

Christian leaders cannot simply be persons who have well-informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate Word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source of their words, advice, and guidance. . . . Dealing with burning issues easily leads to divisiveness because, before we know it, our sense of self is caught up in our opinion about a given subject. But when we are securely rooted in personal intimacy with the source of life, it will be possible to remain flexible but not relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle, and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative.

Henri J.M. Nouwen, “In The Name of Jesus”