In the annals of History we have a
story. This story is of a group of men who were willing to stand up for what
they believed in, even if it meant losing everything they had, including their
lives. The story tells us that sometime
between March 3rd and 5th, 1836, Colonel William Barrett
Travis assembled his men at Mission San Antonio Valero, what we commonly call
the Alamo. As the story goes, when Santa
Anna sent Col. Travis a letter demanding surrender, Travis assembled the men
and explained that defeat was certain, then withdrew his army saber from its
scabbard and drew a line in the dirt, asking all those who would stand with him
to cross over. All but one, Moses Rose, elected to stay, fight, and ultimately
die for what they believed in. Is the story true? Who knows?
Moses Rose spent the rest of his life trying to live down the ignominy
of being the “coward of the Alamo”, so he certainly would not verify the story. Nevertheless, in the end, it really does not
matter, truth or allegory, it makes a point that there comes a time when people
must choose between being cowards, or standing up for what they believe in.
My
fellow Americans, we are at one of those moments now. Our constitutional right to keep and bear
arms is under the greatest attack in history. At times in our nation’s history
other parts of the Bill of Rights have been attacked, and these attacks
ultimately have been repelled but often at the costs of lives, fortunes, and
sacred honor. Just as there have been
reporters who have justifiably gone to jail to protect their rights to free
speech, just as Joseph Smith was a martyr to his right to practice his religion,
just as Medgar Evers and so many others gave their lives for others freedom, we
find ourselves again at a crossroads, where fear and predjudice meet to deprive
honest citizens of their constitutional rights, and we must choose.
My
question to you is, is this your line? I
am finding that for me, it is. I find
myself researching very carefully companies and organizations, to see if they
have a stated position on the 2nd amendment. I find myself losing longtime friends and acquaintances
over this. I have made drastic changes
in my spiritual life. I have found my line in the sand.
Because
of this line, I have resigned a church council position I have held for several
years. I have disassociated myself,
personally, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of
their call for strict gun control. In searching for a new church home, I have
summarily rejected the United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, and even a return to the Roman Catholic Church,
all because of their official positions calling for strict gun control. I am
sure other churches have similar statements, these are the ones which I have
found to date. I reject these positions,
and refuse to be associated with any of these organizations because of this
issue. I do believe churches should always follow a policy of pursuing nonviolence. I too pursue that policy. That’s why I carry a gun, a .40 caliber
violence deterrent works when all other options have failed. To these churches, I ask, when Jesus was
taken captive by the Romans in the garden, what happened? Remember?
Peter drew his sword and sliced off a man’s ear. Jesus then told him to put it away. I want to put that in context. At the time of Christ, the Roman Gladius,
i.e. a short sword, was the most formidable individual weapon known to man. And
here was Jesus’ right hand man carrying one.
Really no different that a group of guys going to a park for a prayer
meeting, and one of them carrying an AR type rifle today. And Peter deployed and used it. Did Jesus chastise him for having it? No. Think about it. Swords are not easy to hide. Jesus knew he had one. More than likely, the other Apostles did as
well. Jesus did not try to take away the
sword from Peter. He merely told him to
put it away, that it was not the time to use it.
The
question must be asked why Peter carried one in the first place. While it isn’t written down anywhere, I don’t
think it is too far of a leap to suggest that he had that sword to protect
himself from thieves and other violent criminals. He obviously felt the need to protect
himself, and Jesus, from the Jewish authorities. Keep in mind also, that Judah, at time, was a province of Rome, and in
less than 40 years, Jerusalem would be sacked and the Temple destroyed under
the heal of an oppressive government. Two years after the destruction of the
Temple, 960 brave Jewish freedom fighters would have their Alamo. They would find their line in the sand at a
place called Masada, and live forever in history as heroes. How were the Jewish patriots able to fight
the Roman’s, the most powerful army in history to that date? They were able to, in no small part, because
the Romans had been unable to disarm them. I usually try to stay away from playing the
“what if” game when dealing with history.
I am a trained and degreed Historian, and playing what if has always
been something I attributed to amateurs.
However, the question must be asked, what if the Jews, the Gypsy’s, the
Masons, the Slavs, and all those other groups would have had Mauser rifles in
1940? What if the Students and Tiananmen
Square could have fought back? What
if? It’s not just about fighting back
against criminals, although that is by far the most common use for personal
arms, but it is also about checks and balances.
Remember those from High School Government? Congress places checks and balances on the Executive,
and Judiciary, and the Executive places checks and balances on the Judiciary
and Congress, and the Judiciary places checks and balances on the Executive and
Congress? They always left one group out.
And it is one that none of the founders would have forgotten. The People.
The People place checks and balances on all branches of the government,
and they use two tools to do it. The
first is the ballot box, and the second is an armed citizenry. Take away that check and balance point, and
you will throw the entire nation into turmoil, and set it on a path to
destruction.
This
then is the point that all gun control advocates fail to see. The government, any government, when left
unchecked, will ultimately become oppressive.
History has shown us this over and over again. I am not in any way
calling for revolution or civil war here.
I love the United States of America.
I revere the fact that we have maintained a peaceful transition of
power, without violence since the 1868 elections. I hope and pray that we can maintain that for
hundreds of more years to come.
Nevertheless, I maintain that the reason we can is because of the 2nd
amendment. It is not about hunting,
although I love to hunt. I can
effectively hunt using archery equipment.
It’s about protection, from both criminals and governments that mean to
do me harm. Peter did not carry that
sword in hopes he would be able to sneak up on a rabbit and slit it’s throat. He carried that sword to protect himself from
criminals and thugs, both official ones and unofficial ones. Nothing has
changed. We still have that need. If the criminals and thugs have swords, then
I need at least a sword. If they have AR
type weapons with 30 round magazines, then I need the same. Moreover, in obtaining and keeping them, I
take upon my own shoulders the mantle of protecting not only myself, but you
too.
It is time for a reality check. Let us look at some numbers, shall we? Mexico has very strict gun control, yet more
murders by firearms than many other
countries. In 2010 for example, Mexico
had 11.14 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. And breaking those down even further, of
those 11.14 deaths, 10.0 were homicide. .67
were suicide, and .47 were unintentional.
Compared to the United States, with 10.2 firearm related deaths per
100,000 people, but only 3.7 of those are homicides. 6.1 were suicides, and .2
were unintentional. So in the U.S. of those 10.2 deaths per 100k,
realistically, removing every single firearm from existence would have
prevented, at the most, 3.9 deaths per 100k. I base this on the belief, which I
feel is well founded, that a suicidal person will find a way to kill
themselves, one way or the other. In
addition, I stress that 3.9 is the most that might have been prevented. Homicide was not invented with the firearm.
Before firearms, there was knives, swords, bows, arrows, even rocks. If someone
wants to do harm to another badly enough, they will find a way.
I am
not so callused as to believe that the events in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine,
and Ft. Hood were not tragic. I do not
think any sane person would even attempt to refute that. I do think it is striking that the common
thread in each of these events was that these all took place in supposedly safe
“gun free” locations. No one has ever
been protected by a cheap plastic sign from someone who is bent on hurting them. That is reality. It is not pretty, and it does not make us
feel good, but that is the problem. We,
as a society and culture, have placed so much emphasis on feeling good and warm
and snuggly and safe, that we have brought this on ourselves. It doesn’t make
us feel good to have armed men and women roaming the halls of our schools to
protect the children. After all it might upset their sensibilities. It doesn’t make us feel good to identify
people with obvious psychological problems, and remove them from society where
they can hurt others, using a strait jacket if necessary. It might hurt their feelings, and cause their
parents anguish. I don’t mean to be
harsh, but really, how about the parents of the victims? For those parents who have been faced with
that choice, and made the right one, I commend them, but they are few and far
between. I know several families who
have children that have demonstrated psychological issues. In each and every case, they have made it a
point to make sure dangerous tools, like firearms for example, were not in
place were the child could obtain them
When it comes to Newtown in particular, I become very frustrated,
because the fault lies with the mother.
She knew he was disturbed, yet she kept the weapons, and kept them in a
place where he can get them. And she
paid the price for it. The unfortunate
thing is that so do 26 other people, but back to the topic at hand. We do not want to take responsibility for our
entertainment choices. There’s no way
2.5 hours of shooting and blowing up everything in sight in a movie, or endless
hours of Modern Warfare or Halo could incite a person to violence. The media
doesn’t have that kind of influence over people’s behavior, right? Then why do I have to sit through endless
commercials every time I want to watch a TV show? Are they trying to say that the 30 second
commercial will influence my choices and behavior, but the gory slasher movie
doesn’t? I have to admit, I may not be
the most sophisticated guy there is, but that sounds stupid to me. I could turn
this into another entire blog post about personal and parental responsibility,
but that will be for another time.
We
have reached our Alamo. Our Santa Anna
today comes in the form of Diane Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Mike Bloomberg. Our line has been drawn. Are you going to
stand, or will you be the Moses Rose of this battle? Will you give up your church, your friends,
and if need be, your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor? There is so much we can do. We can write.
We can share this message with others.
We can refute their arguments with facts. Throw your money and support behind
organizations that are on your side. Conversely,
withdraw that support from organizations opposed to you. For this issue, that
means supporting the NRA. I am a life
member. You may not like everything they
do, or the way they do it, but right now, they are the 800 pound gorilla
standing between you and Senator Feinstein, so I suggest you give it a banana
and let it do its thing. Also, check
with organizations you are associated with.
Do they reflect your values? I
found that many don’t. Withdraw your
support. It may be painful. It was for me, I loved the people I attended
Church with, but I cannot support the ELCA.
As a sidebar, for those of you who are Lutheran, and are wondering, the
Missouri Synod is out as a choice for me as well, based on their stand on an
totally different issue. When I withdrew
from ALC, I cited personal reasons. I
didn’t want to engage in a politically charged debate with people I otherwise
loved and cared for. I now think I may
have been wrong there, but that was before Newtown, and the renewed attacks on
our rights. Folks, Barak Obama has
ordered that El Deguello be played. It is time to take a stand. So what about you? Has your line been drawn?
No comments:
Post a Comment