Second Amendment and the Source of Rights

Posted on January 31st, 2007 in Articles

As was expected the right to keep and bear arms is under heavy attack in Congress. USA today is taking a poll on the Second Amendment’s meaning. You might like to register your vote as it may become a point in their future article. Here is a link if you wish to do so: 2nd Amendment Poll.

Yes, the question is misstated since it presumes that rights are not God given but Civil Government given. Properly asked the question should be: “Do you believe that the Second amendment was meant to be understood as protecting the God given right of self defense which implicitly means keeping and bearing arms?” ‘Where did God give this right to keep and bear arms?’ many will ask. He did so in the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder”, (Exodus 20:13). Historic protestant understanding of this can be found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 68 and 69 which state, “The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others. … The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbour unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.” Much more instruction is given in the companion Westminster Larger Catechism [1648], Question and Answer numbers 134 through 136.

We need to study the Old Testament more. Remember that Jonathan needed to attack the Philistine garrison in order to arm the Israelites? (1 Samuel 13:19-14:1ff) Arms control is an ancient tactic of all tyrants. When a civil ruler doesn’t want his subjects (er, citizens) to have and bear arms it is because he has a plan for his subjects that he is pretty sure they won’t like. Resistance to his will will not be tolerated. Doesn’t sound like a servant of the people, does it?

The Declaration of Independence is part of the organic body of law for the USA. This specifically means that the statements and presuppositions of the Declaration of Independence are the legal context for interpreting the US Constitution. Therefore, the US Constitution legally ought to be read with the understanding that rights have their source not in civil government but in the Creator! How many Christians even understand this fact? Patrick Henry most certainly did! It was this reason which caused him to be against the Bill of Rights for he feared that in the future, unchristian men would argue that the existence of the Bill of Rights demonstrates that the civil government is the source of rights. Further, Patrick feared that unscrupulous, power-hungry politicians would cite the Bill of Rights as the complete enumeration of rights hence saying that citizens do not have any rights EXCEPT those enumerated in the US Constitution. Was the great Patrick Henry correct? Yes, indeed. But I wonder if he could even have conceived that professing Christians would ever come to think of Civil Government as the source of rights? I doubt it for this view fundamentally presupposes the denial of the Rights of King Jesus! Hence a denial of Jesus as Lord.

May God help us to think Biblically on all issues and to reject our unbiblical rationalism. (2 Corinthians 10:5)