There's Always a Bigger Fish

I recently went over to the home of a cousin of mine for the afternoon to shoot some firearms, 10 guns in all between his, his dad's, our Grandpa Mullet's, a rifle from his other grandfather, and a shotgun of mine.

Guns, like many things, have limitations.

Take my Remington 870 Tactical, for instance. It has the shortest legal barrel at 18", a pistol grip, adjustable stock; I've added a tactical flashlight to it just in front of the pump; it looks beastly!

Take it out trapshooting, however, and you're going to find it woefully inadequate next to my uncle's 870 variant with the traditional stock and longer barrel. They're both 12 gauge, but one performs markedly better at shooting clay pigeons accurately.

And that's how they've been designed. My shotgun isn't so much for hunting birds as they fly through the air as it is for tactical operations. I bought my shotgun in case someone ever tries to break into our home in the middle of the night, or in case some wild animal is roaming around the yard and threatens our boys.

I've been following the gun control debate these past months, and the rhetoric has me thinking - about politics, about polarization, about the difference between urban, suburban and rural mindsets, about the balance between liberty and security, and about the relationship of citizens to their government. 

Many provocative questions come to mind. For instance:

Are gun control opponents and 2nd amendment defenders paranoid or pragmatic about the possibility of a tyrannical government taking hold in America, and the need for citizens to be armed so as to discourage or deter such a government from blatant abuses?

If such a tyranny were to take hold, would it occur suddenly and conspicuously, or by degrees and quietly to where the majority of Americans would fail to recognize the tyranny until it was firmly established?

If such a tyranny were to take hold, would there even be any point in resisting, and is the 2nd amendment proposed as a safeguard against tyranny a moot point when our police forces and military are already so heavily armed, and are in fact the most advanced and powerful in the world?

Even if evenly matched, would there be a moral or ethical basis, support or framework for fighting against the official government of one's country, as the colonies fought against the British during the Revolutionary War, or as some argue the Confederacy fought against the Union in the Civil War?

Such questions are dangerous, perhaps, but they're too obvious to be ignored. 

The issue of the moment now is gun control. On the one side, the President and many prominent liberals contend that America is unsafe with certain guns, or so many guns, or certain people getting guns. In order to protect us from ourselves and one another, they must erect barriers to purchasing weapons, at least certain weapons, at least for certain persons deemed dangerous.

Am I to object if the criminal, the bad man, is prevented from acquiring a weapon prior to breaking into my home? Surely if he's disarmed before disturbing our domestic tranquility this is for the best, and hopefully I'll not ever have to fire my own weapon at such a man! That is my preference. But will gun control legislation achieve such a goal, or will it simply penalize me, with time or money or some other inconvenience, for acquiring a weapon? And if penalizing, will it prevent in so far as it discourages?

And if the President and other liberals have considered that criminals are not stopped by gun control laws, that only law-abiding citizens obey laws about guns or any other thing, and if these liberals proceed with gun control legislation anyhow, it's not difficult to see how gun control opponents can quickly object on the grounds that a tyrannical government must first disarm it's citizens in order to minimize their ability to resist tyranny.

But there again, what is tyranny? If I disagree with a law, is that enough to make that law tyrannical, or is the government which enforces that law therefor oppressing me? Surely not, since then every man in a prison could contend that he is not at fault for having stolen his neighbor's stereo, or raping that woman, or beating that man to death at the bar; no, his government must be the one at fault for having made laws which he deemed tyrannical and overly-restrictive. But that can't be! Such would be anarchy and ridiculous.

The intelligent, thoughtful proponent of liberty will contend that this is not what is meant by tyranny, however. Tyranny is taking a freedom away from me which my exercising would not have harmed any other person. But who will decide what is harmful to other persons? 

Is my selling you a 16 oz. soda which might contribute to your becoming obese or contracting diabetes, considering that obesity and diabetes are clearly harmful, different only by degrees from my shooting or stabbing you? I've never heard anyone dispute that the government should make and enforce laws against unlawful, unprovoked shootings and stabbings; but many are offended by NYC Mayor Bloomberg attempting to outlaw large sodas. 

Is Bloomberg a tyrant, however benevolent, or are those who object merely ignorant peasants who don't know what's best for them, who object like an inmate who's been convicted of larceny, rape, assault or murder, that the government is at fault for making a law they don't want to obey?

Is Obama a tyrant, or are those who object simply rebellious and insubordinate subjects who need to be reminded of their place?

I get to thinking, even if we were ruled by tyrants, what responsibility have we as Christians? We must speak the truth in love, boldly and clearly and courageously. But what would we have said in the days of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? 

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Romans 13:1

Was King George a tyrant, or were the colonists traitors who offended godliness and order by opposing him as they did? Was the Confederacy a legitimate motion to affirm the liberty of those States which seceded, or was Lincoln a hero for boldly opposing a wicked and racist society which had chosen to take up arms against it's government rather than submit to reform?

I don't know. If you've read this far, perhaps you were hoping I'd make some lofty, impassioned argument one way or the other. Perhaps you're undecided and you wanted me to help you make up your mind. Perhaps you're firmly in one camp or the other and you were hoping to hear me affirm your presuppositions about the topic. I can't do that, though - not sincerely, anyhow.

The fact is that I have misgivings about universally defending liberty against restriction; there are freedoms which I and others clearly benefit from forgoing, even if only when we restrict ourselves willingly by conscience and good judgment.

I am deeply inclined in my heart and mind and soul to oppose tyranny with forceful, firm arguments, and to look with disdain on threats of violent opposition to government, which I see as disorderly and wicked, and such a disdain could only be parted with in very extreme and dramatic and obvious circumstances. I consider myself open-minded when it comes to laws and legislation, except where my conscience dictates that this or that matter is firmly in the black or white, and then I vote with my conscience.

Meanwhile I look on politics as being eternally adversarial, but also increasingly polarized and polarizing in this country. I continue to wonder, without some moderating or unifying event, issue or character, whether we will find America embroiled in another civil war in my time. And if there were a civil war, what would I do? Again, I realize this is dangerous to suppose publicly, but what is more dangerous is for the trend to continue in our nation until two opposing sides have no ability to both save face and compromise. 

What concerns me more than the possibility of raising eyebrows is the notion that our political system, that our civil institutions, cannot find resolutions for the tough questions with all sides conducting themselves with integrity and mutual respect.

Just like a gun is designed with certain purposes and limitations, so too are arguments and proposals. My cousin and I spending the afternoon cheerfully taking turns shooting at targets to see who's the better shot, and to test out how each firearm performs - this is dramatically different from he and I taking turns firing at one another to do each other harm. One scenario will see us concluding the day, each with more experience and a smile on our face; the other will end tragically, with tears and bloodshed. 

So goes the nation. 

"Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it."

Proverbs 4:23 (NIV)