War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

One of the fundamental axioms of politics and policy is to never allow a crisis to go to waste. By that, it is meant that, if at all possible, a tragic event should not only be invoked in reference to limit the circumstances surrounding it, but also to taint one's opposition with the ensuing heartache so as to make their own defense against the allegations directed towards them seem callous and insensitive.

An article posted 7/26/18 on the Washington Post website is titled “Why Some Christians Don't Believe In Gun Control: They Think God Handed Down The Second Amendment”. The analysis opens, “We're now at a point when Americans are killed or injured in a mass shooting almost every month...Despite this, resistance to gun control in the United States remains fierce.”

However, blame is not placed on those actually perpetrating such horrific acts of violence. Instead, blame is aimed at those nebulously referred to as “Christian nationalists”.

The author defines Christian nationalism as an ideology that holds to the inseparable bond between Christianity and American civil society. Adherents of the philosophy are accused of believing that America should remain broadly Christian in terms of underlying symbols and policies with the nation's foundational liberties to be understood in terms of a literal and absolute meaning.

Interestingly, the authors of the study point out that adherents of Christian nationalism do not necessarily adhere to a singular interpretative theological tradition. Rather those of this perspective are not only conservative Evangelicals but also traditionalist Catholics or even those that construe existence through a religious lens but do not necessarily practice their faith through formalized church attendance.

Such a definition raises a number of issues and questions perhaps even more important than the right to bear arms. Among these rank why certain technocrats want to eliminate this particular liberty and, conversely, why Americans must not allow this precious freedom to be taken away if they desire to retain those more obvious such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The first presupposition denigrated as going “beyond merely acknowledging some sincere religious commitments of the Founding Fathers” is that America should always be distinctively Christian in terms of national identity. But if the majority in the nation are Christian at least to the degree that they have no problem identifying the institutions of such in terms of origin, why are these obligated to be altered to placate a small cabal of disgruntled secularists?

The next issue raised by the authors of the study that ought to be of concern is opposition to enumerated liberties understood as being divine, literal and absolute.

If rights are not understood as being divine in origin, it follows that these protections must derive then from being bestowed upon the individual by the state as the ultimate authority answerable to nothing higher in a materialistic or naturalistic universe. After all, even if for a moment the institution decides to grant those subject to it a degree of leeway referred to colloquially as “rights”, there is nothing preventing these from being revoked at a moment's notice because of the near monopolistic use of force utilized by the state. For even in a situation where the population has access to basic firearms, these are minuscule in terms of the sorts of munitions available to the state in the era of total war.

Only when rights are construed as being bequeathed upon mankind by God apart from the state can they be perceived as absolute and unchanging. For such a gift would be a reflection of God's absolute perfection and unchanging goodness.

Nor would an honest or descent person want it any other way. For if rights are granted by an individual or institution that is fallible by nature, who is to say that these rights were not mistakes to begin with.

This concern is evidenced in the case of Alex Jones. It has been concluded that a controversialist such as himself must be “deplatformed” for the sake of the social good because of his propensity to disseminate ideas contradictory to the narratives concocted by globalist puppet masters determining what will or will not constitute acceptable factuality.

Most people, even his admirers, will eventually admit that Jones has said shocking and outrageous things over the years. But what if this government that can adapt the scope of the allowable in order to calibrate what the technocrats conclude is the sort of society that they desire decide to contract the boundaries of permissible utterances further?

Believe that Jesus is the only path to Heaven? But if rights do not exist above the material world, what if a government concludes such cannot be said for fear of undermining the sense of equality of those residing within its jurisdiction? Unless the people are allowed to retain some kind of tangible check on such power run amok.

By Frederick Meekins

22 Views