Let Father Orthoduck just write a few words down and finish this subject of private gun ownership and militias. Please look back at his earlier postings within this last week if you are not aware of what Father Orthoduck has posted.
First, private gun ownership is obviously the intent of the Second Amendment, given the Militia Acts of the early 1790’s. They were passed by our first Congress and signed by our first President. They very clearly stated that each and every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 was expected to own at least one gun. To try to argue that the Second Amendment only speaks about militias is to totally ignore how the Congress interpreted the Second Amendment within ten years after the passage of the Constitution. In fact, to try to interpret the Second Amendment as applying only to militias is exactly the same type of interpretation as Protestants use to pick phrases out of Scripture while ignoring all of Early Church history. While all individual males between 18 and 45 were part of the militia (to this day) it was the individual’s responsibility to buy and maintain the gun, not the government’s.
[In passing, Father Orthoduck holds Protestants as responsible for some of our most debated interpretations of the Constitution. The very argument that we must only look at the written words without looking at the history of our country following the written words is the classic Protestant argument that is used to bypass the fact that Early Church history does not fit an Anabaptist model. Thus, Evangelicals today, as they fight some of our modern laws and changes in culture, are simply reaping what was sowed by their ancestors who insisted on the above exegetical scheme.]
But, it is very reasonable to have some limits on gun ownership. Father Orthoduck cited before that it is entirely reasonable for an individual to be forbidden to own Stinger missiles so that he/she may not shoot down innocent civilian planes! By the same token, Saturday night specials, etc., would seem to qualify under the reasonable limitations principle. Think common sense interpretation rather than a lawyer’s twisty words.
So, what about private militias? Again, let’s look at our country’s history. The Militia Acts of the early 1790’s gave the President the authority to call up the militia. Given the way the laws read, the expectations were that ultimately the militias would be obedient to this country. Thus the militias that were part of the Confederate States of America were never considered to be faithful militias.
Nevertheless, there have been several instances in the history of this country that show a certain allowance for the possibility that citizens may need to band together to take actions, again see the Battle of Athens blog in an earlier post. However, Father Orthoduck would consider the establishment of a long-term militia which refuses to acknowledge the ultimate right of the President to call it up for service to be repugnant to the spirit of early Federal laws.
Thus, oddly enough, Father Orthoduck is in favor of private gun ownership, within certain limits. Father Orthoduck allows for the rare necessity of citizens to band together in violent action in order to defend law and order. But, Father Orthoduck is not in favor of long-term private militias which consider themselves to be under no control except their internal self-control.
Leave a Reply