The Price of Liberty

An article published recently on Gun Watch, How judges ignore law and the Constitution on gun rights, was reposted by JPFO recently.

The article makes many good points about how Regressives and Tranzis (which the article calls “Progressives”) and Nazgul (judges) seek to twist their role and steal liberties away from people – all but the elite, of course. The writer challenges and answers the naive argument too many people make: we only have to get to the court(s) and present the plain and simple words in the Bill of Rights to them, and all the bogus, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional gun control laws will go away.

Too many Americans believe what they were taught in civics class or even in grade school. “You will get a fair hearing and your rights are protected in the court system.” Right. Just like teaching children, “Mr. Policeman is your friend.” Tell that to hundreds of thouaands of victims of the so-called justice system, and tens of thousands of victims (or their families) of the police. (Such as two of the people killed in the recent highway gunfight in Florida, or the other man killed even more recently.)

Gun Watch is absolutely correct regarding the myopia of judges and other lawyers concerning our right to defend ourselves. But I challenge the assumptions which the article makes. In particular, the writer states:

Men are not perfect. Men will always be tempted to abuse power. Men will always be tempted to accumulate power for their personal benefit. If men were perfect, we would not need government. Because they are not perfect, we need limits on governmental power.

The designers and writers of the Constitution set up a system to limit governmental powers through checks and balances inside and outside the government.  The legislature has power to set up courts and impeach judges; the President [sic: executive] has power to appoint judges; Judges have power to judge cases, which involves an intrinsic ability to interpret the law, as written by the legislature.

Gun Watch article

This is accurate, as far as it goes. But the writer continues to exhibit the same lack of vision and make the same errors as the Founding Fathers did. AND the same error as our high school civics student. This is SUPPOSED to be the way the system works. But it does not work, because government’s foundation is deeply flawed.

God did not create man to need human government. Not because He knew we would be perfect, but because He provided a system of government for us. A system far better than anything found in history which is human.

Of course, we rejected that method – and continue to do so. Even though that method DID address the problem of imperfect men. Men who sought power and wealth and control – and even worship. Instead, we substituted our own governments. Substandard, doomed to fail, and yet in the short term, very difficult to resist or reject. He knew that would happen, and He tolerates human government. Provided that it meets His standards.

And they really aren’t very high standards: Protect people and property from those who would do evil. And punish those evil-doers. Yet human government usually fails to do these things. Indeed, virtually ALWAYS fails. Especially government (in the Fifty States and around the world) in the 21st Century.

This is what Peter and Paul were writing about in various letters of the New Testament. This is why the Lord told Moses to lead the People of Israel in their secession (Exodus) from Egypt, why the Lord told Jeroboam to rebel against Rehoboam (Solomon’s successor) so that ten tribes seceded. God tolerated human governments that did not meet His standards, and used them for His purposes, but except for Saul, David, and Solomon (and of course, Jesus) He did not “anoint” any rulers. (No matter what the kings of the last two millennia have claimed.) God USED man’s evil for His purposes, although He does not bless or whitewash the evil. (Consider that he used (allowed) Hebrew religious and secular government and Roman government to condemn and crucify His Son.)

Today, there are virtually NO human governments, however small or large, isolated or not, which meet God’s standards. It is therefore safe to say that God does not accept any modern human government as “legitimate” in His eyes. And therefore, neither should those who are followers of God – whether still attempting to follow the Old Law (the Law of Moses) or Christ Jesus. This does not mean that those followers are to be lawless or see themselves superior. Again, Jesus and His apostles and evangelists make it clear that we can and should obey those laws which are legitimate and moral, and should carefully judge when we can conform to human rulers (and law) rather than have to rebel – counting the cost while still remaining faithful to God.

And this does not mean that ONLY those people who believe in the Creator and seek to follow His Son (or wait for His return) can reject human government. Human government is against natural order and natural law, as well.

For now, at least, believers and unbelieves alike have to accept the fact that most of the time, we have to live with human government. So I think we can agree with Gun Watch (and the Founding Fathers) that there MUST be limits on government, to make it even barely tolerable to God and men.

The Gun Watch writer is correct that the Constitution attempted to establish those limits.

But it failed. Has and continues to fail. Miserably.

There are many other reasons (besides rebellion against God and/or the natural laws of the universe) that government has failed and will continue to. Until we understand that it IS doomed to fail, we will continue to put our bet down on the wrong horse. And suffer for it.

Which IS, of course, precisely the reason God (thru men) gave us guns.