Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
—-
Naturopathic Physician
Political Philosopher & Author
—
Consultant, Speaker, Author
Naturopathic Medical Consultations
Marriage & Personal Counseling
—
(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com
The Christian Constitutional Republic
One Nation Under God
Government of, by, and for the People
Liberty and Justice for All
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
2nd Amendment Rights
Licensure to Own and Carry
Parental & Societal Vetting of Character
By Thomas Lee Abshier
Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:25 PM
The issue is not whether an adult should have the right to bear arms for protection against criminality, tyranny, and aggression. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, and reflects the Godly principle of a man’s right to protect the boundaries and substance of his property. In short, the right to bear arms is an extension of the Commandments, “Thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not murder.”
Murder is the most serious theft of property. By virtue of the command to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we each have the right to defend our property against theft with force equal to that being threatened. No one has the right to take the life-property of another man.
We are to honor the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells, and in this era, it is the body of man that functions as the Temple of God. To allow destruction or harm to come to the body by submitting to his unrighteous whim or volition is a crime against the body/Temple.
The command by Jesus to “turn the other cheek” can only be interpreted in the context of limited force. If the blow being threatened is deadly, do we submit and let our family and neighbors die too? No. This advice is best understood in the context of minor violations, and giving the violator the lesson that re-establishing relationship after repentance is more important than lost property.
God has constructed the world with a multitude of competing requirements, and one of those is the right of man to the ownership rights and responsibilities for property. The substance and meaning of life surrounds the issues of properly negotiating the boundaries. This task of discrimination and judgment is one of the largest dramas and lessons that test our character in the proper exercise of free will. The Righteous man follows the boundaries of good and proper action.
God has established the principle of ownership of property and life as the distinguishing features of identity. In fact, the two principles are somewhat corollary, in that taking a man’s property is the moral equivalent to taking a piece of his life that he has exerted time and effort to procure.
The balance to protecting property is respecting life – my own and others. Thus, as in all situations involving human circumstances, judgment must be applied to properly balance the competing ethical/moral considerations. Exercising Godly discrimination to properly choose between competing standards comes with experience, wise counsel, and becoming strongly grounded in the application of the Biblical standards that ultimately represent and reflect the mind of Christ.
The appropriate question with regard to the Right to Bear Arms, is, “Who is worthy of the trust to exercise this right?” As a nation that allows its citizens to own and use deadly force, we cannot naively declare our right to bear arms without defining the limits of that right. Every right is limited to its proper domain, and in general, those rights are limited by how their exercise affects others.
People only have the right to do what is right, and every adult who is trustworthy in right use of deadly force should exercise the right to bear arms as part of the full expression of adulthood and in a manner consistent with Godly character. But on a practical level, we as a society/community must decide when a man has demonstrated the requisite skill and character to properly and responsibly use deadly force. Certainly neither the criminal, child, nor insane deserve this right as they do not have the requisite mental, emotional, or moral maturity, to properly exercise judgment. But, having excluded the obviously unqualified, I believe both society and parents should judge each man before he is given the privilege of exercising the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
There is a level of skill in safe handling, skillful use, and mental, emotional, and moral maturity a man should develop, demonstrate broadly, and maintain over time before he has earned the right to unsupervised use of rifles, pistols, and other weapons of offense and defense. In general, the processes and passages of childhood give indications of a child’s attainment of Godly expression of balance, discrimination, and judgment.
The family is the first guardian and trainer of the child, and together with the community they are the gatekeepers to the realms of adult responsibilities. And while the family environment does not have the structure to teach and test all the possible challenges of life, it is possible and proper that the family simulate an extremely broad spectrum of life possibilities by metaphor, drama, story, discussion and training. The seed principles for a wide variety of positive, respectful habits of life and character should be instilled and initiated by the experiences of childhood.
The child should be trained in the supervised use of firearms as a child, but the privileges and responsibilities of firearm ownership should not be conferred until the child transitions to adulthood. The question of the boundaries of adolescence and adulthood may be roughly equated with the time when a young person begins to assume the full responsibilities of supporting self and/or family by gainful employment. But, self sufficiency is not the only determinant of adulthood, rather a more important measure is a concomitant demonstration of maturity in making Godly decisions. But, it is not possible to make formulaic or definite judgements about the abstract parameters of character. Thus, we must trust these decisions to the judgment of the parents and elders of the community who have demonstrated Godly character through a lifetime of responsible relationships and work.
And of course, there will be those who betray the trust given to them, and when an adult violates the standards of Godly conduct, the community agencies should function as the enforcers and disciplinarians to administer justice. These agencies should include the church, justice system, professional groups, and parents.
When a child fails, it is a reflection on the parents. But, full and total responsibility cannot be laid on the parents for an adult child’s failure to follow the precepts of Godliness. Still, the parents nevertheless should be recognized as the primary agents of instilling Godly standards and boundaries in the child. As such, including the parents in the process of discipline and rehabilitation of a child who violates Godliness gives gravity to the duties and responsibilities of child rearing.
At some point, a child must be invested with the trust of society to behave as a responsible and Godly adult, and in general the elders of the community are the administrators, judges, legislators, and executives of the societal wisdom and practical expression of Godliness. Thus, community agencies should be established to function as the gateways to the authorized and sanctioned use of firearms. Ideally, the elder community, the older men who have had experience and demonstrated competence and temperance in the use of firearms and life, should be the judges of each child’s worthiness to own and properly use firearms.
In modern America, the state and its impersonal bureaucrats have largely replaced the community of elders. Thus, if we wish to use this sub-optimal system, we should at least expect these agencies to implement mechanisms for training, testing, and requiring the demonstration of safe and competent use of firearms. And yes, this will require taxes, and paying other people to do the work that could be done by family and community. Such a method of authorizing the use of firearms is below the level that such a serious privilege deserves, but until the society returns to a more personal and involved relationship between children, parents, and community we must substitute and delegate the responsibilities of parenthood to the impersonal and blunt apparatus of administrative agencies.
Every competent and responsible adult should exercise the privilege and responsibility of firearm ownership. The issue of firearm ownership is not one just of personal desire to hunt or shoot targets for sport and enjoyment. Rather, firearm ownership is a responsibility of adult community citizenship. The Second Amendment was written as a reflection of the need for a nation to defend its existence against enemies foreign and domestic. This same requirement of self defense against violation of boundaries exists on all levels – personal body space, marital boundaries, intellectual and tangible property, corporate identity, state’s rights, and national sovereignty. God has given us a universe where boundaries and distinction are inherent to every level of the creation. The integrity of each unit can only remain as long as the unit defends its boundaries against destructive forces.
The mechanisms for authorizing the child in as a member of adult society should be a combination of community and parental vetting. On a procedural level, an initiation into the use of firearms could be a driver’s license-like training course where the skills and safe handling of arms was learned and demonstrated satisfactorily. But skill and knowledge are only the mechanical aspects of the passage. The more important vetting of a child’s worthiness to own and responsibly use arms should be the parent’s judgment of his character and readiness to assume the responsibility to carry and use deadly force.
Such a concept, putting parents into the place of authority with regard to judging the moral maturity and character of a child, is wholly foreign to modern American society, but in fact it is the parents who should give the child his foundation in moral training, and it is they who have the most intimate insight into the progress of a child’s passage into adulthood. Holding parents responsible with the child for his behavior gives parenthood the gravity it deserves, and ties the community together tightly as individual, family, and community.