Of Firearms, Firewalls, and Stonewalls
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting in America, we have once again witnessed the call to ban guns or at least certain types of guns. The gun debate is not new and it will not ultimately be resolved in a useful manner until righteousness is brought to the fore. In fact, the whole debate will end badly and no effectual ground will be made so long as the argument continues based on a Humanistic and unBiblical point of view. No amount of political squabbling, bickering, badgering, or name calling will win the day. It most certainly will not carry us to Utopia, the mystical safe haven of which Humanists and politicians dream!
In order to unpack this topic, we will use our title as a guide.
Firearms: The problem with this debate is that, like a murderer callously and indiscriminately firing rounds from a firearm, so too many politicians, activists and others are apt to ‘shoot their mouths off’ with the same callous disregard. They are as indiscriminate in their reasoning, target choice, and motivation as the supposedly “crazed” gunman.
They are quick to enter the fray, guns ablaze, in order to promote their cause, political position, or worldview. In doing this, these people rarely, if ever, have a moment of clarity in which they sit down and ask if they are in some way responsible for what has transpired.
The point is very simple. The debate is not about guns! It has regard to what motivates a man to action or restrains him from action. It is, in essence, a debate concerning the fact that ideas have consequences.
Therefore, when these politicians and activists support the erosion of the Biblical worldview, are they not in fact inviting mass shootings as but one consequence of their ideas? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact a libertine standard, are they not promoting lawlessness within society? When these politicians and activists argue for a top-down governance of the individual rather than for a self-controlled individual, are they not paving the road to anarchy? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact legislation that, in essence, says ‘there is no truth’, are they not encouraging a constant display of all individual ‘truth systems’ or worldviews with all the attendant consequences?
In this there is utter and absolute hypocrisy on the part of the politician and the activist. On the one hand there is a demand for and acquisition to the very ideas that bring death and tragedy to our cultures. However, in an interesting dance of hypocrisy, when tragedy strikes, it is the very liberals who created the situation that then demand the government take control and do something. Thus, liberality begets tyranny.
We saw this in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens were turned into criminals overnight. What was their crime? They owned a certain type of firearm. Like Hitler’s Gestapo rounding up Jews, orders were sent forth demanding that these people surrender their firearms.
Now, if you are not into guns, you may not find this a big deal. If that is your stance, then please be ashamed of yourself. Behind the issue of guns are principles, ethics, and many bigger questions. After Port Arthur, the item focused upon was guns. Many saw this as a victory. The big question is, “A victory for what?” Common sense? A victory for the gun lobby? A victory for a safer society? Did we see the death penalty reintroduced? Did we see a commitment to tougher sentencing for perpetrators of similar crimes? No, what you witnessed was a victory for tyranny at the hands of Big Brother.
What was established by the gun-buy-back was nothing less than the government’s ability to seize property and to compel citizens through random and tyrannical dictates. Even as one opposed to guns, you should at least be concerned that the government, without accountability, played with the Medicare / Tax system to finance the buy-back. Thus, they opened the door for future abuses by other governments.
Again, not into guns and your attitude is, “So what?” Well, the “So what?” is a phenomenal question. So, your children are killed when a car ploughs into them as they walk home (Sadly, based on a real happening). The driver is prosecuted. Okay, to this point. Then the government issues a nationwide ban on the make and model of the car driven by the offender as well on all other vehicles of the same capacity! Are you still okay? So, your children are at a sleepover at a well-to-do friend’s house. In the middle of the night a deranged arsonist attacks. All inside perish. In the wake, the offender is caught and sent off to comfy school – some call it, “prison”. Okay, to this point. Then the investigation concludes that the house was too big. It was a six bedroom house, which made it impossible for fire-fighters to successfully search all rooms in time. Consequently, the government retrospectively outlaws all houses that are above four bedrooms. Excess rooms must be permanently closed off or the whole house confiscated and destroyed. To remain in a house of modified capacity, you now need to be licensed and have the home open to government inspectors. That which was built legally, is now deemed illegal. Home owners, who had done nothing wrong, are now criminals and face significant losses. Are you still okay? These are not silly illustrations. They are applications of the principles enacted after Port Arthur.
You see, what was endorsed was not a stance against guns, as such. Rather, it established the right of governments to outlaw and confiscate any item retrospectively and compel all citizens to pay for it, wanted or not. The pretext is unimportant now. The reality is that this principle has been set to work in our society. It can now be used against anything and anyone.
Therefore, as politicians and activists themselves indiscriminately fire into society with their godless ideas, they cause the deaths, literally, of multitudes and scores; a number that the “crazed” gunman has never come close to approximating. How so? Read on!
Firewall: A firewall is a device that is designed to save and protect. To the modern computer generation, it is a device designed to stop attacks on a computer from the realm of cyberspace. For us old people, it is probably most recognisable in your car. It is that solid panel that extends from your windscreen to your floor pan, located behind your dashboard. Its design is to protect you from the radiant heat generated by your motor and from the reality of flame should your engine catch fire. In buildings a firewall is usually seen as a brick dividing wall that is designed to stop the spread of fire.
In similar manner our governments should act to protect. Using the computer scenario, Government should provide a system that discards the offensive, stops the hostile, allows the beneficial to proceed unhindered, and all this without obvious intrusion upon the citizenry. Do they do this? Absolutely not!
As we have noted, Government is particularly hypocritical. Governments tend to speak of “right” and “wrong”, but of what do they really speak when they have no moral compass? What is right to a Humanist? What is right to an Atheist? What is right to an evolutionist? What is right to a Postmodernist?
An example of the Humanist’s concept of right can be seen in President Obama. In response to the Sandy Hook incident, Barack Obama, gave a stirring speech in which he stated that we, as a generation, would be judged by how we had treated our children. Wonderful, is it not, to see the President of America concerned for the children? What a load of drivel! In the USA, since Roe v Wade, over 50 million babies have been aborted! This year – all under President Obama’s rule – over 70 thousand children have died. This day, the day when President Obama is inaugurated for his second term, the clock is already at about 1700!
What an absolute liar and hypocrite! How dare he, especially as President, stand in public and make any speech regarding the welfare of children when this murderous horror is conducted each and every day against the most vulnerable and by those charged with their care. Not only this, but as a pro-abortionist, the President makes himself guilty of all of these atrocities because he openly fosters the practice. So once more we are faced with the position of the political animal. It is not acceptable to lose 20 children to gunfire, but it is acceptable to lose hundreds–of–times this many children to the surgeon’s hatchet! (My apologies to the real surgeons who save lives.)
Here then is the predicament. The Atheist, Evolutionist, Postmodernist, and Humanist have no standard of right and wrong. They only have a subjective concept that is as changeable as the wind.
Some time ago, there was a dog food advertisement. It was for the “Bush’s” brand. The punch line went, “Blah, blah, blah, Bushes!” In reality, that should have been the content of the President’s speech. It would have been as sincere; meant as much; and ultimately had the same overall impact. In fact, having listened to his words, I cannot help but think that they were a type of precooked mess from a tin. (Now, please understand, whilst the President is singled out for his gross hypocrisy, few Western leaders would be any different. We here in Australia suffer from exactly the same hypocrisy in our Government. I recently placed a submission on the “Exposure Draft – Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.” The submission was accepted and covered by Parliamentary Privilege – that is, all but one sentence. That one sentence equated Julia Gillard’s stance on abortion with genocide.)
The problem is that although the Government seeks to act as a firewall, it is functioning on the wrong protocols. When you turn on your computer, protected by ‘GovernmentNanny’, you are directed to the pornography websites and to the seediest part of the web. Good and wholesome are filtered out and sent to the spam folder. Ugly and perverted are walked on through and even given a blessing.
The problem is that whilst God has ordained the government to act as a firewall, governments have essentially abandoned this task, precisely because they have abandoned God. Therefore, governments become the firewall product at the cheap end of the range that claims to keep your computer safe, but never really does. It is a travesty.
Sadly, both we the people and the Government seem to continue along in our deluded state, believing that the Government can abandon the wisdom of God and then somehow effect righteousness, law, and order. Talk of group cultural delusion!
The reason that the firewall is not working is precisely, to shift the analogy slightly, because they have the wrong software installed. The problem with modern Humanistic governments is that they do not accept that man is problematic, let alone defective to his core. The Humanists are trying to teach us that man, in and of himself, will be able to triumph over all adversity through his own resources and unified action because there is good in us all. That inherent and innate good simply needs to be released – bud needs to turn to blossom. The trouble for the Humanist begins when he opens his eyes, for what he sees in reality does not accord with his belief system. The humanist believes that each man has a seed planted within. The humanist also believes that this seed is a rose, which will bloom and fill the man with colour and fragrance. The reality is much closer to the words of U2: “Plant a demon seed, raise a flower of fire!” All men are not good to their core, which is precisely why some men pick up guns and shoot children and others fly aeroplanes into buildings.
It is also for this reason that the government cannot produce an effectual answer and why the firewall is defective. Our governments are Humanistic to the core – Yes, especially the American government. I wish the brothers over the pond would wake up to this en masse – consequently they are making laws to free man from the chains of Christian morality. In so doing, they are calling on man to express the individual tenets of his personal worldview. However, in this very call, you are inviting the establishment of the debauched, depraved, shocking, and abhorrent.
Thus, Government is powerless to act effectively and decisively for a righteous outcome and that for three reasons – particularly in regard to firearms. One, the government’s worldview is uniformly defective and therefore can never clearly identify the central issue. One may even say that it carries a bias against identifying the decisive point. Two, governments of our day only understand tyranny. They predominantly realise their goal and bring about conformity to their goal through force or coercion. Three, therefore, the government will breakdown any means by which you may resist their will – at any point and on any subject. Consequently, a populace equipped with firearms presents a challenge.
Guns are not the problem. The source of the deficiency is to be found in the inadequate worldview (firewall) of hypocritical Humanistic governments and agitators whose views actually promote mass shootings, directly or indirectly, as indeed they promote all kinds of evil.
Stonewall: The only answer to the situation is to return to the solid Rock, Jesus Christ. God’s Word revealed is our stone wall. It gives a solid barricade behind which one can take shelter. It forms a solid boundary between right and wrong. Equally, it supplies a firm foundation on which to stand and view the happenings round and about.
We can argue all day about firearms. Do we ban them all or allow some. If we allow some, which ones do we allow? The arguments are endless. So let us look at some solid Biblical principles.
First, we must recognise man as fallen, sinful, and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 15:18-19). Not every desire of his heart is pure, nor can it be without Christ. Humanism does not recognise this fact. Therefore, they throw off the chains of restraint imposed by Christian law, gleefully expectant that man will make right choices for himself and society. However, sinful man is selfish. He cares nought for his neighbour. So at the outset, it is obvious that the two worldviews lead in two distinct directions. Sinful man literally says, ‘to hell!’ with my neighbour (1 Kings 21:1 ff). Biblical man looks out and cares for his neighbour (Luke 10:25ff).
Second, God gives freedom to man. It is only when man transgresses that he must be penalised. Therefore, to penalise the innocent is a procedure at law that is alien to Scripture (Exodus 23:7). To penalise the innocent is tantamount to blasphemy (Deuteronomy 27:25). It is to say that the Law-Giver does not distinguish right from wrong, innocent from guilty, and such is most definitely a lie (Deuteronomy 34:6-7; see also 25:1-4).
Third, we must be willing to punish the transgressor. Because Government has rejected the Biblical view of man and has denied the operation of sin, government institutions, like courts, are being white-anted by psychological excuses. Punishments do not fit the crime, and that is if anything like a punishment is meted out! Just punishment exacts the due penalty, but it also acts as a deterrent (See page 11; Point B — Punishment and Retribution). One does not punish to deter. That is a road fraught with danger. One punishes for justice, but the execution of true justice helps to deter (Deuteronomy 17:11; 19:19b-20).
Fourth, the application of true justice, including the death penalty, saves lives. I recently read of a pastor who killed a young woman in order to fulfil his fantasy of necrophilia. The sad reality is that he had a violent past. Had we a real justice system, the perpetrator would not have been with us to commit the crime. Similarly, some years ago I watched a documentary on serial killers. One person, who had killed around ten, I think, had, as a young man, been convicted of rape. In Biblical terms, he would have been invited to leave the land–of–the–living and, likewise, his future victims would have remained unharmed.
Fifth, true justice is a communal responsibility. Scripture is very clear on this point. The community was to take its stand against evil. This was most clearly seen in the punishment of the transgressor. At this point the community had to come together as one (Numbers 15:35-26; Deuteronomy 21:21; 22:20-21; Leviticus 24:14-23). In exacting the punishment, people were reminded constantly of the need for obedience and conformity to the law. We can see the degradation of this principle as executions went from being a public display to that which took place behind closed doors.
A second issue here concerns the instigation of ‘police forces’. Whilst, I have nothing against a ‘police force’, as such, the instigation of such an entity with the direct implication that you, as an individual, no longer have a responsibility for or participation in the enforcement of law is questionable. A community that is aware of law, is involved in the execution of law, and participates in the sentence of the law, will be a community in which law and order are treasured. It will be a community that looks out for neighbour; a community that is aware of the bad apple; a community that will respond to crime and not one which will disengage from crime.
Sixth, morality! In particular, God’s standard of morality. Some may ask what morality has to do with firearms. The answer is very simple. Moral men or moral and ethical men, do not gun down innocents. Thus, whilst morality does not speak to firearms in and of themselves, it speaks vociferously to the situation in which firearms are wielded as weapons of terror.
What we must see is that oft times the perpetrators of these crimes are the products of immorality. As an example, we quote the following from a Christian newsletter in regard to the Sandy Hook incident: “The story so far appears to have some grim echoes of the massacre in Norway last year perpetrated by Anders Breivik. Like Breivik, Adam Lanza (20) lost his father through divorce, which neighbours said was traumatic for the children. Anti-social and lonely, suffering from a personality disorder, Adam is said to have immersed himself in violent computer games for hours each day.” (Family Voice, January 2013. P.2.)
Here we see the rudiments of catastrophe laid bare. How many time of recent have we seen similar scenarios? Broken homes beget broken lives. Broken lives beget catastrophe. Whether it be the angry man who murders; the purposeless daughter that sells her body; the rejected wife that finds solace in a bottle or an abusive boyfriend; the dispirited teenager who cannot cope and turns to drugs or the disenfranchised lad, who never having had a real father figure, does not know how to really love a woman and conduct a meaningful relationship, the consequences are the same – pain, hurt, dysfunction, bereavement, destruction, and death.
From a humanist’s perspective, who would guess that a broken home or divorce could bring such devastation? After all marriage in their estimation is nothing more than a cultural convention. From a Biblical point of view it is a “no brainer”. Marriage is fundamental to family and family is fundamental to society. So what happens when marriage is ridiculed and trashed? The humanist would answer by saying, “Nothing!” In fact, his answer would probably be more along the lines of, “It is high time we ditched this religious hangover from a previous stage of our evolution!” Biblically, we maintain that to ditch marriage – in its true context and extent – is to invite disaster. Proof? Earlier, we cited the clock used to count the number of abortions in America. We may then ask, “Who has abortions?” On one website, they have this illuminating answer: “In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).” Does this not illustrate the point well? We could then add this statistic from the same site: “In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).” The point? Very simple. It has to do with recidivism. In other words, 44.7% of those having abortions in 2009 were repeat offenders.
Morality matters. God’s standard of morality matters most. In God’s world, by covenant and design, there are causes and consequences. We cannot jettison God and His revealed standard and believe that as a society or as individuals we will get off scot–free. Such is but one more cultural delusion.
Conclusion: Whilst Sandy Hook is a tragedy in every sense of the word, it is not impossible to define the causes for the incident. The first one is that we live in a fallen world. Evil men perpetrate evil deeds. The second cause has to do with the predominate worldview held by most governments – it is a worldview that brings carnage.
As we have seen in this article, politician’s talk of one thing while their actions belie the true state of play. A president stands and mourns 20 children brutally gunned down in a school, yet that same president allows the mass murder of the unborn. A president mourns the loss of life via a rampage, yet that same president pushes on with a liberal agenda that will not see a cessation of such incidents.
Therefore, all the talk of banning automatic weapons with large magazine capacities is useless. All the talk of restricting the sale of firearms is useless. Why? Because the problem is not to be found in the gun, the magazine, or the bullets! Each one is an inanimate object. In and of themselves they are lifeless and powerless matter. The problem is the heart of man. The problem is that evil men do evil things. The problem is that our governments, when they capitulate to a Humanistic worldview, have no answer outside of depravation. In short, the Humanist worldview will not tackle the problem of the inner man. It cannot. So those holding this worldview will attack the external. They will ban or attempt to ban firearms of all shapes and sizes. All manner of foolishness will be put forth to aid their cause. The will gloat. They will pontificate. However, when the dust settles, one pertinent question remains, “Will the acts of evil men be stopped? The answer is, No!
If the answer is deprivation, where do we start and stop? Look at the world around us. USS Cole attacked by boat. 9/11 utilised planes. Timothy McVeigh used a Truck bomb. Ted Kaczynski (unabomber) posted or left small bombs for his victims. In a call for consistency, we should then ban boats, planes, trucks, mail, metal containers, and wire.
Why should we stop there? In 2009, there were 13,756 murders in the USA. Of these, 9,203 were committed with firearms. (Surprisingly, the vast majority were with handguns, not high capacity assault rifles (6,503).) So let’s ban guns, as well as planes, boats, trucks etc. Of course this is not the sum total, so we must continue our search for items to be banned. “Knives or cutting instruments” accounted for over one thousand deaths (1,828), so these should be banned as well, obviously.
Now I face a serious conundrum. As I looked at the statistics, I see a category of “Personal Weapons”. Hmmm? I would have thought that if you owned any of the aforementioned weapons, that they would have been personal. It was obviously very personal, if it was used to take another person’s life. However, none of these concepts fit appropriately. So, I turned to the footnote for a definition. A “Personal Weapon” is considered to be “hands, feet, fists, pushed, etc.” Deaths by these “Personal Weapons” accounted for 815 deaths. Now, let’s do the math. 815 divided by 20 equals 40.75. Okay, so death by these weapons accounts for 40.75 times the amount of deaths (children) recorded at Sandy Hook. Then it seems absolutely essential that these “personal weapons” should be banned as well! After all, these weapons are not regulated. They are readily available. Most people have multiples of the specified items. Very dangerous!
I apologies if sensitivities have been encroached upon. However, it is important that we not be distracted from the essential point of the argument. Evil men will use any means at their disposal to commit their evil deeds, right down the very limbs of their body. Therefore, there is nothing constructive to be gained by any argument that revolves around the instrument only – in this case the gun. The focus must fall upon the perpetrator and that which motivates him to evil.
If governments are going to make a ruckus over incidents like this, then let them respond seriously and in sincerity. Let them respond by examining the consequence of the ideas by which they govern. Let them begin by asking themselves why they deny God and His Law.
