Perhaps, rather
than turning the other cheek, one should close an eye and aim well?
Most
ecclesiastical authorities have declined to point out this line of
argument; for whatever reason, they have been reading the Holy Bible
from a pacifist’s, coward’s, weakling’s point of view. Yet, it should be
clear that embracing gun control implies the denial of the basic
principle of individual responsibility.
"The problem is
not six-shooters; the problem is sinners. Eliminating guns won’t solve
that problem.… The proximate (civil) solution to gun-related violence is
stiffer (biblical) penalties for harming humans and property – whether
by guns, knives, axes, spray paint, or computers. The ultimate
solution to gun-related violence is the transformation of individuals by
the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... The ironic solution of liberals is to
lock up the guns and liberate the criminals after a mere wrist slap,"
wrote
Andrew Sandlin in The Christian Statesman, Vol. 140, No. 1.
In reality, while
inviting people to love and mercy, Jesus never said that individuals
have no right to defend themselves. Even less did he say they should not
defend their feebler brothers when such are in danger. A person might
decide to offer no resistance to aggression if he risks only his own
life, but he can’t shirk the moral duty to help others. As
Jeff Snyder has
written, "Although difficult for modern men to fathom, it was once
widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that
life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a
coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community." (Nation
of Cowards, Accurate Press, 2001, page 16.)
The belief is
deeply shared that a Christian should always stand and be ready to
sacrifice, and that guns are evil means that should never be used nor
owned. However, a gun is merely an object. It has no soul, no brain, and
no wishes. It does nothing, but its owner does. An evil person will use
his guns to do evil, and a good person will use his guns to defend
himself and others. It is people who are good or evil, not guns.
Of course, those who deny this implicitly affirm that guns are magical
things with the power to change people’s mind. That is obviously an
absurdity.
In any case, many
Christians like to cite Jesus’ words: "You have heard that it was said,
‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to
resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn
the other to him also" (Matthew 5:38-39.) According to many researchers
and theologians, Jesus intends to condemn useless or exaggerated
violence, not the use of lethal force against aggression. Thus,
rather than contradicting the words of the Holy Scriptures, Jesus is
cautioning his disciples not to misunderstand the Bible. In fact, a few
lines before this statement, Christ says, "Whoever therefore breaks one
of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5: 19.)
Jesus says love is
better than hatred, and that vengeance can never be the solution. On the
other hand, He doesn’t say self-defence is bad. This would lead to the
rule of the stronger over the weaker, of the bully over the gentle
person. And, while inviting us to turn the other cheek, He doesn’t
invite us to turn the other’s cheek, which precisely is the
effect of gun-control laws.
Christ suggests to
his followers that they arm themselves: "But now, he who has a money
bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let
him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22: 36.) Later, as he is taken
away, Jesus rebukes Peter, who has just cut the ear of an aggressor:
"Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by
the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He
will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could
the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" (Matthew 26:
52-54) – from which we can see that some of the Apostles (two of them)
were armed.
As Larry Pratt [of
Gun Owners of America]
notes, "While Christ told Peter to ‘put your sword in its place,’ He
clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted
what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to
protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to
protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings" ("What Does
The Bible Say About Gun Control?", in
Chalcedon Report).
Years after the
Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Paul writes to Timothy: "But if anyone
does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household,
he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy
5:8). "This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to
buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one’s family, and
then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family
and the property," Mr. Pratt wrote.
This also recalls
another quote from the Bible: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he
is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If
the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He
should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold
for his theft" (Exodus 22: 2-3.) He who steals into another’s home bears
the responsibility of his criminal action. Self-defence is not a crime.
Under the heading
"Unjust aggressor," the Dizionario ecclesiastico ("Ecclesiastic
dictionary", UTET, 1959) derives the following statement from Thomas
Aquinas: "Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust
aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity;
sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death... In fact, this act is aimed
at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor
powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim."
There are three conditions under which legitimate self-defence must lie:
"That he who is the target of the force is an aggressor and an unjust
aggressor... That the object of the defence is an important good, such
as the life, physical integrity or worthy goods... [and] That defensive
violence is proportionate to aggression." Under these conditions, "One
is also allowed (not required) to kill other people’s unjust aggressor."
On these grounds,
even a great Catholic author, J.R.R. Tolkien agrees: "The aggressors are
themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their
original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness
must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arose. They at
any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted
should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth" (The
Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 243.) In his well-known novel,
The Lord of the Rings,
the evil Sauron requires of free peoples that "men shall bear no
weapons," otherwise he will assault them (The Lord of the Rings,
2001, p. 872.)
According to George
Crocker "The Word of God does allow and encourage self-defence. In
the Scriptures we do not find God encouraging His people to be either
"hawks" or "doves" when dealing with self-defence. They are just to be
reasonable." ("Self
Defence Or Turn The Other Cheek?"). Mr. Crocker concludes his
article quoting Dr. A. T. Robertson: "Jesus protested when smitten on
the cheek (John 18:22). And Jesus denounced the Pharisees (Matt 23) and
fought the devil always. The language of Jesus is bold and picturesque
and is not to be pressed too literally. Paradoxes startle and make us
think. We are expected to fill in the other side of the picture….
Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not
necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder." (A.T.
Robertson.
Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 48).
Of course, the
religion would not be moral, in a deep sense, which required its
followers to passively suffer aggressive violence. Actually, rather than
Christian, this approach is typical of post-Christian thought, which
avoids weighty concepts, including those of individual responsibility or
sin. "The far most important principle that was pulled away from
Christian policy is the theory of sin. This is not an uninteresting
topic of moral theology; rather, it is the precious premise of a
realistic and keen understanding of human nature and of its free,
everlasting moving to and from Good and Evil," the late political
scientist Gianfranco Miglio said in 1946.
Many years later,
Prof. Miglio added: "I can’t suffer, or understand, the ‘social
Catholics’. They seem to teach God how He should have made humans. They
don’t admit men’s evilness: to them, the culprit is ‘the society’.… They
hate America, the free-market, the whole West, that has been created by
Christianity."
Indeed, among
Christians’ greatest virtues there is realism; they well understand that
men may freely choose to do evil, and even find it sweet. Gun-control
laws disarm all men, but only an ingenuous person fools himself into
believing that criminals will be law-abiding! Such measures may make
crime more difficult to perpetrate, but they make self-defence nearly
impossible.
"Consider the
situation of a mother in a rough Los Angeles neighborhood, moments after
an escaped psychopathic murderer has broken into her house,"
suggests David B.
Kopel. "The woman has good reason to fear that the intruder is about
to slaughter her three children. If she does not shoot him with her .38
special, the children will be dead before the police arrive. Is the
woman's moral obligation to murmur "violence engenders violence," and
keep her handgun in the drawer while her children die? Or is the
mother's moral duty to save her children, and shoot the
intruder?" ("Does God Believe In Gun Control?")
Further,
gun-control is the key to tyranny, because a dictator would find
virtually no resistance if the people are unarmed. With regard to the
motto "Obey God, Serve Mankind, Oppose Tyranny,"
Daniel New noted
that "A motto can, on occasion, capture a whole philosophy of life, and
it can stick with a young person throughout his or her life. The phrase
‘Obey God’ is undoubtedly the most profound part of that motto. No one
can serve two masters" (Michael New: Mercenary... Or American
Soldier?, p. 34.)
One could hardly
make an argument that God gave some people the authority to assault, and
some others the duty to be assaulted. Indeed, He gave men the gifts of
conscience and intelligence, so that they may decide if an action is
good or worthy. So it is very hard to justify, from a Christian point of
view, a law whose prime effect is to disarm honest people.
One may believe
banning guns is a good thing, and campaign for gun control; nobody has
the right to do it in the name of God.
Carlo Stagnaro
[send him mail] co-edits the
libertarian magazine "Enclave"
and edited the book "Waco.
Una strage di stato americana." Here's
his website.
