Monday, June 30, 2008

Monday Morning Rant 44

(A disclaimer: I have been a firearms owner and user for over sixty years. I have been a Life member of the National Rifle Association since 1986. I was trained in their use by my father, uncles and grandfather with refinements added by the United States Army.)

In a rare moment of lucidity last week, the United States Supreme Court struck down the onerous provision of the DC gun ban. The issue in the case was very clear. In the Constitution we find the second amendment which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The court’s challenge was to determine the validity of the amendment as a guarantee of an “individual” and not a “collective” right. Their decision in favor of the individual right then guaranteed the freedom of each and every law abiding citizen to keep arms individually.

For the time being the allegation that arms are being kept only for service in the National Guard (militia) has been set aside in favor of “the people.” It underlines a gradual return to the originalist intent of the framers and paves the way for a continuing round of law suits against those communities who have legislated against their populace by depriving their citizens of the right to self defense and made them targets of the criminal class.

In the war on crime, this decision may be the equivalent of “the shot heard round the world.” Keep in mind that those who formed on the green at Lexington and faced the finest King George could muster, were ordinary citizens. While loosely organized as a militia, they represented a cross section of people of the town. Their leader, elected by the body, and his men showed remarkable courage in facing a formidable enemy. Later in the day, the British army faced a much larger force of colonials at the bridge just north of Concord. These farmers, millers and store keepers not only turned the redcoats, but, they relentlessly pursued them on the road back to Boston.

The individual citizen was then and is now the first line of defense for our nation in matters both foreign and domestic. Our young men and women have responded nobly to storm beaches and perform Herculean tasks over the two hundred thirty-three years since the encounter at Lexington. I have no problem entrusting them with the defense of their wives, husbands, children and property and themselves. I do have a problem with those who constantly excuse those who threaten our liberty loving people. Fortunately, a sufficient number of Supreme Court Justices agree.

Absolutely Useless Information

I came across an item this week and tried desperately to find something in it which would provide a morality tale or some other insight. I guess I shall just have to file it under, “I did not know that!”

Southpaw Presidents: "When the next President of the United States is inaugurated in January, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be asked to raise their right hand before swearing the oath of office. But that is the wrong hand for both men. They are left-handed, as were four of the last six presidents: Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. The current President Bush and Jimmy Carter are the only right-handers to have occupied the Oval Office since 1974, an era of lefty dominance that is to be extended by at least another four years. Nor is this November's battle between a left-handed Democratic and Republican nominee unusual in recent history. There were similar all-southpaw contests in 1992, when Mr. Clinton beat the first President Bush, and in 1996 when he won a second term against Bob Dole. Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election to Mr. Bush, is left-handed, as is John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee four years ago. So too is Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York, who has flirted with a White House bid this time and is sometimes mentioned as a possible running-mate for either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain."

The only question now is how many of the voting population will make this a deciding factor,

Another Man’s Parable

One of my favorite bloggers has started reading his Bible and is showing an increasing awareness of matters spiritual. Obviously, I applaud his efforts. I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to give attention to his pursuit since I treat his writing and that of his commenters as rather personal. He did receive a comment that I think I will share. At first I thought it was clumsy but then I re-read it and came to a different conclusion. At the least, it’s an interesting construction of thought.

“I like to think of Salvation and the role of the Law with the following parable that I came up with a few years ago. The Kingdom of God is like a plateau in Utah . It rises hundreds of feet into the air and on top of this plateau; the Children of God reside in relative safety and security. To keep His children safe, God has established a fence around the edge of the sheer cliff in order to create a barrier between the safety of the top and a nasty fall into absolute destruction. Understand that "The Fall" is not God's punishment. The fall is a result of human stupidity.

This fence is called The Law. It is the boundary God has established to show us what is right and what is wrong. The penalty for crossing this boundary is certain death.

Now the fence is a good thing. It keeps His people safe by showing them where the edge is. However, it has another side-effect in that it also draws His children's attention. They walk up to the fence, touch it, prod it and see how close they could get to it without paying the penalty. Sometimes people, in their foolishness, push too hard, and fall over the edge. This side-effect is not good.

His people also have a need. The desert is hot. It's dry, dusty wind courses over the plateau. The sun scorches everything in its view. His people, while safe, live in misery because of this need.

In His abundant grace and mercy, God provides for their need. In the center of the plateau, he provides a fountain. A beautiful, ornate fountain flowing with life-giving water to quench His people's thirst and to provide relief from the blazing sun. To wash away the dry desert dust and make them clean again. This fountain is Yeshua (Jesus).

The side-effect of this fountain was considerably better than the side-effect of the fence. As people notice the fountain, an amazing thing happens. They are drawn by its beauty and by the life-sustaining water it provides. One-by-one they leave the fence and wander into the middle of the plateau to the fountain. As more and more people discover the fountain, they begin to play in the waters. The sound of their frolicking attracts more and more people until nearly everyone is in the center of the fountain, playing and celebrating their deliverance.

My question now is this. Is the fence now no longer needed? Is it now irrelevant and should it be taken down? Personally, I say no. The "Fountain" didn't come to abolish the "Fence", but rather to provide for the needs of God's people. The Fence, while perhaps not as noticed or necessary as it once was, still serves a vital role. It still demarks the boundary between safety and destruction. "Youngsters in the Faith" still need to know where the edge is until they are mature enough to fully embrace the Fountain.

That said, the fence should no longer be our main focus. Our focus is on, and should be on, our Deliverer and His precious Deliverance. If we embrace the "Fountain", we are automatically within God's protection and plan for our lives.”

There you have it. It’s something to think about.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

No comments: