May 9, 2013
If we truly have a divine right to self-defense, one that is given by God and instilled in our very instincts, then the entire political ‘debate’ over self-defense is reduced to rubble.
As Mike Adams of NaturalNews points out in the above excerpt from my latest film Disarmed: A History of Gun Control, we actually see this right of self-defense manifested in all living creatures. From a dog responding to a potential threat by a show of teeth and eventual bite, to a bee sacrificing itself to protect its hive from an invader — the instinct and execution of defense is one that cannot simply be ‘turned off’ throughout nature. The queen bee cannot legislate a ban on stingers.
Humans are, of course, different than these animals. We are much more civilized (to some extent anyway), and we have created societies in which laws exist to regulate the use of physical force. The argument now stands that the use of firearms is somehow immoral, and that the Second Amendment is in fact a proponent of this immoral behavior that enables the death of innocents. This is an easy one to knock out, as we know from a study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology that around 989,883 incidents that may have escalated to homicides are fended off from the use of legal firearms per year.
But what about the moral aspect? What would peace icons have to say about the use of guns, and is the use of a firearm to defend your family really immoral?
THE MORALITY OF SELF-DEFENSE
When examining the Bible and even peace activists like Gandhi, we find that true self-defense is actually advocated to quite a large degree — especially when it comes to defending your family. Interestingly, self-defense is also advocated when it comes to defending a nation from tyranny and all forms of evil. When examining the morality of self-defense, it really comes down to acts of self-defense that are protecting innocents.
I previously wrote a piece ‘Is Self Defense Biblical‘, in which I examined the biblical view on self-defense in depth. What I found, after examining the views of biblical researchers and the root of the verses themselves, is that protecting the lives of innocents through defense is indeed a moral endeavor. But it is also one that must be done under the right circumstances, as ruthless bloodshed is not something that is judged lightly. This is made clear in Exodus 22:2-3, which highlights the right of self-defense verses unjustified murder:
“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.”
Notice that the thief in this verse is breaking into the home at night, at which time it’s justified to go ahead and defend yourself through physical defense — even to the point where the blow may end up being fatal. However, the verse details how going out and killing the thief the next day in response to his intrusion is not justified. There is a very fine line between self-defense and rage-driven bloodshed. And there is a great emphasis on being able to provide and protect for yourself and your family.
And in the event that a criminal were to enter your home with a handgun and attempt to harm your family, being unarmed thanks to Chicago-style legislation would result in the criminal achieving his or her goal.
We even see the support of such defense with peace icon Gandhi, who wrote:
“When violence is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
Doesn’t sound like the Gandhi you know? Gandhi was all about peace, and it just so happens that justified self-defense actually saves the lives of the innocent. Another quote by Gandhi that has been ignored by those who use him to prop up disarmament and gun control laws, reads:
“Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”
Gandhi wrote this in his work The Doctrine of the Sword, which details how Gandhi would have actually been able to stop the tyrannical ruler much more efficiently if citizens were not disarmed.
MEDIA SPIN TURNS MORALITY INTO SKEWED MORALITY
Those who say that self-defense through firearms is immoral, or that the very allowance of firearms is somehow against God and righteousness, are looking at a skewed version of reality. We know that on average law-abiding citizens are saved hundreds of thousands of times per year through the use of firearms, and that most firearm homicides occur from gang-related violence in ‘gun free zones’ like Chicago (where 2.5 times more Americans die than in Afghanistan). We also know that 34% of criminals report not committing a crime due to the very fear of a firearm.
When we really examine the issue, the reality is that our God-given right to self defense trumps any legislation that seeks to ignore data and reasoning alike.
This post originally appeared at Story Leak
This article was posted: Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 4:14 am