Pastor's Blog

I saw this gun control meme the other day. We shall call it the “kid on the playground” argument. It’s meant to be a rebuttal of the gun rights argument, “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.” What do you think? Is it a valid rebuttal? The “kid on the playground argument” is an argument from analogy, comparing one situation to another. But it fails in a number of ways. An argument from analogy is only effective if the two things being compared are similar in their most essential points. But this is not the case with the “kid on the playground” argument and the “good guy with a gun” argument. First, a kid on the playground throwing rocks is not very similar to a man firing a gun in terms of their effects . We’re comparing cuts and bruises to lethal wounds. This is a fatal flaw in the analogy. But there is more. In the “good guy with a gun” argument, there is no one analogous to the teacher in the “kid on the playground” argument. There is no one who g...

In several previous posts I have referred to and quoted the work of Joseph Story, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1811-1845), a friend of several of the Founding Fathers, and the author of  Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States  (1833), a work that set the benchmark for interpreting the Constitution for the rest of the 19th century.  It is often interesting to consult the views of those who lived at or near the time of the Founding of the country to see how they compare with politicians and pundits plying their trade today. Here is Story’s commentary on the Second Amendment: § 1889.  The next amendment is: “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.” § 1890.  The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence [ sic ]...

In light of the debate about the Second Amendment and the gun laws our President would like to see imposed, it might not be inappropriate to remind ourselves of the Founders' views on the subject.  James Madison, in Federalist 46, argued in favor of ratifying the Constitution in spite of the fears of the anti-federalists that the federal government would then have the authority to command a “regular army” and thus the power to deprive the people of their liberty. There were, in Madison’s view, two insurmountable obstacles to this kind of federal tyranny:  (1) the power of the state governments, and (2) a well-armed American populace, two advantages not enjoyed, he observed, by the people in the nations of Europe. Here are his words: Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to ...