Veni Quid Veniat

     Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected the right of mothers to kill their unborn children. Since that time, 55 million preborn babies have been killed. The court that decided the case, each Congress that failed to act to remedy the effects of the decision, and every president who appointed judges who would uphold the decision have the blood of 55 million innocents on their hands. More than that, though, every person, whether a politician or private individual, who yields support to the decision, whether directly or through their silence, partakes in the premeditated murder of thousands every day.

     The facts in the case are clear. The arguments against abortion are so numerous that it is difficult to list them all completely. One could argue, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did, that even the potential for life is worthy of respect, not violence. One could argue that, absent a clear definition of the beginning of life, one should err on the side of caution and avoid the murder of innocents at all costs. One could argue that every human life is precious, and that since the preborn child is both a genetically new human and is quite obviously alive, it is a human life and, absent forfeiture of its right to life through its actions, deserves to live. One could argue that convenience is not worth the termination of even the potential for life. Regardless of the particular argument one chooses to use, the duty of moral individuals is clear: to endeavor with all their strength to clean their hands of the blood of unborn children and halt the legalized genocide that is occurring in America today.

     That the duty to protect life is a corporate, not an individual, duty should be clear to anyone with an understanding of the basic concepts of law and justice. Indeed, the first purpose of government is to protect life against those who might try to take it. This fact is reflected not only in the US Constitution's well-known protection of "life, liberty, and property," with life listed first, but also in the legal code of every civilized nation. We cannot simply stand by and argue that it is not our choice, or that the issue is too difficult for us. If we wish to have a government it must protect all life, else no life is truly protected. If we wish to protect life, life it or not, we must define it, and no logically defensible definition of human life can begin anywhere but at the point when a new instance of the human species comes into existence.

     While all of society partakes of this duty - a duty which US society has failed to fulfill - it falls particular heavily on Christians. The argument for a non-Christian to protect the unborn, while compelling, is essentially pragmatic: if we do not value all life, what is to say that we will value yours? The argument for a Christian, however, is much stronger. Christians are flatly commanded to "Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die." It would be difficult to imagine a situation that more perfectly fits the command issued in this verse than that of an unborn child. The duty of the Christian is clear.

     It would seem, then, that ringing condemnations of abortion as precisely what it is - the violent murder of helpless innocents - would ring out from every Christian, whether pastor or layman, in the country. Instead, although some voices speak out, we are left with a troubling silence from the bulk of Christianity (and even support for abortion from some of the more liberal factions). Why is this? Even those who have gone on record as opposing abortion do not seem to have the urgency in their actions that might be expected. Every day thousands of babies are murdered, yet many cannot be troubled to denounce this genocide regularly. Why? Perhaps it is because speaking out emphasizes the horror of what is happening. As long as we remain silent it is possible to deliberately fail to realize the fact that murder is legal and to ignore the duty to act that would accompany such a realization, thus avoiding the consequences which would accompany taking action.

     Stories are told of churches in Germany who, in order to drown out the cries of Jews who were being transported to their deaths on railroad tracks behind the church, began singing hymns. Christians in America are just as complicit as those German Christians. Christians are caught up in activities and projects, ignoring the silent cries of the unborn. Christians have ignored the issue completely or, worse still, advocated allowing some children to be killed. We, as a group, have refused to consistently support political candidates who will take an uncompromising stand on abortion, despite the fact that we have an unparalleled opportunity - one that those in Germany did not have - to influence our country's policy. Many even argued that economic factors, not abortion, should play the primary role in deciding on a candidate. Every day that we ignore abortion is another day that thousands die, yet Christians seem to lack a sense of urgency. Even in politics, where we have the biggest influence (and responsibility), Christians treat abortion as a box to be checked - the candidate need only make a profession of being pro-life, however obviously insincere, and Christians will flock to the polls in droves to support him, all while loudly proclaiming their determined opposition to abortion. The actions of Christians in America, with a few admirable exceptions, are marked by a singular apathy toward abortion. This apathy cannot continue. As long as abortion continues in our country, we have blood on our hands.

     Sing louder, church. Forty years have gone by, and you still have not drowned out the cries.

     In the aftermath of several prominent mass public shootings, a heated debate over gun control has arisen, and several restrictive policies have been proposed to limit gun ownership. The debate inevitably eventually lands on the nature of the Second Amendment's provision that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some voices, particularly political liberals, contend that the presence of the phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" is a limitation on those people who possess the "right of keep and bear arms" mentioned immediately after. Surprisingly, this argument is quite common, and is generally the first objection raised when the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned. It does not, however, stand up to scrutiny.

     First, one should consider the context of the sentence itself. Here the bane of English students everywhere - diagramming - becomes a useful tool. By diagramming the sentence it is possible to determine what relationship the two parts of the amendment have to each other. The diagram below does so.

The first part of the amendment is what is called a "nominative absolute." It consists of a noun or pronoun and a participle, and, notably, has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. In other words, the rest of sentence would have the same meaning without the presence of the nominative absolute. Therefore, the amendment retains the same meaning as if it read as "The right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." The nominative absolute exists to explain the remainder of the sentence, not to change the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

     With this in mind, the amendment can be interpreted more clearly. To paraphrase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because - remember that the nominative absolute exists to explain the rest of the sentence - a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. When arranged in this manner it couldn't be more clear that the amendment refers to an individual right for all the people to bear arms (it should also be noted that "infringed" includes any form of limiting, so anything that limits the right to keep and bear arms in any way violates the Second Amendment).

     The reader may remain unconvinced. If so, there is a way to test this interpretation. If this interpretation is correct, then the "militia" in question would refer to "the people" as a whole, and we would expect this fact to be reflected in what the authors of the Constitution had to say on the matter. As it happens, they had a great deal to say on the topic. First, think about what Patrick Henry - who, I'm sure, needs no introduction here - had to say:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

Consider also this quote from Richard Henry Lee, a member of the Continental Congress and signatory of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."

 Lee apparently believed that the militia consisted of the entirety of the populace. If a clearer statement is desired, George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights" was happy to oblige.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." 

Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress gave his own description of what the militia was.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?"

Finally, James Madison, who drafted most of the Constitution, was also very clear about the correct nature of the militia.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

It seems abundantly obvious from the above quotes that the above interpretation of the Second Amendment - that is, that the reference to a militia is an explanation of why the people have the right to bear arms, not a limitation on the right to bear arms - is the correct one. The fact that a well-regulated (well-trained and equipped - note the similarity to the term "regular army," which referred to a professional, well-equipped army) militia is necessary is the reason that the people's right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Therefore, the objection that the right to keep and bear arms is offered only to a select few militiamen is flatly contradicted by both historical and grammatical context. Further, the Second Amendment denies the government the ability to take any action to infringe on - in other words, to limit - the right to keep and bear arms. For this reason, unless the Constitution is discarded or amended, any action to limit the availability of firearms - gun control, as it is known today - is entirely unconstitutional. Few people sum the matter up better than Tench Coxe:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Finally, Patrick Henry, an early skeptic of the Constitution because he believed it did not provide enough protection for state and individual rights, covers the right to bear arms as a whole in his usual fiery style.

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

     The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people. They have yielded it, in part (and unwisely), to both federal and state governments in order to create a standing army, however, the fact that the federal and state governments have such a right is no reason to infringe on the peoples' right to do the same. Any attempt to do so is both dangerous and unconstitutional, and should not be tolerated.

     "Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don't rest my dying head upon speculations for "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day."