A Commentary on the Modern World


Tragedy as the Basis to Restrain Freedom of Speech

The value and freedoms of individuals are always restrained by their negative effects on others. The Founding Fathers said that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created and endowed by their Creator, certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The government was established to punish people who infringe on these rights, and in the pursuit of the government to punish those who infringe on these rights, it is often experienced that those who take the right to life, would in turn lose their life. Those who abuse their liberty, temporarily lose their liberty. And those who rob men of what they attain in their pursuit of happiness should likewise pay fines of loss to make amends from the goods accumulated in their own pursuit of happiness. Unless my eyes and experience have deceived me, this is what can be seen of the manner in which this republican federal government has typically sought to punish those who seek to infringe on the freedoms of American men, women, and their children, ever since it was established.

Now what can be said, however, is that it would be a damnable offense for a person, who either of ill mind or emotional response, sought to take the life of another person and such a murderer was used as the basis for why the freedoms of others should be taken. Justice demands that those who take must give to make what amends can be made, and the government that seeks to do so, indeed, exercises justice. The government who limits that punishment illustrates mercy, while the one who does demands nothing but offers forgiveness for these wrongs provides grace. Since the government has been ordained by God to punish those who abuse their freedom to steal life and what has been gained in one’s life, it is inexcusable for a government to take the liberty or property of people who did not take the life, liberty, or property of others. Can such a thing be considered just? For a government is ordained by God for the purpose of punishing only those who have done evil so that such practitioners of death and destruction would find no solace in the company of these people. Hence, only the life of the murderer should be taken in this republic, and not those who only wished or thought to murder. Only the goods of the thief should be relinquished to make amends for what was taken and not those who coveted or envied. Only those who have thought and acted in their liberty to destroy the lives and properties of others are the focus of punishment, and it has always been the purpose of God in government for the government to punish the evil doer, for this is why He said the government “does not bear the sword in vain.” (Romans 13) While the freedom to administer grace should only be in the hands of those who have been offended, the government is always to administer justice, not merely to enforce the law , for laws can be corrupted by evil people. Rather, the government always seeks to punish the theft of life and goods. Laws are to make this truth more clearly.

In the light of these truths, we can see that it would be a travesty to justice if the government were to punish anyone other than the evil doer. Only the rights of those who, they –themselves – have physically infringed upon the life and goods of another, should be suspended as a punishment to that specific evil doer for it is against the ordinance of God for the government to take the freedoms of law abiding men and women as a protection to the people. Truly, popular culture has expressed in countless films that mankind would be safest when mankind is completely incapable of doing anything at all. With the murder of those in Tucson, we must embrace our freedoms. For it was a murderer who infringed on the lives and liberties of others, and it is this murderer whose life and liberty should be taken. It is irreprehensible to take the life or liberty of anyone other than those who take the life and liberty of others , not merely in word or thought, but in the effort of their deeds. The sword of the government should be reserved for those and those alone.



Jared Loughner, Carolyn McCarthy, and Gun Control
January 10, 2011, 11:00 am
Filed under: Uncategorized



It has almost been two days since the now infamous Jarred Loughner shot up an Arizona “Town Hall” murdering 6 and seriously wounding 14 others.   And, up until now, there has been little politicization of the incident. Save for an ignorant sheriff and an overzealous blogger, the incident has been reserved as the actions of a madman, rather than the result of the brainwashing of Republican or Democrat ideologies.   However, it is very important to acknowledge what will assuredly be the next debate to rise from all of this: Gun Control.

In this modern world, the government seems to provide solutions to the problems of man.  From a Biblical perspective, Romans 13 teaches that the government is founded to protect people from evil deeds saying that the government “does not carry the sword in vain but to punish the evil doer.”  Laws are brought in to clearly define what is evil and what is good.  Hence, the law comes in to forbid the behavior that will be punished by the government.  So ideally, the government will punish evil and will produce laws to clearly define that evil.

Now as it pertains to this situation, Mr. Loughner had his heart set to murder.  The weapon of choice was a gun. For this reason, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has set her heart to outlaw guns. Effectively, she presumes that because Jared used a gun to kill these people, there wouldn’t have been a mass murder had a law existed to deny him a gun.  Hence, Congresswoman McCarthy believes that the solution to the problem is dependent upon the government adopting a law to prohibit the possession and use of guns.

Now let us briefly interpret this from the biblical understanding we have just obtained for the purpose of the government.

  • God purposed the government to punish evil with the sword.
  • The Government issues laws to expose that evil.
  • Hence, laws reveal the evil that the government will punish.

Effectively, a law against guns suggests that merely holding or possessing a gun is, in and of itself, an evil act.  Yet, we must now ask ourselves, is holding or possessing a gun ‘evil’?  Logically, this does not hold up because there are millions of Americans who have both held and possess guns but have done no wrongs to anyone with them. Thus, evidence can be shown that holding and possessing guns is not evil.  However, using a gun to hurt someone is an evil act, and that is the case that will be made to outlaw guns.  But be cautious to allow the government the authority to say, rather ignorantly, that holding or possessing a gun is evil, as such laws banning them will do.  The government bears the sword to punish evil deeds, and evil deeds are outlawed to inform the public of what deeds the government will punish with the sword. To outlaw the possession of guns is authorizing the government to deem that holding or possessing a gun is evil, when in all actuality, no evil is being done.  Obviously the intent of the congresswoman is to outlaw what can be used to inflict suffering on others, and she has a noble motivation, indeed.  Yet, the motivation in this case cannot be properly or logically applied, for if guns are outlawed because they are used for evil, it is only rationally consistent that every thing that HAS been utilized to hurt others, even self, should also be outlawed, such as baseball bats, alcohol, knives, ropes or even pillows.

While many think that the law will protect the people from those who seek to do evil, I fear that such faith is misplaced.  The harsh use of the government’s “sword” against the evil doer will do far more to deter evil and protect people than a law outlawing the murderer’s weapon of choice, which will always vary according to the person and what is available to them.

Don’t agree? Sound off in the comments section, and we’ll chat.