American Right to Bear Arms

Question: Setting aside the obvious theological argument that it was God's will that the Israelites be enslaved so that He could Himself free them with His own strong hand, do you think the Pharaoh could have so easily enslaved the Israelites if they had been properly armed and instructed in the use of weapons?

And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred and ten years old. And they buried him.... And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, not yet the works which he had done for Israel (Jud. 2:8-10).

Here we come across the root problem of a people ripe to be enslaved: they know not the Lord, they know not how the Lord worked in their history, and they forget or ignore the explicit instructions the Lord had given them through Moses concerning the people, their rulers, and the limited role of God-ordained civil government to provide for and protect their freedom and self-responsibility before God.⁴ Truly, real freedom will continue to escape us in the absence of a widespread spiritual revival in America, because a people who know not God are perfect specimens to be enslaved; and it is happening before our very eyes!

Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people....⁵ (1 Sam. 13:19, 22).

Clearly the Philistines did not want the Israelites to be armed, so they took strong measures to prevent them from obtaining arms to protect themselves and to defend their property. An unarmed populace is easy prey for the swarms of government "agents" sent out to do the king's bidding.

An historical example of this is what happened in England after the Norman invasion to establish a basis for levying taxes on the English people. In 1085-1086, William the Conqueror set up a royal commission and sent his agents all over England to compile a minutely-detailed and privacy-destroying census. William's purpose of imposing the invasive survey was to be informed about every minute detail of the economic condition of England so he could levy a heavier "Danegeld" tax on the people. Every person was counted and listed along with all the wealth they owned--their houses, the land they occupied, their occupations, and every ox, horse, cow, and pig. "So narrowly did he [William the Conqueror] cause the survey to be made that there was not one single hide nor rood of land, nor--it is shameful to tell but he thought it no shame to do--was there an ox, cow, or swine that was not set down in the writ."⁶

I do not mean to condone or even suggest that ordinary citizens are biblically empowered, for light causes, to take up arms, against their legitimate political rulers--unless the rulers act outside of the law, thus becoming lawbreakers themselves, and thereby voiding the legal contract of limited power they swore to uphold when they took office. In cases of immediate threat or impending bodily harm, the individual citizen is certainly authorized to use the force of arms to protect himself and his family from anyone--from robbers and others who threaten bodily harm--even rogue government agents. For God does not ask us to sacrifice ourselves on the "altar of non-resistance" to tyrannical actions by any lawless entity or ruler, as He asked of His own Son, who was sent to die on the cross to ransom His elect. But we must be very cautious in considering such instances to be sure of our ground, lest we be led too easily by Satan to become enmeshed in lawless rebellion.

There is a biblical and legal principle called "governmental interposition" through which God, in His grace, raises up intermediate magistrates to protect citizens from the unlawful acts of governing tyrants. Thus, this avenue of lawful protection--headed and directed by an official magistrate at the state, county, or local level--is to be used in preference to individual action. Following this principle helps us guard against our sinful tendency to engage in lawless acts.⁷

Here I would suggest that the reader peruse chapters 19-30 of 1 Samuel in order to gain a general understanding of Saul's attempts to kill David and of what is transpiring during this portion of Israel's history.

In 1 Samuel 19:1 we find king Saul conspiring to murder David, and in 21:8 we find David fleeing from Saul to Nob, where he asks the priest Abimelech for something with which to arm himself.

Is it reading a false meaning into Scripture to ascertain that it is acceptable for a citizen to arm himself to protect his or her life from the lawless aggression of a ruler who is out to murder him? I think not. Remember that David was a man of God who sought to do God's will. Of course, David did fall into sin at various times of his life, like all of us who are but sinners saved by grace, but God Himself declared David to be a man of God.

Remember also that another godly man, Abraham, used arms to rescue Lot and his family and to recapture property. He killed the offending kings. Upon return, Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, King of Salem (Gen. 14:12-20).

Applying the principle of legal armed resistance against tyrants generally, remember also the mass genocides that were so recently perpetrated in history on defenseless citizens in Lenin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Idi Amin's Uganda, not to mention many other more recent examples. Arms in the hands of citizens, organized into effective militia as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers would prevent, or at least ameliorate such ruthless genocides.

As we keep in mind the bad example set by Saul and the good ones set by David and Abraham, let us acknowledge the inescapable fact that our own federal government, during our lifetime, has grown increasingly aggressive in its treatment of citizens. Let me cite a number of instances:

First comes a report that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas publicly stated that he feared the federal government. "I fear," he said, "and there's lots of people in this country who fear, that they may be bombed by the federal government at another Waco. I mean [the Branch Davidians] committed no crimes."⁸

True and full information about the vicious attack on peaceful citizens and their callous incineration by the FBI and BATF at Waco, Texas, is still being intentionally withheld from the general public. And part of the information suppression, in addition to the carefully constructed media spin, was the exceptionally quick and deliberate razing of the premises by federal officials. The evidence that was destroyed would have been extremely valuable to investigators at the state and local levels, who really had the proper legal jurisdiction over the Waco holocaust. But their governmental rule was illegally invaded and negated by the federal officials.

The really incisive question to ask is, "Why were the FBI and BATF agents in such a hurry to obliterate the evidence of what they did at Waco?" In short, the federal officials wrongly acted autocratically, as if these United States of America were a totalitarian unitary form of government, rather than a constitutional republican form of government with carefully divided powers at different levels. The high-level federal officials responsible for such unitary-type government action failed to uphold their oaths when they took office to "defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." Thus, they should be impeached.

Then there is the Gordon Kahl affair which started fourteen years ago outside of Medina, North Dakota. The sixty-three year-old Kahl was a mild-spoken Christian farmer and a constitutional tax protester for whom federal officials and local police set up an ambush. His son, Yorie, was shot and wounded by the ambushing group (Yorie was wearing his father's jacket and was mistaken for the senior Kahl). Gordon responded by killing two federal marshals, wounding three other officers, and then fleeing. He was finally tracked to Smithville, Arkansas, where he was "killed" by federal officers.⁹

Note the word "killed" set off in quotes. The reason for doing this is that a subsequent investigation by retired policeman Jack McLamb ¹⁰ turned up some very disturbing information. The local Arkansas sheriff, Gene Matthews, who was also killed in the melee, was found to have been shot in the back! The FBI claimed that Sheriff Matthews was shot by Kahl when the sheriff ran into the house where Kahl was hiding. McLamb pointed out that an experienced sheriff would not have rushed into the house under such circumstances.

McLamb's investigation, corroborated by an Independent Board of Inquiry made up of 12 police officers from 9 different states, shows that Gordon Kahl was assassinated by a shot in the back of his head. Sheriff Matthews was also shot in the back after Kahl was already dead.¹¹

Later investigation showed that cans of fuel were poured down roof vents of the house and that other accelerants were spread over Kahl's body and all around inside the house,¹² which was then set on fire to destroy evidence.¹³

New information has just come to light: two police officers that were involved in the Feb. 13, 1983, roadblock-ambush of Gordon Kahl have just held a news conference in which they report that they are "tired of covering up for the feds." Officer Steve Schnable was wounded in the shootout, and Police Chief Darrell Graf refused to be part of the "roadblock" that was set up to assassinate Kahl. They stated, according to John DeCamp, attorney for Kahl's son Yorie, that "powerful sources close to the case ordered their silence."¹⁴

Next, there is the Randy Weaver case in Idaho in which federal officials entrapped Weaver into cutting off the barrel of a shotgun so it would be under the "legal" limit. The affair ended with his young son being shot in cold blood while chasing after his dog, and then Weaver's wife being killed by a FBI sniper while she was standing in the doorway of their home holding their baby. Mr. Weaver and his daughters were awarded $3 million in damages as a result of a court trial.¹⁵

In Ventura County, California, on October 2, 1992, a "multi-jurisdictional task force" led by federal authorities raided the Trails End Ranch of Donald P. Scott because they claimed he was raising marijuana. Scott was reputed to be an eccentric millionaire. The raid was led by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) along with deputies from the Los Angeles County sheriff's department, National Park Service rangers, and the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. It is interesting to note that the Ventura County Sheriff's department, who had actual jurisdiction, was not invited. Scott's wife went to answer the loud knocking at the door, but it was thrown open with great force, knocking her against the wall. Scott then entered the room with a gun and was quickly killed. No marijuana was found on the Scott estate.¹⁶

In 1994, another citizen's home, that of 21 year-old Monique Montgomery, was raided by four masked men at 4 o'clock in the morning. A startled Montgomery reached for her gun and was swiftly killed with four shots to the chest. It was later learned that the masked men were BATF agents. Again, nothing illegal was found.¹⁷

Additional needlessly violent assaults perpetrated by federal agents could be recited almost without pause, but why weary patient readers? I only cite them to impress an unwary citizenry--some of whom will no doubt find the above documented instances hard to accept--that elements in our once trustworthy federal government have indeed become as bloodthirsty as king Saul was for the blood of innocent David. Therefore, there certainly is a very legitimate reason for Americans to be well-armed against the increasing potential for the use of unlawful force on American citizens by a growing autocratic and despotic central government.

The sad fact is that the citizens cited above, who rightly resisted armed attacks with arms, were uniformly killed by federal agents. While we must always keep in mind our Lord's admonition that "...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52), we must also remember that Christ's statement does not address the situation at hand. The Bible nowhere prohibits the legitimate right of self-defense. Some Christians claim that we should follow the example of Jesus Christ who could have called on His Father in heaven to provide legions of angels to protect Him, but Christ refused to defend Himself. Christ's specific role on earth was different than ours. His was to become a sacrificial lamb and Saviour of His elect. Our role is to build Christ's Kingdom until He returns. Sometimes this role calls for armed defense.

In this essay we are dealing with legally-constituted government and how to prevent it from becoming a lawless tyrant. Thus, the sad results described above do not rule out the possibility that armed resistance by citizens, under the appropriate guidance of legally-acting intermediate magistrates, might well be the means that God will use to free the American people from the federal tyranny that is now in the process of growing by leaps and bounds. I do not in the least want to appear alarmist or to appear to foster sedition, but it was the always-present threat of an out-of-control government that led our Founding Fathers to wisely include the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a means of protecting the people's liberty. (More about this below.)

Before leaving the subject of government-imposed violence on citizens,¹⁸ it is timely to look at yet another occurrence of violence which shocked the country. I'm referring to the April 19, 1995, bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. As I write, a man by the name of Timothy McVeigh is on trial for allegedly setting off the "truck bomb" which allegedly caused the deaths of 168 people, as well as the immense damage to the building (note use of the word "allegedly" twice). But there is evidence, which up to now has been carefully suppressed, that federal officials themselves may have been involved in setting up a "sting operation" which led to the "truck bomb" episode.¹⁹ This is something to watch. Only time will tell what new information might be forthcoming about the Oklahoma City tragedy.

Some observers have even suggested that people at high levels in the federal government might be responsible for the lives lost and damage that occurred. Why? It would serve as a means of acerbating public outcries for more "government protection" against alleged terrorists and for more public acquiescence to accept additional unconstitutional federal bans on gun ownership. It also helps to create in- creasing adverse public opinion against the growing militia movement in our country. The deliberate instigation of violent acts would be right in line with the tactics used by Mussolini and Hitler and other totalitarian rulers to arrogate power to themselves and then to intimidate frightened citizens once they came into power.

One item of particular note concerning Oklahoma City comes from a believable source, General Ben Partin, a retired Air Force general whose specialty is weapons development and munitions.²⁰ In a carefully drafted report, General Partin stated that the force of the "truck bomb" was not nearly strong enough to cause the extent and type of damage that was done to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.²¹ According to his study of the scene, the kind of damage and the extent of the damage could only have been caused by the inside planting of plastic explosives on the columns of the building. It was plastic explosives placed on the vertical columns of the Murrah building that caused the floors to collapse the way they did, not the low power of the "truck bomb." Do you remember early reports of two explosions close together in time? That explains General Partin's report.

Relatives who lost loved ones in the building have asked why FBI and BATF officers were strangely absent from the building when the explosion occurred.²² Again, my objective in raising these points is not necessarily to implicate the federal government in the Oklahoma City bombing, but to stress the need for freedom-loving citizens to guard against the information (and misinformation) that is handed out to them by government officials, which can be so easily used to enslave them by the government that was originally established to protect their freedom.

In 1878, Senator Benjamin Hill (1823-1882), a noted statesman from Georgia, stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and warned of future dangers that threatened our country if the federal government should ever get out of control (as it now has):

I do not dread industrial corporations as instruments of power because there are thousands of agencies which can regulate, restrain, and control them; but there is a corporation we may all well dread. That is the Federal Government!

From the aggressions of this corporation, there can be no safety.... I dread nothing so much as the exercise of ungranted and doubtful powers by this government. It is, in my opinion, the danger of dangers to the future of this country. Let us be sure that we keep it always within its limits.

If this great, ambitious, ever-growing corporation becomes aggressive, who shall check it? If it becomes wayward, who shall control it? If it becomes unjust, who shall trust it? As sentinels of the country's watchtower, I beseech you to watch and guard with sleepless dread that corporation which can make all property and rights, all states and people, and all liberty and hope its playthings in an hour, and its victims forever.²³

Let us return to 1 Samuel. In chapter 22:1-4 we find David fleeing from King Saul and going to hide in the cave Adulam. His father's family follows him, as do about 400 persons who were distressed and discontent with Saul's rule. Then David takes his family to seek refuge under the protection of a foreign king, the King of Moab.

It is good to note that David and his group did bear arms, though they did not, at this time, use them against King Saul. Later on David, with an expanded group of about 600 men, will enlist his militia under the service of a foreign magistrate against Saul.

In I Samuel 22:17-18, we find King Saul giving his soldiers an ungodly and illegal order to murder the priest Abimelech and his associate priests. His soldiers recognize the order for what it is, ungodly and unconstitutional (God's revealed Word was Israel's constitution), and the soldiers correctly refuse to obey their commander's order. So King Saul turns to a foreigner, Doeg the Edomite, to do his dirty work to massacre 85 people.

Let us comment on this passage. Note, first, that Saul's military subordinates refused to obey their leader's command, and they did so by risking their own lives, for a military commander has the power to execute soldiers who refuse to obey his commands. Heads of state and their military commanders tend to view their own commands as legal or constitutional. But God's law and our own U.S. Constitution requires that men in military service evaluate every command and weigh it against God's Holy Word and the oath that servicemen take upon enlistment to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." It certainly takes courage to do this because the weight of earthly power lays heavily on the lone individual, or the few individuals, who are courageous enough to take such valiant action. Cheers of appreciation to Michael New and other servicemen in the military who have refused to wear the insignia of the United Nations! Our country is in dire need of many such courageous men of God!

Note also that leaders tend to have their underlings do their dirty work, just as King Saul did. This observation is important in our day when so much of the evil that is perpetrated is done by faceless people who populate the many, many government bureaus that manipulate, direct, and oppress the American people today. It makes it difficult for citizens to hold the individual perpetrators of such oppression personally responsible, along with their high-place leaders. But God's Word and our whole background of Common Law requires such personal responsibility. That is why the constitutional provision for impeachment provides that the impeached person is still liable to be punished for his wrong-doings.

Finally, let us note that King Saul was guilty of murder even though he assigned the work of killing the Lord's priests to someone else. Thus, he became an outlaw to society and was subject to being hunted down and slain by others in society (cf. Gen. 9:5-6).

In 1 Samuel 23:2, we see David enquiring of the Lord whether or not he should smite the Philistines. The Lord's answer is that he should. This shows that the Lord approved of David's having armed himself and his followers, or God would not have ordered, "Go, and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah." Those who feel it is wrong to establish citizens militia or to engage in armed warfare should consider David's action and the subsequent approval by our Lord.

In I Samuel 24:4-6 and 26:2, 9, we find David refusing to kill King Saul because Saul was the Lord's anointed; even though according to the terms of Genesis 9:5-6 he would have been authorized to do so, since Saul was a murderer and therefore subject to have his blood shed by others. What do we learn here? The lesson to be learned is that of restraint; we should guard against being overly hasty when it comes to taking the life of those who try to kill us, especially as individuals, even when authorized by Scripture. Protecting one's life or family in an emergency situation is another matter; no doubt David would have used deadly force against even King Saul in such an instance.

Finally, in I Samuel 27:1-2 we find David leaving the territory of his homeland and fleeing to enlist himself and his militia (or army) of 600 men under the banner of a foreign ruler, Achish, king of Gath. Here David puts himself in the legal position of taking up arms against Saul, king of Israel. Thus, we find that David would indeed use the force of arms against murderous Saul while under the banner of a foreign ruler who functioned effectively in the same role that an intermediate magistrate would: this is the principle of governmental interposition put to practical use.

This same principle can be used to turn back the growing tyranny of the federal government in Washington, D.C., as well as in the various parts of our country where federal agencies are increasingly and so openly engaging in lawless acts (For example, the increasing incidents of breaking into private homes by the BATF, FBI, and the DEA and the consequent confiscation of citizens' wealth under new property forfeiture laws which allow federal agents to engage in these totalitarian acts on mere suspicion or unsubstantiated accusation by a third party.) These shocking things are happening right under the noses of an acquiescent and inattentive American public! And one biblical and tried-and-proven historical way to stop such massive murderous acts and illegal plunder is to establish citizens' militia which can then be called upon by State Governors or local sheriffs, as intermediate magistrates, to interpose and protect the populace from further acts of tyranny.

Does this sound radical? Yes, if the term "radical" is understood in light of its root meaning of getting to the root of the problem! No, if the term is understood to mean something done hastily and without careful thought being given to God's law and the original intent of America's Founding Fathers.

In closing, let me draw some information from an excellent publication entitled, The Constitutional Militia And The Second Amendment.²⁴ Mr. Parent cites both the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792 as legal bases for the existence of militia. He lists these advantages from the State Militia System in which citizens' militia can be called into service under State leadership:

1. The militia makes it both possible and practical for the American people to have a small volunteer army [rather than large standing armies such as foreign unitary nations have].²⁵

2. American involvement in foreign wars was restricted to the use of volunteer troops because the state militia were the only military forces that could be called up by the federal government; and this placed a key power in the hands of the people [rather than in the President or the Congress].

3. The militia provided the States with a balance of power that prevented the national government from gaining dangerous control over the nations' military. [Thus a President who arrogated unconstitutional powers to himself would be unable to use the military to tyrannize the people.]

4. The militia made it possible for each State to protect its citizens and to maintain internal order in times of emergency. [Note that this statement properly recognizes that these United States of America are a union of independent and sovereign States which compacted with each other to create the agency we call the federal government.]

Mr. Parent calls attention to some important points about the militia system in our Republic:

In order for the States to remain free and sovereign, and to provide an effective counter-balance to federal power, each State had to have "a well-regulated militia." Without the militia the States would not have the power to preserve their authority or to defend the rights of the people against any armed threat by the Federal Government.

However, the basic power of the militia was not in the hands of the States but the people! Because the people had the right to keep (privately own) and bear arms, they had the ultimate power to overthrow the Federal Government or any of the State Governments should they ever become a serious threat to liberty. This made the militia primarily a people's army.

While the States had the use of the militia, the people had the final word because they controlled the weapons! This is why the Second Amendment prohibited the Federal Government from passing any laws that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To do so would have threatened the freedom of the nation in three ways.

First, the ability of the people to resist tyrannical government by force would have been regulated and controlled by a government they might need to take up arms against someday.

Second, since the States depended upon the militia to maintain the balance of power between themselves and the Federal Government, if Congress could pass laws regulating the use of arms by the people, the States would be dependent upon a militia largely controlled by the Federal Government. (A note added by Tom Parent: If the United States and Russia were at war with each other, and the Russian government was allowed to pass laws regulating the use of weapons for the American army, who do you think would win the war?)

And third, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not only for their political protection, but for the personal protection of their homes and families against criminal acts.²⁶

Today the American people have largely forgotten how carefully our Founding Fathers constructed our constitutional Republic, and why they took such care to add the second amendment. Here are some pertinent quotes²⁷ from our Founding Fathers:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. --Patrick Henry

When the people fear the government there is tyranny.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. --Thomas Jefferson

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. --George Mason

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. --James Madison

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. --Noah Webster

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. --Richard Henry Lee

Let every freedom-loving parent teach their children to memorize the following: "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."

Tom Rose is a retired professor of economics, Grove City College, Pennsylvania. He is author of seven books and hundreds of articles dealing with economic and political issues, and the President of American Enterprise Publications. 177 N. Spring Rd., Mercer, PA, 16137. Phone: +1 724 748 3726; Fax: +1 412 748 5373.

See his biography on the American Enterprise Publications web site.

Endnotes:

1. A country with a unitary government is one in which the central government "owns" and controls all of the various levels of civil government in the area over which it exerts power or hegemony. In such a country the regional or state government, as well as the county and city governments, are considered as extensions or outreaches of the central government, to which they are politically subservient. Examples of unitary governments are England, France, communist China and Cuba, and even some so-called "republics" such as the former Soviet Union where a king, parliament, or oligarchy rule as autocrats. Examples of democratic republics, in which government power is carefully divided into different levels of separate and independent spheres of hegemony or influence are Switzerland and these United States of America. In Switzerland, for instance, the central government is supported financially by the Swiss cantons, thus it is at the canton level that political power really exists. Likewise, in these United States of America, it was the States, acting as independent political entities, which voluntarily compacted with each other to establish their creation, the United States of America, and through it the U.S. Federal Government.

The fact that our central government in Washington, D.C., is the creature and that the various states as independent and voluntarily-joined political entities are the creators is largely forgotten and overlooked today as a result of many decades of faulty teaching and poor textbooks being used in our tax-supported schools of learning, from early grade school through graduate school. In my many years of teaching, for instance, incoming freshmen, and even students at the senior level who had not taken classes from me at a lower level, were often amazed when I would stress the historical fact that our central government was established, not by "We the People of the United States," but by "We the People of the States United." There is a tremendous difference in meaning! For too many generations, the American people have been miseducated about their true political heritage, and therefore don't understand it. The sad result is that they have become politically impotent to protect and preserve their heritage for future generations.

One important point about early American history which largely has been forgotten is that originally, under the Articles of Confederation, our central government did not have the power to levy taxes directly on citizens, but had to rely on requisitions that were paid to it by the various states. In this respect our original government under the Articles of Confederation was quite similar to the political arrangement in Switzerland. It is a much superior arrangement in handling tax monies and the flow of political power in that it ensures against the always-present danger of too much power being arrogated by would-be tyrants at the national and international levels of government. It would behoove freedom-minded Americans to consider resurrecting this staunch bulwark of liberty as a guard against being enslaved.

2. The world's oldest democratic republic, Switzerland, in contrast to unitary states characterized by centrally-controlled governments, actually requires able-bodied men to have in their possession at home the most modern type of military rifles and equipment as a means of protecting their country from foreign enemies. These United States of America, another democratic republic with a system of carefully divided departments and decentralized levels of government, also sought to ensure the existence of an armed citizenry with the specific objective of protecting and preserving the people's freedom through the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But over the years this bulwark against the loss of personal freedom has been quietly but systematically undermined and weakened by forces in our Republic who seek to disarm citizens so that they will be unable to resist encroaching tyranny, whether it comes from the slow but imperceptible change of America from a decentralized democratic republic to a centralized unitary state or by the insidious subjugation of our country to an international government directed and controlled by a United Nations cabal.

3. In the respect of people's freedom, note the increasing use of quietly-issued "Presidential Orders" ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt's disturbing issuing of his "National Emergency" proclamation on March 6, 1933, which was confirmed by a called emergency session of Congress three days later. This Presidential Order has been continued by every U.S. President since. It gives any incumbent President the power to declare a national emergency for any reason he might deem "necessary," thus giving him dictatorial power over the whole country. Today it can be used to impose martial law over the whole country at the stroke of a pen. Can such power be safely entrusted in the hands of even good men? The use of Presidential Orders clearly threatens the liberty of Americans, and they can be used at any time to unconstitutionally remove weapons from the hands of patriotic citizens (and that is what this essay is all about). If changes in laws or changes in the Constitution are needed, it is much safer to propose bills on the floor of Congress, where they can be openly debated, thus giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. Short-circuiting this lengthy, but necessary procedure, is to open the door to certain loss of liberty and self-responsibility before God.

4. See Deuteronomy 17:14-20, to refresh your mind and heart on the safeguards God set up to protect the Israelites with a system of limited government. Negatively, their king was specifically instructed not to arrogate power to himself ("multiply horses") and, positively, the king was instructed to read God's Word every day so he would be armed spiritually and mentally to resist the natural and inevitable temptation to become tyrannical. Thus, rulers were to be God-directed in order to protect the people's God-given freedom. How far both the political leaders and the people of our beloved Republic have strayed from their understanding and acceptance of God's way!

5. This is just another biblical example of the evil effects of "gun control" which the Lord has provided for our enlightenment. We eschew God's instruction at our own peril! The pattern is clear: first the people stray from God's revealed will (spiritual enslavement); then they become impotent through the lack of godly leadership and therefore unable to resist encroaching tyranny; finally they are enslaved both politically and economically as well as spiritually. The clear lesson to be learned is that theological apostasy leads to spiritual impotency, which leads to political slavery, which then opens the door to economic slavery. Let us behoove this clear lesson and reconstruct our personal lives and political and economic institutions in America to be in conformity with God's Holy Word.

6. Goldwin Smith, A History of England, 3rd ed. (New York, 1957), 38. The information cited was written by a monk at Peterborough in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the "writ" referred to was called The Doomsday Book because no person could escape its judgment.

7. There is insufficient space to go into the fascinating history of governmental interposition in this essay. For those who are interested in a biblical and historical account of the principle in action, see Tom Rose, Reclaiming The American Dream By Reconstructing The American Republic, (Mercer, PA, 1996).

8. C-SPAN, February 26, 1997.

9. John W. DeCamp, Ambush At Medina: What Really Happened... (Washington, DC, 1996).

10. Jack McLamb was the most decorated police officer of the Phoenix, Arizona, Police Department. Upon his retirement, he set up a national organization dedicated to helping police officers and to help preserve constitutional freedom in America.

11. This information has been taken from a video made by officer McLamb which is available by contacting: ACLA, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066.

12. The house where Kahl was hiding was the home of Leonard and Norma Ginter, who watched their home and contents being torched by federal agents.

13. Ambush At Medina..., 24.

14. Andrew Arnold, "Look Who's Talking: New Hope for Kahl," The Spotlight, 10 March 1997, 1.

15. Patriot Report (Uniontown, AR, July, 1996), 5.

16. "Letters to the Editor," Wall Street Journal, 10 May 1995, 19(A).

17. Ibid.

18. During the 1920s and 1930s, Mussolini and Hitler both incited violent acts to induce the people to cry out to the authorities for "government protection." Then, once solidly in power they both used their police agencies to physically and psychologically bludgeon the populace into intimidated submission; thus, the dreaded knock on the door in the wee hours of the night when people are most vulnerable.

19. Mike Blair, Ex-Cop Fingers Feds in OK Blast, The Spotlight, 11 November 1996, 9.

20. I have in my possession a taped radio interview in which General Ben Partin stated that the federal Grand Jury that was called to look into the Oklahoma City bombing was "truncated" by federal officials. He said that a Jury member by the name of Hoppy Heidelberg was "cut off" the jury because he started to ask too many questions. "The cover-up," stated Partin, "was shocking and blatant." Thus, he explained, the jury was not able to complete its job. As a result, we cannot expect the truth to come out when McVeigh is tried in court.

21. Benton K. Partin, Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Alexandria, VA, 1995).

22. Note: Two days after writing this information about the Oklahoma City bombing, but before sending it off for publishing, I received a letter from Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key which substantiates the shocking information I have provided above. He clearly states that the BATF had prior knowledge about the imminent bombing and that BATF agents, according to two witnesses, were therefore warned, on their pagers, not to report to the office on the morning of April 19, 1995. Note that this information comes from a state official; it does not come from a radical and unreliable source.

In his letter, Rep. Key writes, "Elements within the federal government and in the establishment media have done virtually everything in their power to block an independent county investigation of the Oklahoma bombing tragedy. Happily though, on February 18, 1997, the Oklahoma Supreme Court cleared the way for the people to investigate the Federal Government and their investigation of the bombing. Next week we must begin obtaining signatures."

He then asks for private individuals to make contributions to cover the large cost of getting signatures and the necessary legal fees for calling a Grand Jury at the county level. This writer has responded favorably to his letter. I encourage readers to do likewise. For information, contact: Rep. Charles Key, State Capitol Building, Room 508, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, Ph: (405) 521-2711.

23. During Senator Hill's years in Congress, the corporation, as a form of business entity, was still in its early stages; and Hill was properly concerned about potentially oppressive federal control over both corporations and citizens. But, since his day in Congress the situation has changed drastically, as President Dwight Eisenhower observed when he warned the country of a growing "industrial-military complex."

Today, many corporations have grown to be mega multi-national firms that have no real loyalty to any country, and they are able to buy political influence in our country as well as in other countries. This development of widespread collusion between big, multi-national companies and the federal government has produced--and threatens to produce to a greater extent--hidden agendas for invasive and freedom-destroying centralized government power at both the national and international levels. Forewarned is forearmed. See Eph. 6:12.

24. Tom Parent, The Constitutional Militia And The Second Amendment (Naperville, IL, 1990).

25. Comments in brackets are by Tom Rose.

26. Ibid, 13-14.

27. Larry Pratt, ed., Safeguarding Liberty: The Constitution and Citizen Militias (Franklin, TN, 1995), xii-xiii, 21.

back to top