After each violent weapon incident, the old debate is renewed that implies that the 2nd amendment has outlived its usefulness. It might be useful to view this as well as other constitutional elements in light of the cultures existing at the time of their institution versus that of today. In fact we will discover that the bill of rights authors lived in a culture which included respect for the 5th Commandment as well as the others. The Supreme Courts’ subsequent removal of this assumption requires a review of this relationship and a resolution of whether to keep the 2nd amendment and restore the Commandment culture or continue with the progressives’ deterioration of both.
What is commonly called Judeo-Christian culture is that backbone of Judaic law, the Commandments, which continued and was even expanded on by Christ to be a spiritual moral basis within diverse secular governments as opposed to the laws of one nation. This culture was pervasive in Western civilization. While Luther’s concept that violation of Commandments did not impact the salvation of a Christian, neither he, nor any other major Protestant leader denied the efficacy of the moral order reflected in the Bible. An example of this can be seen by the unanimous condemnation by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other Protestant leaders of contraception–a moral position which was accepted until the Anglican conference of 1930 which allowed for marital contraception, the beginning of the end which has resulted even in Anglican approval of ordination of homosexuals and the underpinnings of the case for same sex marriage. If this most subtle of issues was shared by Protestants and Catholics alike, the more obvious expounding on the Commandments were surely taken for granted in colonial times.
Thus even though obviously violence was not unknown, some framework for justification for war (e.g. the Declaration of Independence) and more personal forms of self-defense were expected and incorporated into law. While the fracturing of Christianity due to the inherently personal nature of Protestantism was the basis for the various colonial relationships to denominations, it was also the reason for the 1st amendment in order that all would have equal freedom. But while denominational differences involved sacramental questions or salvation requirements, the Catholic moral inertia remained the standard for behavior. Thus when the right to bear arms was sanctioned, respect for human life was unquestioned barring serious and legally sanctioned exceptions regarding self-defense.
The basis of the Commandments which would also have been pervasive when the Constitution was written is that there is a personal Creator God and that mankind is a reflection of him, although separate and subordinate to him. Some Commandments deal with our relationship to God, others to one another. The thought that public prayer to God said by individuals in various contexts would have constituted an inappropriate government intervention in religion has no documentation in history.
If we move to 1912 and the composition of the Arizona Constitution, we see daily audible prayer by the founding fathers of Arizona, giving a glimpse of the prevailing attitudes regarding the religious aspect of the 1st Amendment, yet if we fast forward to the “enlightened” and “progressive” last half of the 20th century where the courts have managed to ban the 10 Commandments from public view, God has been expelled from school, and earth is capitalized in the new pantheism which pervades the school system as the new God, albeit a rather helpless one that needs our help to “sustain” Him (or is it Her?). Even if a child is exposed in his family to religion, that is systematically impugned as unscientific (compared to, say, Darwinism or Global Warming, and certainly the newer definition of family itself), to the point of being impotent, not only for the 5 school days, but reinforced by the Hollywood barrage of secularism, including irresponsible sexuality (inevitably leading in real life, though handily neglected on the silver screen, to abortion, STD and divorce with its many attendant social problems) and gratuitous violence.
Abortion acceptance adds to the moral confusion regarding the sanctity of human life. The early nation’s attitude regarding abortion was, from a state-by-state perspective unanimous–that it should be criminal–another carryover from Christian tradition that was cavalierly wiped away by Supreme Court decisions. That the sanctity of human life is compromised is evident by the fact that abortion doctors can get subsidized by Obamakare for killing as many people daily as were killed in Newtown, for which victims Obama shed one of his big crocodile tears for the cameras.
Thus when a marginally sane or poorly socially adjusted individual is faced with some personal crisis, his tendency toward misuse of weapons available is only to be expected. While it should be no consolation for any liberal that the victim(s) of such people have just as much chance to be liberals as conservatives, they persist in following the left leadership’s response: let’s ignore or even get rid of the 2nd amendment.
While the Newtown Connecticut incident has motivated this cultural evaluation regarding the 2nd amendment, it is by no means the only relationship between the Constitution and the Commandments that is interdependent. For example, who would consider that the 1st amendment guaranteeing free press would be of any value unless constrained by the 8th Commandment (regarding honesty)? The entire order of society assumed in revolutionary days based on the Christian definition of family under the 6th Commandment is undergoing a frontal attack. And socialism’s sacrament of redistribution of wealth through ever more graduated income tax has superseded the 7th Commandment against stealing.
One thing is obvious to the most casual observer. The existing situation is dangerous. The present system of freedom to bear arms combined with hostility to the basic foundations of culture through a false reading of the 1st amendment as done by the Supreme Court is a deadly gambit by progressives that decent people won’t have the stomach for the inevitable violence and surrender the 2nd amendment. The result has been recorded numerous times in history that the tyrannical governments’ violence and oppression against their defenseless populations necessitates allowing an armed population. Regenerating the respect for the commandments, not repealing or ignoring the 2nd amendment, is the best hope for peace as well as health and other benefits in this imperfect world. Since the Supreme Court can’t figure this out, if a Constitutional amendment is in order, it would not be to nullify the 2nd amendment but to clarify the 1st amendment and reinstate the basic religious culture into the public square in such a way that they have no way to squelch it.