One
of the world’s chief sources of muddleheaded thinking is the failure to
understand just how comprehensive, how all-encompassing, how imperative in our
decisions, a given statement (or the absence of a statement) properly is or
isn’t.
We
Christians can easily fall victim to this kind of defective understanding. For
example, an entire denomination calling itself “Church of Christ” has the idea
that because the New Testament does not specifically command us TO use musical
instruments in church services, this is one and the same thing as the New
Testament positively FORBIDDING us to use musical instruments in church
services. That’s pure nonsense, but a whole denomination is emotionally
invested in it.
That
ecclesiastical delusion has been around for generations. But in the political
realm, a somewhat similar delusion has only very recently surfaced. This agenda-driven
delusion concerns, not the intent of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, but the
intent of Alexander Hamilton in his recommendations for the newborn United
States of America.
In the Twenty-Ninth Federalist
Paper, Mister Hamilton described at length his reasons for wanting common men
of the United States to participate in regular militia drills, as a means of
keeping the nation ready to defend itself against military threats. This made
perfect sense. But one present-day advocate of big government -- no one I ever
heard of otherwise -- recently chose to convince himself, and wrote an article
trying to convince the rest of us, that because Hamilton wanted citizens TO
bear arms in a militia, this was one and the same thing as Hamilton wanting to forbid citizens ever to bear arms at THEIR OWN discretion.
The previously-mentioned Church of
Christ delusion would never have gained any traction if there hadn’t been
Christians predisposed to think of God legalistically forbidding things. And
this recent liberal interpretation of Federalist #29 could never gain traction
if there weren’t Americans predisposed to favor the central government denying
rights to us. The modern commentator on Alexander Hamilton was assuming,
dogmatically, that the burden of proof rests upon each citizen to show that he
does have some individual right. But I say that the burden of proof rests upon
those who want to REFUSE us any right so self-evident as the right of
self-defense.
The leftist Hamilton interpreter
indulged in the usual emotional ranting about “gun nuts,” but no amount of this
will carry a scholastic study of Alexander Hamilton’s views on liberty. If you’re
going to invoke the Federalist Papers against the obvious meaning of the Second
Amendment, you need to explain why Hamilton regarded it as lawful for himself
to accept Aaron Burr’s challenge to a decidedly non-military pistol duel.
