Two Thoughts For To-day
First, I want, for posterity, to include content from an email to a friend. It’s about the second amendment and Bruen opinion. I know the email will never be deleted, but this is easier to find and I like the compact way I developed my thoughts.
My full attention response to your statement of the crux of the matter is as follows: by virtue of it being in English and law in a political State, the Second Amendment means something. Rather, it meant something. And by meaning something, there are things it didn’t mean. It had nothing to do with SpaceX, for example. Or vehicles in general. The rub is not “regulation”. The rub is “what did it mean?”
To be clear, I’d even be fine with deciding it is unintelligible and we’ve been fools for two centuries-plus for treating it like it had meaning.
****
My feeling on the passing scene is the Left will always insert straw men (“it’s about safety” or “it’s about how far does the second amendment limit regulation”) because the most plain meaning of the words (if there is any meaning at all) is, “Citizens ought be able to instill fear in the hearts of seeming attackers AND, if attacked, connect the remaining space between threat and action with certain death.” And the Left will never admit this paraphrastic or philosophical meaning because they are the attacker.
There’s no sweet spot, D-. There’s meaning. Should citizens be able to make this connection between threat and action or not? What do we believe? I say absolutely. And I mean this regardless of whether there is a second amendment, regardless which country I am in. I believe the best political philosophy on weapons is citizens must bear them. Did the second amendment teach me this? It doesn’t matter. Does the second amendment mean this? I believe it does. And part of the reason I do is that these men were revolutionaries themselves. Had they not had weapons, they wouldn’t have founded anything. By way of analogy, a mathematician who denied numbers are useful to his profession would be the same as a Founder meaning otherwise than I believe he did by the words of the second amendment.
****
Random slaughter? That’s also not a concept in the sense that you meant—unless the holocaust and all the major atrocities of people with guns against people without guns are included. In church world we say, “The Gospel levels the field.” In the same sense, so do guns. We’re all sinners. We’re all possible victims—and we ALL should be. No man, not the government, not “you or anyone else” gets through this lifetime without fear of attack.
****
That’s the email content and first thought for today.
Second, I want to say that I love hearing from people who I disagree with. In this case, I have been doing my best to understand the “women will be hurt” argument on the Pro-Choice side of things.
So far as I can understand it, in the end, the argument doesn’t really mean “women”. By “women” they really mean “children”. No, I don’t believe they mean “female people under the age of 18 will be hurt.” Instead, I believe that the “person” they mean by “women”, in the sense they employ, has not yet achieved adult status.
Adults have to make decisions. “Should I live here or there?” “Should I date this person or that?” “Should I rust out or wear out?” “My primary circumstances have changed, how does that affect my next decisions?” These are inescapably adult decisions.
“I want my way here and now, there and now, and now and forever—without consequence”, that’s a child. That’s a child, no matter the age, no matter the sex.
I believe this is a wise assessment. But I also believe it furthers the conversation in a good way by providing something meaningful to respond to. So if you disagree with the big overturn or how I have characterized this “women will be hurt” part of your stance, and if you enjoy conversation, then please comment below. I’d love to hear how I’m misunderstanding things.
Captain's Log 
Happy to! 😂
Embedded in your argument is the idea that your understanding the 2nd amendment is a right—a necessity, correct?
Let’s stretch that argument to the gospel. The other leveling of the playing field that many fail to adhere to when it becomes inconvenient is the God given right to choose. That we all get to decide who and how we want to walk the earth, that we get to decide how we interact with our bodies and each other, that conscience and knowing right from wrong is inherent in our makeup—all of this is a part of the Bible we say that we believe.
How antithetical is it for Christians—or other Judaic religions—to tell people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies when the sovereign God decided that it was to be so, consequences not withstanding (as we all know that good old principle of sowing and reaping never ends). Why the pressure to “decide for” women what they can and cannot do to their bodies? Looking at the rate of choice—the number of men who “choose” rape, “choose” abandonment of the children they create, “choose” to not marry or protect against pregnancy in the ways made available to them—why is it so important for men to DECIDE for someone else when they get to choose?
This is my problem with the ROE v. WADE overturn. The decision to make choices for others when God doesn’t CHOOSE for us. Even in His decisions to call us unto Himself, He does not force us. We still get to choose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for engaging. I think I see two different threads in your comment. 1. Freewill for the individual guaranteed by the God of the Bible. 2. For lack of time to make it softer sounding, Why is regulating abortion so much more important than regulating suicide? (You didn’t mention suicide, but it’s the extension of freewill when it comes to all that is me and mine, imho—which is your second paragraph.)
Then I see two parts to how you see Roe v. Wade. A. Abortion is/is not in the constitution. B. Do you, Pete, think it should be in the constitution as a protected right, as in should it be an amendment? (The only way I see to add it legally to the constitution.)
1. I think a sober assessment of the scene presented in scripture regarding freewill is “mystery”. Romans 9:18 has, “So then he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.” (See rest of passage for context.) This, of course, is just one example of the concept of mystery of where exactly is freewill when it comes to the LORD, but the LORD is certainly presented as “hardening hearts” in the accounts within scripture. (IE the LORD is presented as moving folks around a chess board.)
2. I’m staring at my three month old right now. I see so much opportunity for good and bad staring back. I hope good prevails. But bad may. Happens to anyone, it seems. I can say the same about what I see when I see a pregnant woman. So much opportunity for what’s inside her. I can even say the same for when I see any ol’ adult. So much opportunity. But with an adult it’s like, juuust a little bit less than a baby, and the little bit becomes larger and larger as time goes by. That’s why I care more about deciding for a woman what to do with a baby. Lots of opportunity for good. Put simply, pregnancy gives me hope.
A. Unlike what the second amendment protects as a right, (for good or bad), abortion is just not in the document. If you haven’t read it recently, I think you’d enjoy it. Super short. Super odd. And shockingly limited.)
B. I cannot say I’d take any part in pushing for abortion to be a “right” protected by the constitution. But I wouldn’t do anything beyond possibly who I voted for, if I vote, to stop any movement to make it so. If the citizens want it, that’s what “we” want. I don’t mind being in the minority on a belief.
Did I miss anything or misrepresent anything you wanted to chat about?
LikeLiked by 1 person