I totally agree with you.

Amen.

Amen.

Freedom from government control involves the risk that free people will cause harm. But, too much government control involves the substantially greater risk that the government will cause a whole lot more harm. This is why we don’t allow the government to impose a lot of prior restraints on people’s freedom. And this is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I have never believed there should be lots of guns around. I agree with the intentions of the Founders as expressed in the 2nd Amendment but, as bright as they undoubtedly were, men in the 18th century could not be expected to foresee the technological and social changes that would occur over the centuries. I’m with you all the way Pr. McCain.

Agree, totally. And I take the traditional conservative view on most every other issue.

I live in Eastern Europe (Bucharest, Romania), and feel very safe here. Despite having a high rate of poverty and the highest population density of any capital city in Europe, I feel very safe in the city, day or night. I feel safe with my teenage children going around the city as well. One of the reasons I feel that way is that I have a low level of concern that some crazy person is going to have a handgun.

I guess I will be the fly in the ointment. A number of high profile tragedies involving guns happened this week. This is a bad thing. Some of the weapons used were purchased legally, some were stolen or otherwise illegally appropriated. By far the vast majority of day to day crime( the daily shootings in places like LA and NYC, most which never even make the nightly news) are comitted with guns illegally obtained by criminals. So there is a call for stricter gun laws. Then what? I can show you neighborhoods in LA where you can purchase any illegal drug you have ever heard of. They are literally drive through pharmacies, with the “pharmacists” flagging you down from the side of the road. This after 30 years of the “War on Drugs”, stiff fines and penalties, and billions of dollars poured into the effort. Guns will become like drugs, impossible to get for the average citizen, but only a 5 minute drive away for your typical criminal.More laws will only hinder those prone to follow them, and will be viewed as a minor irritation to those who don’t care. Look at England. Since the complete ban on gun ownership(except in very controlled and priviledged circumstances) rape and home invasion robberies have skyrocketed. Look at Washington D.C. -strictest gun control laws, highest violent crime rate.
I think gun violence is only a symptom of a deeper problem. We have an entertainment culture that glorifies violence as a solution to problems, and an easy onramp to manhood and respect. Public schools in many cities are nothing more than training grounds for criminals, and I have heard police officers call the prisons in CA “Gladiator Academies.” Its time to ask some hard questions of those who purvey this stuff in the name of “entertainment”, or who allow it in our schools and prisons.
Secondly, I disagree with your exegesis of the 2nd Ammendment. In every instance in the bill of rights, all the rights are personal;freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right of free assembly. I don’t think you can say that in this one instance “the people” means a well regulated arm of the government, such as the national guard or the military.
These unfortunate incidents will be seized upon by those whose goal is the outright ban of firearms ownership and they will do so with the help of people with similar sentiments as have been voiced here. They will do it under the guise of”we just want to make sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns.” In a few years the wrong people will be you and me.

For one, a militia is nothing more than a body of armed citizens. Technically, under US law, all men between the ages of 18 and 45 (excepting the Vice President, members of the National Guard and Naval Service, and a few other public officials) are members of the unorganized militia in the state in which they reside.
Secondly, that’s a canard that it’s somehow “easier” to get a gun than a driver’s license. When is the last time that you needed specific permission from the FBI to get a driver’s license? Guns are the only product in this country that you need specific permission from the federal government to procure.
Thirdly, how does someone produce evidence that they are “not being treated for a psychological disorder”? That’s proving a negative. Can you produce evidence that you are not being treated for a psychological disorder?
Finally, the reason that we can’t have more effective controls is because those of us who believe in a right to keep and bear arms do not and have no reason to trust gun-control advocates, who for years have enacted or attempted to enact legislative and administrative measures in bad-faith that would disarm law-abiding citizens, and who regularly work to muddle and confuse the debate with weasel words such as “assault weapon” (a made up category that is used to describe almost any weapon at times) or “automatic” (which deliberately confuses the distinction between single-shot semiautomatics and machine guns, which have been very strictly controlled by the federal government since 1934). A perfect case in point, very relevant in the debate over mental health histories and gun control, is when the Clinton administration added the records of hundreds of thousands of veterans who had sought counseling or other psychological help from the VA, for things as minor as depression, to the federal background check system as prohibited persons, with no opportunity for appeal or recourse. As long as the gun-control crowd continues to act in that way, to work in a dozen underhanded and fraudulent ways to rob law-abiding Americans of their rights like thieves in the night, those of us who work to defend and uphold those rights won’t give an inch.

Move to Canada!

With all due respect Pastor McCain, you seem to be using rhetoric from both sides of the argument. The fact is, regulation will slow down the process for everyone to get a legal weapon, but it will not slow the black market down. In fact, it would likely increase the street value of those guns. A psycho who wants to kill people will still find ways to arm him or herself. I think that the dangers of government interference need to be navigated very carefully in this case. When the 2nd amendment was written, just about every household in America owned a gun – you had to in order to survive the frontier. We are looking at it from a different paradigm here.
On another, but related topic, have you ever noticed that the worst shooting incidences occur in “gun-free” zones? You hardly ever see a report about a shooting during a gun show.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, every citizen was considered to be part of the militia regardless of whether they were training for military service or not. Furthermore, you were expected to supply your own weapon.
None of this has changed. We are all, should it become necessary, expected to defend this nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. This is only possible and practical when we all have the right to own a gun.
As a more practical matter, I fail to see the logic in turning everywhere into a criminal safe zone … for when was the last time you heard about a robbery inside a gun show?
I do truly wonder how many lives could have been saved had even a single responsible citizen been armed at any of recent or past mass shootings. As all of these instances have shown, the police are unable to effectively protect us even when they are able to respond with minutes – we must and should take responsibility for our own safety.

Scott,
You are correct that they could not foresee the technological and social changes that would occur over the centuries. And, indeed, they recognized this fact – I highly recommend that you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers at some point.
This is _why_ they provided a method for amending the Constitution…to try to account for these changes.
Now, if people want to rid us of the 2nd Amendment or amend it to require that one be a member of the military or police force to be able to own a weapon to be able to effectively defend ones family in owns own home, then there are provisions for doing so.

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.

Read the legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Heller vs DC. It explains why the opening portion of the 2nd amendment is an Explanitory Preamble, not a limiting cause. The real meat of the amendment is in Bold above. Both houses of congress submitted a brief supporting this position. You are wrong when you suggest firearms are limited to militia use.

Why should we not require people purchasing firearms to produce evidence that they are not being treated for a psychological disorder?

Define psycological disorder. There is a push on many levels to get many different classes of people labled as havng a psycological disorder. Smokers. People who believe in God. People who want to own firearms.

You seem to have already labled in your mind a class of people you don’t like and think are crazy: Today, a bunch of armed thugs and nut-jobs threaten me and my family. Who gets to decide who is crazy and is sane, and therefore allowed to own a firearm? You? Me? Ted Kennedy? No. Instead, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Guns will always be available to the criminal and/or insane elements of our society. Your “law” will only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms. The simple truth of the matter is that when there are armed citizens carrying firearms who are present in situations where a “nut-job” opens fire, far fewer injuries and deaths occur. Why? Because good citizens believe (as Luther taught) that allowing someone else to be hurt when you have the means to prevent it is a sin.

The hilarious thing about the Paul Revere bit is that the Brits were trying to confiscate cannons the Yanks were stock-piling for war. Cannons were not used for hunting or defending one’s home against thieves. They were for siege warfare. They were the 18th century equivalent of tanks and cruise missiles. Is there anyone in America who thinks that the newest immigrant from Jordan should be able to buy nuclear weapons at the hardware store the moment he wants one and it should be tracked in any way? Of course not. Everyone is in a favor of gun control. Everyone. No one wants weapons of mass destruction given to illegal aliens, etc. The question is how much control is necessary and when and where does it infringe upon the rights of the people or threaten to take those rights from the people.
I am not against the idea of some people owning machine guns for fun. But I am against the idea of anyone being able to buy a machine gun. I don’t think we should sell machine guns to felons (who have given up their rights) or to illegal immigrants. I think those who want to sell machine guns should check. And I think it should be tracked. That is right. The government should know where all the machine guns are. If you want to buy a machine gun for fun then you have to be responsible. If the machine gun is stolen and used for evil you must be punished to the full extent of the law. Gun ownership is dangerous. It is not for children. It requires responsibility. If someone misuses a gun you own, including your own child, you should be heavily, monetarily and physically, punished. And if you can’t wait a few days and endure a background check before buying a gun, or you can’t let anyone know you have a gun, you are probably a terrorist or have the potential to be one. If you want to own a gun then you need to take the responsibility inherent in gun-ownership. One of the things necessary is stepping up and identifying yourself to the government as an upstanding citizen with nothing to hide who is entitled to this right because he can and will handle it responsibly. This is a great hindrance to terrorists and rebels. Good!
I find the conservative infatuation with guns to be childish, and the arguments against “gun control” to be ludicrous. I can’t imagine these same people being against “car control” and thinking that any child who wants to drive a car ought to be allowed to without training or tracking, etc. Insane.
Petersen

Insane? Childish?
Harsh words, particularly in light of the measured tone in this discussion by those who disdain MORE control than what already exists.
The reasons stated haven’t been out of any childish infatuation with guns, but an adult and a Christian distrust of government intrusion into constitutional rights, and a sincere distrust of those who lobby for such intrusions, whose history proves that, given an inch, they prefer the mile.
Such occurrences as the assaults in Kirkwood and NIU inspire not only such concerned and righteous citizens as Pastors McCain and Petersen, concerned for their neighbors and our posterity, but also those whose concern is greater control of the little guy–the citizen who is simply enjoying his rights, without any thought of endangering anybody.
To think that that which is already lawlessness requires even more law–and law that can only infringe upon rights–is to put yourselves, dear Pastors et al, on their side.

I wish that those who question the right to bear arms would consider it in relation to all other rights. The right to bear arms is the right that secures all the others. Abuses of the few have no bearing on the many who carry out their vocations as free citizens honorably. To suggest that we should try to take authority away from those to whom God has given it, even though they have not misused it, is rebellion.

I did look at a site with some pertinent data: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
It appears to be in agreement with other data that I have seen. I don’t agree with Pastor McCain’s conclusions based upon simple statistical models (60,000,000 gun owners not committing crimes with their guns). I also agree with the previous writers that the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms with a preamble declaration. This preamble does not constrain the right.
Gleason
McCain: Every single one of our “rights” has restraints placed on them. Why should gun ownership be any different? Oh, yes, by the way Gleason, to which well regulated militia do you belong? When do you muster and train with it?

We can’t prevent drunk driving – maybe we should ban cars. Or is this a freedom you don’t wish to give up for the benefit of others? A bit harder to decide when it infringes on rights you value, isn’t it?
Let’s get a little more serious – maybe freedom of religion should be banned. How many have died over religion? Wouldn’t that help?
Or is it that in a fallen world, there will always be those who kill – regardless of how hard liberals try to make a perfect society by restricting everyone’s freedom. The answer isn’t more laws (didn’t work in the OT, nor will it now), the answer is Christ. This side of heaven, you can’t make a perfect world out of sinners. Cain didn’t need a gun.
McCain: I’d be content, as I said in the post itself [which you obviously didn't bother to read carefully], if it was as hard to buy and keep a gun as it is to buy and keep an automobile. Your comment shows pretty well how hysterical and irrational people can get whenever this issue comes up.

Just one important distinction – the 10 Amendments, every one of them, were enacted to protect the rights of citizens, not to describe the form and function of government. Here, militia included every able-bodied man who in serious emergency was to provide himself with weapon for duty. The common invocation of the 2nd Amendment as a basis to restrict gun ownership precisely reverses its intent and function. While there my be good reason to hinder felons and mentally unstable individuals from possession of handguns, the 2nd Amendment does not provide that basis. Other rationale are necessary.
And I have been military police, that’s militia and law enforcement – a totally different situation than the 2nd amendment clause addresses.
rh

Sorry – I should not have assumed you were aware of the law in Illinois (where the shootings took place) when it comes to motor vehicles and firearms. Illinois has some of the MOST restrictive gun laws in the states. Let me get you up to speed.
Under most circumstances, there is only a simple written test required for driving, and if one was in tune to Illionis news in the past several years, one would know state employees were SELLING commercial (truck) driving licenses without requiring any tests or documentation which led to numerous fatal accidents.
Firearms are a different matter. The application requires background information on if you were a patient for mental illness treatment, narcotics history, mental retardation, domestic battery, assault, any felonies, etc. Applications are processed by the state police, and they check their records as well.
One must have a firearms card (which needs to be renewed every 5 yrs. and subject to the same background checks) to purchase OR own a firearm. That means if your license lapse, they can take your guns.
To transport a gun in Illinois, it must be unloaded and stored in a case. Illinois has NO concealed or open carry. Machine guns are not legal in Illinois.
In Illinois IT IS harder to be licensed for firearms than for a car.
I’m sure by bringing up the following it will be more evidence for your labeling me as ‘hysterical and irrational’. In the city of Chicago it is illegal to own/possess a firearm, yet Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the states. Apparently those who decide to murder others, also don’t bother following firearm laws. Surprising, eh?
But back to the point in my posting. Make as many laws as you want, but murders will still take place, even in places with very restrictive gun laws (Illinois), and even in places where guns are illegal (Chicago) – this is a result of our fallen state, and it will continue until Christ comes again.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put rational steps in place, however, there is a point where some people have knee-jerk reactions without considering existing laws that are in place, and then start infriging on basic freedoms.
This is why I also mentioned freedom of religion. While this right does cause much conflict, it is still a basic freedom that must be protected – regardless of whether you agree with the other beliefs – less we lose our right to speak against protecting the unborn.

Two underlying points that I think are often missed are crucial to understanding why many of us are against further restrictions on gun ownership.
The first is that restrictive gun control is perceived by many as denying our right to self defense. In a bad situation when seconds are crucial, the police can be there in minutes, or half an hour if you live in Los Angeles or some other major metropolitan area. They really can’t protect you. Their greatest impact on crime is as a general deterrent or investigation and apprehension after the crime has happened. Rarely do they actually interdict violence in progress.When they do its always big news, but these incidents are in a tiny minority of cases.
There have even been court cases where police departments have been sued for not preventing violence in a particular instance. The judges have ruled that the police are not responsible to protect individuals, but only the “community at large.” Given this state of things, to restrict gun ownership involves stripping the rights of certain individuals or classes of people to defend themselves and their families, and placing the determination of who retains or loses this right in the hands of a government that is at best inefficient and at worst inept.
Secondly, just how exactly does increased gun control take firearms out of the hands of criminals? We already have mandatory background checks and 10 day waiting periods. Many classes of people (felons, people who have had restraining orders placed on them, veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, those who have renounced their US citizenship, the mentally ill, etc.) are currently barred from purchasing or owning a firearm. What further laws will guarantee that criminals won’t be able to obtain firearms?
With more firearms in this country than there are people, we will never be able to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. More laws only serve to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens. If you are serious about addressing the situation, the only real chance to effect change will be to repeal the 2nd Ammendment. That cure will end up being far worse than the disease.

I am going to stay out of the politics of this discussion, but as a point of Constitutional clarification:
Originally, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights) applied in a very limited scope. When these amendments were written, they were limitations that only applied to the Federal Government. These amendments did not universally restrict the governments of the states and only limited congress from establishing laws that infringed on religion, speech, the press, gun control, search and seizure, etc.
When the US Constitution was signed, you did not have these rights objectively as an individual citizen. The Bill of Rights just said that the Federal Government could not deprive you of these things. Your state reserved the right to decide what your rights were as a citizen and they could freely deprive you of rights “guaranteed to you” in the Bill of Rights.
Example 1: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not disestablish its official (and mandatory) Congregatinoalist church until 1833 which is a clear violation of the First Ammendment. Nearly a half dozen other states also had state churches during the colonial period. Further, some of these churches could lawfully collect taxes from their congregations.
Example 2: The Supreme Court upheld this understanding of Constitutional Law in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) which stated that freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights were restrictions upon the Federal Government alone (specifically the 5th Amendment in that case) and that the rights listed did not restrict the operation of state governments.
Example 3: During the build up to the Civil War, it was legal for the southern states to ban the printing of abolishionist literature and forbid the peaceful assembly of anti-slavery demonstrations. This is a violation of several clauses in the First Ammendment.
Example 4: In The United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to assembly “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and that the 2nd Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”
Only after the passage of the 14th Ammendment in 1868, did the governmental limitations of the Bill of Rights extend to the individual states. Until then it was a commonly understood matter of law that the states were free to govern as they saw fit. It took many decades for the Constitutional understanding of the Bill of Rights to evolve into the universal rights that we understand today (as my 4th example demonstrates).
The great myth that the founding fathers intended to craft an ironclad ammendment that protected unrestricted gun ownership by the Second Ammendment is just simply contrary to the historical record. One could argue that the 14th Ammendment is a good correction to this early mistake, but you can’t say that the modern conservative read of the 2nd Ammendment was forged by the American Revolution and meant to ensure that every man was free to carry any firearm in any state. That freedom was not granted until after the Civil War and some would argue that it was never specifically granted by any Constitutional Ammendment or Supreme Court ruling.

Being a Christian who believes following: the world was created in 7 days, the Bible is inerrant, a dead man rose from the dead, God became man, abortion is murder, homosexuality is a sin etc. is grounds for treatment for a serious psychological disorder by most non-Christians in this country.
I’m surprised by your analysis Rev. McCain. May I suggest you Kindle, “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott Jr.? It made me into a believer.
The fact is there are city councils all around this country where several men/women are armed w/ concealed weapons. This never would have been attempted in these areas. Years ago I had a friend from Idaho and I asked him what the burglary rate was in his town. He said, “None. The chance of being shot was too high.”
Another interesting fact is Hitler unarmed all his citizens upon election; had the Jewish people been armed, the Holocaust would have been avoided. He never invaded Switzerland bc he knew they were armed.

Pr McCain, I have to say thanks for opening up this highly contentious but exceedingly important subject. Much good commentary and wise argumentation has taken place and therefore hesitate to add what might either be simple redundancy or a dumbing down of the high level of discussion.
It appears to me (an avid hunter and CCL carrier) that this matter is a bit akin to the horrific mental gymnastics required to get a handle on being both saint and sinner simultaneously. It just doesn’t make sense to our limited human intellect. While I desperately wish that all citizens would act in a responsible way that is consistent with the great freedoms we have as Americans and while I wish that every gun was used for good purposes, purposes that would be consistent with a Christian life-style, I know that there will be those who do not do that, whether there was an attempt to rid our nation (and all nations, as would be needed) of all guns or not.
I know full well that the rule of force in the kingdom of the left hand is also a gift from God. And in our nation, we are blessed with the freedom to do that as individuals and thereby save many more lives than if we had only the government on which to rely. In addition, we can not only enjoy the meat we harvest with weapons, we also create a circumstance in which those wild animal herds and flocks are increased. This then fosters more wise use of the weapons, more enjoyment by enjoying the wildlife, whether one hunts or not. That fact that some refuse to live by a high moral standard, as our founders said was required for a democracy such as ours to continue, places more incentive on us who have the love of Christ in us to work with and in our debased culture for change.
What we really have then is not too many guns nor too few laws but too little biblically based morality fostered and enhanced by too much prosperity by which many live foolishly – in many ways. (How’s this for slightly altering this important discussion.)