The following is a recent Presbyterian sermon.
Hits the nail right on the head.
=======
GOVERNMENT TYRANNY and the 2ND AMENDMENT

Source: Sermon, Bethel OPC Church, Leesburg, Virginia
Published: July 4, 1999
Author: Rev. G. C. Hammond
Posted on 07/10/1999 12:56:28 PDT
by EmilyPosts

Saul and his son Jonathan and the men with them were staying in Gibeah
in Benjamin, while the Philistines camped at Micmash. Raiding parties
went out from the Philistine camp in three detachments. One turned
toward Ophrah in the vicinity of Shual, another toward Beth Horon, and
the third toward the borderland overlooking the Valley of Zeboim facing
the desert. Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of
Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will
make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to
have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. The price
was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a
third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repainting
goads. So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan
had a sword or spear in his hand, only Saul and his son Jonathan had
them. (1 Samuel 13:16-22, NIV)

“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of
that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of
wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we
disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and
having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal
salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am
willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for
it.
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp
of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the
past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in
the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify
those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves
and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has
been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your
feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves
how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike
preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and
armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown
ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to
win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the
implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings
resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any
other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this
quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and
armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be
meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those
chains, which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what
have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been
trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon
the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of
which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to
entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have
not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive
ourselves longer.

“Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm
which is now coming on. We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we
have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and
have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the
ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our
remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our
supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with
contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may
we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no
longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve
inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long
contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which
we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never
to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -
we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and
to the God of Hosts, is all that is left us!

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak unable to cope with so formidable
an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week
or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a
British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather
strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of
effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the
delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and
foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means
which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of
people (80-100 million today! Mike R.), armed in the holy cause of
liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible
by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we
shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over
the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our
battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to
the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election.
If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from
the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our
chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!
The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace,
peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next
gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of
resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we
here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

You no doubt recognize these words as those of Patrick Henry, spoken on
March 23, 1775 at the Second Virginia Convention. But these words may
as easily have been spoken by a prophet in Israel in 1043 B.C. as a
patriot in America in A.D. 1775.

There were, however, some significant differences between early Israel
and early America. God had delivered Israel from the tyranny and
oppression of Egypt, and bestowed upon her a legal code which, had she
followed carefully, would have maintained her liberty in her culture and
time. But Israel thought she knew better than God. The book of Judges
records a cyclical pattern of her departure from God, her consequent
oppression by tyrants, and her subsequent repentance and delivery
through the hand of Hebrew patriots, which the Bible calls “judges.”

I. The Revelation

At the time when Saul was established as Israel’s first king, you see
Israel tearing away from God once more, and the pattern of oppression
becomes active once more, this time with the Philistines as the
oppressors. The text of Scripture which we’ve read this morning not
only outlines the strategy of the Philistines in subduing Israel, but
accurately portrays the basic contours of the strategy of all tyranny.

In order for tyrants to gain and maintain control, it is necessary
first, to divide and isolate. “Saul and his son Jonathan and the men
with them were staying in Gibeah in Benjamin, while the Philistines
camped at Micmash. Raiding parties went out from the Philistine camp in
three detachments. One turned toward Ophrah in the vicinity of Shual,
another toward Beth Horon, and the third toward the borderland
overlooking the Valley of Zeboim facing the desert.” (vv. 16-18)

In order to bring people to a feeling of helplessness, despair, and
isolation, so that they will resign themselves to being the subjects of
the despot, it is necessary for tyrants to divide and isolate the
people, and that is precisely what the Philistines did. This was the
strategy of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan before Word War II, and it
was the strategy of Great Britain in the American colonies. There is
strength in numbers, and there is strength in camaraderie – to subjugate
people, you must rob them of their sense of camaraderie, and convince
them they are utterly alone and powerless – that the crisis is too
great, and that their situation is hopeless.

That is precisely what the Philistines did.
In order to maintain that tyrannical control, it is most necessary
second, to disarm the people. “Not a blacksmith could be found in the
whole land of Israel because the Philistines had said, ‘Otherwise the
Hebrews will make swords or spears!’” (v. 19). To conquer a people, you
must disarm them. But to keep them in subjugation, you must make it
impossible for them to manufacture other arms. It is not difficult to
read between the lines here. The Philistines slaughtered the Israelite
blacksmiths, for they would be able to supply the people with arms for
resistance and revolt.

This, too, is a time-proven necessity for tyranny to remain intact.
Disarming the populace was the practice of the Grecian tyrants – it was
the practice of the tyrannical kings of Europe – it was the practice of
Adolph Hitler. In the Edict of March 18, 1938, Hitler wrote: “The most
foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected
people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed
their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.”

Lastly, to benefit from their forced sovereignty, to prosper from their
subjects’ yoke of bondage, as well as to maintain it, it is necessary
third, to tax the people heavily for the “privilege” of their bondage,
so as to maintain strict control, and to keep the people impoverished so
that they are consumed in working for their daily bread. “So all Israel
went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes
and sickles sharpened. The price was two thirds of a shekel for
sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for
sharpening forks and axes and for repainting goads” (vv. 20-21). Though
the text doesn’t say specifically, if the shekels spoken of were silver,
the cost to have their farming tools sharpened equaled two or three days
wages. If the shekels in question were of gold, the cost would be
fifteen times that amount.

The result of this action is stated by Scripture as well: “So on the day
of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear
in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.”

This is the pattern of tyranny – dividing the people, disarming the
people, and forcing them into servitude for the state. It is a
recognized pattern that is found not only in the Bible, but spans time
and geography, and is well known in the history of political thought.

In his work entitled “Politics”, Aristotle points out that for a tyrant
to remain in power, he must put in place these “three tines” of tyranny.
(1) Keep the nation embroiled in war, or some national crisis that will
deeply divide the people, and allow the tyrant to present himself to the
people as their savior, so that subjection to him will appear better
than the alternative. (2) He must be absolutely certain that the only
people who are armed are agents of the state – arms must be carefully
kept from the people. (3) He must tax the people so heavily that they
will be consumed in the pursuit of making a living, and will not have
time to reflect on the unpleasantness of their situation, nor muse on
the means to remedy it.

But what does this portion of Scripture, this revelation, have to do
with the American Revolution? Quite a lot.

II. The Revolution

Move forward with me in time 3000 years, and westward, not only across
the Mediterranean, but also across the Atlantic, to the British colonies
in America. The British colonists were facing a similar tyranny.
England was bleeding off the resources of the colonies for supposed
“crises” that needed to be urgently met. The people were deeply divided
between loyalists and patriots. The rate of taxation, though it would
seem small to us today, was outrageous by their standards. What was
worse, they were taxed without any representation in Parliament.
Their oppression, though, did not stem from their faithlessness, as had
ancient Israel’s oppression. Many had come here out of religious
conviction, to escape a religious compulsion, and to worship God as
their consciences compelled them to in the light of the Scriptures. And
while many remained Episcopal, there were many Presbyterians,
Congregationalists, and Baptists in the Colonies.

The devoutness of the population reached to its leaders as well. Of the
55 Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, only 3 of them had no
church membership. Their personal diaries reveal that they were not
merely Christians in name only, but were truly devout men. A sizable
number of them were educated at the College of New Jersey under the Rev.
John Witherspoon, and some even stayed on for seminary training under
him.
These men believed the time had come to take up arms. What
precipitated this sober decision? They had struggled under Britain’s
tyranny for years – under her outrageous taxation, under her attempts to
micro-manage every import ant aspect of colonial life. Why now, in
1776?

*It was for just this: When in April of 1775 the British marched on
Lexington and Concord an act that precipitated the “shot heard round the
world” – it was with one purpose: to seize the magazine where powder and
lead were kept, and then to confiscate the people’s arms.

Taxes were already a burden. The people were already divided. They
felt the British noose tightening around the throat of Liberty. To be
disarmed would have been not only the crowning insult, but would rob
them of their last resort to stem the tide of tyranny. It was because
of the threat of the establishment of this last tine of tyranny that
Patrick Henry proclaimed- “They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable
to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?
Will it be when we are totally disarmed?”

They saw the writing on the wall. They knew the Scriptures, and they
knew the philosophers. And they knew history. The British had deeply
divided the people, and sought to isolate those of a revolutionary
spirit. They oppressively taxed them and bled off their resources. The
last prong of the tyranny’s triad was the confiscation of their arms.
Their liberty was in jeopardy before, but had the British succeeded in
their plan of disarming the people, it would be the last nail in the
Liberty’s coffin.

But these courageous men were not willing to allow Liberty to be killed
and buried without a fight! They remembered the words of Isaiah the
prophet, “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue
oppressive decrees” (Isaiah 10: 1). And so they pledged their lives,
their fortunes, and their sacred honor to preserve it.

And so on July 4, 223 years ago to the day today, The Declaration of
Independence was approved. After the war for independence was won, in
1781 the Articles of Confederation were ratified, giving form to this
collection of thirteen new separate and sovereign states. But as this
new confederation of separate and sovereign states began to fight among
themselves, it became evident that they would bite and devour one
another, and everything that those who forged our liberty had worked for
was threatened.

And so a new, centralized or “Federal” government was proposed to bring
the states together. And though the Constitution that defined it was
approved by the majority at the Convention, it was feared that a number
of the states, Virginia among them, would not participate in the new
union, because they feared that a federalized government would one day
itself become oppressive and tyrannical.

So James Madison from Virginia proposed that the Constitution be amended
with a Bill of Ten Rights. This Bill of Rights was not a list of
government granted privileges, but God-given rights – a seawall for the
new federal entity that would say, “Thus far shall you go, and no
further; and here shall your proud waves stop.”

Because they well knew the mechanics of tyranny firsthand, the second
personal and individual right to be clarified read in its final form
this way: “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.”

Now even if you don’t know that the phrase “well regulated militia” was
taken from the writings of Andrew Fletcher, a 17th century Scottish
Whig, who defined the phrase as a Militia not subject to the authority
of the chief executive; even if you are unaware that the Militia Act of
1792 clarified the boundaries of the militia as every able bodied male
citizen; even if you don’t know that in 1917 Congress clarified that
the National Guard was not the militia, as many today would have us
believe … still, the meaning of the clause, “the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is unambiguously an
individual right. That is plain enough to see from the fact that all the
rights in the Bill of rights are individual rights, and from the fact
that the phrase “the people” in our Constitution and founding documents
always means the body of individual citizens. With these guarantees,
most of our founding fathers believed that tyranny was sufficiently
precluded, and liberty would be preserved. Which brings us to the
present. And more importantly, the question of the future.

III. The Future?

In the wake of Columbine and Conyers, how shall we view our
Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and the second amendment? Is it an
outdated piece of dusty history, the work of overzealous Christian men,
which needs now to be jettisoned, or at least adjusted?

Is the second amendment, guaranteeing as it does, the right of every
individual to keep and bare firearms passe, and should it be, for the
sake of public safety, repealed, or if the form of it is retained for
sentimentality’s sake, to rob it of its substance so as to effectively
do away with its provision?

Nine yeas ago I thought so. I was serving as Pastor of the Broughton
Presbyterian Church in Bloomfield, NJ. I was delivering a message on
the sixth commandment, which requires of us that we do every possible
and just thing to preserve the lives of our fellow man. During that
message I mentioned as an illustration the proposed statewide assault
rifle ban by then-Govemor Jim Florio. I stated from pulpit that I
thought an assault rifle ban was a good idea.

After the service one of the elders asked me to define an “assault
rifle.” After a few moments of stammering, I told him I wasn’t sure I
could. This elder (who was 25 years my senior) said, “You’re a smart
young fellow. Why don’t you look into this thing and see what it’s
really all about.”

I took up that challenge, and as I collected information on the proposed
legislation, I was shocked by what I found. Under the guise of banning
“assault rifles”, .22 rimfire squirrel rifles, ones identical to the
ones many of you men own, were outlawed, and to posses one now is to be
branded a criminal. As I continued to study the issue, I found that
virtually every piece of federal gun control legislation, beginning with
the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the present, has been based on deception.
The passage of the 1994 Crime Bill banned “assault rifles.” Yet not one
assault rifle appeared on the list of banned guns. True assault rifles
have been severely restricted since 1934. In an emotional appeal, the
president told us he wasn’t concerned about people’s “sporting arms,”
only about military-style weapons. Being an attorney, I am sure he is
aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1939 Miller Case. In that
case, the defendant had been charged with possessing an illegal firearm,
and argued that he had the right to possess it on the basis of the
Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment
guaranteed the right to keep and bear military-style arms only, and
since this wasn’t a military arm, the law prohibiting it was valid.

Though he told us that his concern was not sporting arms, the
president’s real agenda became apparent when, on April 27th, after the
massacre at Columbine High, he called a press conference, and said that
these mass murders stemmed “from the culture of hunting and sport
shooting in America.”

Politicians tell us that the number of children being killed by firearms
accidents is skyrocketing. But according to the National Safety Council
- not the National Rifle Association, but the National Safety Council,
Accident Facts 1996 Edition – the per capita fatal firearms accidents
fell to an all-time low in 1996. Among children, the decrease between
1975 and 1995 has been 64%.

You can’t turn on the news without hearing some demagogue shouting that
all of society’s problems stem from these “semi-automatic rifles and
handguns.” They conveniently don’t mention that the technology of these
guns is 100 years old, and has remained virtually unchanged in all that
time. Why are they only a hazard to be banned and outlawed now, at the
end of the 20th century, but were perfectly legitimate to own at the end
of the nineteenth century?

This all raises a question that, to me, seems very serious. Can all
these calls by politicians for the weakening of the second amendment of
our Constitution be a good thing, a just thing, an honorable thing, if
they have to resort to deception and lies in order to gain public
sympathy for them? It is a case of saying, “Come, let us do evil so
that good may come of it.”

I am not given to conspiracy theories. I don’t believe that there is an
armada of black helicopters waiting to invade every ville and burg in
America, or that the Federal government has orchestrated the Y2K problem
in order to be able to institute martial law at the stroke of midnight
on January first. But I am compelled to ask, “Why are politicians lying
and deceiving us with false data to try to convince us that the second
amendment of our Bill of Rights is an evil thing?”

Whether these people are actually bedeviled, or merely deceived, I do
not know, but either way no good can come of it. If, as our founding
fathers believed, those ten amendments are rights that God has bestowed
upon men, and which governments have no business infringing upon, then
there ought to be moral outrage when politicians call for “reasonable
gun control measures.” We should be as suspicious of that as we would
be if they called for “reasonable speech control measures,” or
“reasonable free assembly control measures.”

We’ve come to a point in our history where every issue has been narrowed
to the views of political liberals and political conservatives. Liberals
believe that all people are good, and certain inanimate objects are
evil.

Conservatives believe that inanimate objects are neutral, that most
people are good, but that some are evil. But the Bible has a different
answer, and it is the answer I am quite certain our founding father, who
were, in the main, Christians, embraced. In the Bible, inanimate
objects are not moral agents. But of people it says, “All have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God.”(Rom. 3:23). Contrary to liberals
who say that all men are good, and conservatives, who say most men are
good, the Bible teaches that no men are good. “No one is good, not even
one.” (Rom. 3:12). And our Founders knew that given half the chance,
men would gladly embrace tyranny, provided they were the ones in power
and making the laws.

We have come to a point in our history when the tines of tyranny have
arisen again, those same elements set forth in the Bible, and recognized
by Aristotle, and by political philosophers since the dawn of time: (1)
Crises to keep the people occupied, frightened, and divided. Have you
noticed how, for politicians, everything these days is a crisis? They
tell us we have a health care crisis, a Social Security crisis and an
education crisis. They present themselves as our saviors, and then,
when their new laws predictably don’t work, propose yet more intrusion
into our liberty. (2) Oppressive taxation. Tax Freedom Day was May 11
this year, the latest it’s ever been. If you don’t know what that is,
it is the date until which the average American must work to pay the
government all of his federal, state, and local taxes. From January 1
until May 11, you work to give all your earnings to the government. You
get to keep only what you make from May 12 until December 31. We are
approaching an average taxation rate of 50% in our nation. Our founding
fathers were outraged at King George’s taxes, but if congress ever began
taxing us at the rate King George taxed the colonists, we would refer to
it as “tax relief.”

*There is but one tine of the triad left to set the classic stage for
abject tyranny, and that is to disarm the populace. And we have a
president and members of congress who are working night and day to do
just that. Whether or not the goal of our current politicians is
tyranny, I do not know. But their agenda, if accomplished, *perfectly
sets the stage for it*, and it is just a matter of time before the
sinful avarice of man exploits it.

How have we come to this? How is it that we, the United States of
America, have come to sit on the brink of tyranny; to a situation in
which politicians have managed to convince many in our society that
tyranny (of course, they would not call it “tyranny,” but that’s what it
is) is good because it is secure, and that our Constitution and the
liberties that it recognizes are evil because they are risky?

The reason lies in the fact that we are more like ancient Israel than
like our ancestor countrymen. We have come to this situation, not in
spite of our piety, but because of our faithlessness to God.

We have convinced ourselves of the lie that true liberty can only come
if we can extricate ourselves from God’s sovereignty. We have become
one of the nations that the Psalmist spoke of: “The kings of the earth
take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and
against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, ‘and
throw off their fetters.’” We’ve foolishly thought that liberty could
be found by abandoning the God who sets men free, and so we have brought
ourselves to the brink of oppression and tyranny. I do not speak those
words melodramatically, or for effect – that is where we are. We are
nearer to a place of tyranny and oppression now than we’ve ever been in
our two-and-a-quarter century history.

Will we, as a nation, see our situation in time? Or will the last nail
in Liberty’s coffin be driven with our consent, not knowing until She is
buried under federal restrictions of our speech and our associations,
and of our very thoughts and ideas, that we have made a grave mistake?

The three tines of tyranny, two of them in place in our nation now, are
only symptomatic of our spiritual condition, and few seem to recognize
it – but some do. I’d like to read you a quote from the testimony of a
man before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime last month. He said,
“What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and
in doing so we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when
something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs politicians look for
a scapegoat such as the National Rifle Association. They immediately
seek to pass more restrictive laws that continue to erode away our
personal and private liberties.”

The man who said that was not Charlton Heston, or Wayne LaPierre, or
James Baker. It was not Trent Lott, or Pat Buchanan. The man who spoke
these words is not a member of the NRA and does not even own a firearm.
The man who spoke these words was Darrel Scott, father of two of the
victims of the Columbine massacre. The question and the answer he gives
could not hit the mark more squarely. “What has happened to us as a
nation? We have refused to honor God, and in doing so, we open the
doors to hatred and violence.” We open the door to the erosion of our
personal and private liberties. We open the door to tyranny.

God says, “Return to me, and I will return to you” (Mal. 3:7). “Blessed
is the nation whose God is the LORD” (Ps. 33). “If my people who are
called by my Name will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will
forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

God grant that our eyes be open, and we turn to him once more, and in
so doing slam shut the door of tyranny for ourselves, and the
generations of our children to come.

———————————————-