Saturday, February 6, 2016

BernieCare

So the following FB discusison took place, and I promised to post a longer discussion, but as FB is not a good media for that, I have done it here on my blog. The subject is the constroversial BernieCare.

Posted on Facebook:
It’s time to join every other major nation and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege. That's why my ‪#‎MedicareForAll‬ plan provides health care to ALL Americans, including the 50 million uninsured or Underinsured—the only plan that does that.
Medicare for All means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges. Which means a family making $50,000 would save $5,807 a year under my #MedicareForAll plan.
I replied
1 - single payer - already failed on constitutional grounds when Obamacare wanted to do it. Why should we think Bernie will suddenly make it constitutional?
2 - same standard of care for people everywhere - um, how? works in Europe where a short ambulance ride can take you anywhere in the country - not so much in a country 4000 miles wide. Building that kind of infrastructure is incredibly expensive.
3 - Gov't could negotiate prices... it can now, but chooses not to. Look at Japan, where the gov't negotiates prices without providing the healthcare itself. BTW this is the only part of Bernie's plan that makes sense and is doable, and the least likely to actually be implemented.
The fact is whoever pays for medical treatment gets to say what medical treatment you can get. And when that decision is removed further and further from the patient, the patient has fewer choices about their own body.
and the O.P. replied (in part):
I'm one of the 29 million uninsured. I'm costing you money. I have a couple of chronic conditions that require doctors care that I do not seek out. Every time I do go to the hospital or doctor, I cost you money. I know that. You know that. 
..and with BernieCare you would cost me money whether or not you went to the hospital or doctor. This isn't really an argument for BernieCare but rather against it. But think about this. Obama promised that Obamacare would cover the 29 million (or 20, or 50 or whatever number you want to claim) uninsured. it did not.
It covered (debatably) 17 million people at a cost of $1.35 trillion. Those are the feds' own numbers, not my claim. That means Obamacare cost taxpayers $135 billion per year to cover 17 million people or $8,000 per person per year for insurance. That's not a bargain.

Now Bernie claims if we just do his plan it will cover the 29 million (or 20 or 50 or whatever numer you want to claim) and be cheaper. Why do we think it will be different? I'm reminded of the saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me."
...I do have some experience with both the pharmaceuticals as well as the health insurance industry. It is an absolute nightmare. What is wrong with streamlining things, what is wrong with having one or a few systems (instead of hundreds...thousands?), more efficient! What is wrong with asking everybody to put some skin in the game? What is wrong with asking those who accumulate the most to contribute their fair share?
What is wrong with steeamlining things? Nothing, but making soemthing bigger usually is the opposite of streamlining. There's an underlying assumption that if big medicine was bigger it would be cheaper. Where's the rationale for this? Big medicine is expensive today precisely because it is big.

The is such a thing as "economy of scale" - where the incremental cost of making the millionth widget is smaller than making the first one. That leads to cheap goods through mass prodcution. The problem with applying this to everything is that not everything fits the model.

First off, medical companies (by this I mean phramaceutical companies, hospitals, insurance companies, etc.) are already big. We're not talking handling a dozen versus a million patients, but handling tem million verseus one hundred million. There simply isn't anything more to be gained by economy of scale.

What we do lose is competition and responsiveness. Here I'm going to dive briefly into the principle of subsidiarity. From Wikipedia:
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. 
[Subsidiarity] holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently. Functions of government, business, and other secular activities should be as local as possible. If a complex function is carried out at a local level just as effectively as on the national level, the local level should be the one to carry out the specified function. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the human person. Subsidiarity assumes that these human persons are by their nature social beings, and emphasizes the importance of small and intermediate-sized communities or institutions, like the family, the church, labor unions and other voluntary associations, as mediating structures which empower individual action and link the individual to society as a whole. "Positive subsidiarity", which is the ethical imperative for communal, institutional or governmental action to create the social conditions necessary to the full development of the individual, such as the right to work, decent housing, health care, etc., is another important aspect of the subsidiarity principle
So I ask, does the federal government do a better job of providing health care than private industry? If we look at government helth care, such as the Veterans Health Administration or Medicare, the answer is a resounding NO!

What it has done is lowered the standard of care, treated human beings as products and objects and increased costs through the roof. Why? Because, for one thing, health care regulations are being written by health care companies, not by their patients. So the system is designed to maximize profit, not level of care.

Think of it this way. If you are going to buy a car you will find the one that best suits you at the best price. If you ask a rnadom person to buy a car from you they will buy something that suits them with no regard to what it costs you. So it inevitably is when you have someone else paying the bills.

My mother was recently hospitalized. Medicare does not pay until the patient has been an in-patient for three nights. Guess how long her stay was? Did she need to be there three nights? Did she need to be there longer? That's immaterial. The hospital did what they had to do to maximize profit - they are a business.

Everything in the system is regulated such that the practitioners have to pay for the right to practice, and for the right to be paid. The patients have to pay for the right to get medical care, but also they can only use those providers and treatments that are approved (in other words, those that have paid to play in the system). You yourself have experienced this.

Is making the system bigger, and having less control over it going to improve the situation? No, it's going to give the patient less control over what happens to them.

That's not to say all government involvement in healthcare is wrong. Look at Japan. They have a higher standard of healthcare than the US and at a much lower cost to the patient. How? Not a single payer system, but rather government regulations of consumer cost. But implementing the things that have worked in Japan would mean US big business would become less profitable. Not going to happen here without grassroots effort - and certainly not imposed by a president.
I'll be perfectly honest at this point I don't give a s*** about constitutional, the Constitution guarantees the right to life. This is about providing that right to the people who the Constitution protects this is the ultimate protection. Health care needs to be accessible to all. When you put profits in front of people the people pay the price.

How ironic. First off, you'd darn well better care about the Constitution. The Constitution is the "contract" between the people and their government, which limits the power that the government can have over the people. It doesn't guarantee right per se, but limits the governments power to trample those rights that we have.

Throw it out and you give the government unlimited power over you. You will hold to the state religion, give up your guns, your rights to control your own body, your rights to own proerty, speak freely, etc. And no, this is not rhetoric. If change is to come it must come through a constitutional means or we have lost the freedoms of this country. even if something you like can't be done, it's still better to have the protections of the constitution than not. Ask the Germans, the Russians etc. about how well that works.

You do realize that giving the government a monopoly on health care means that they will in fact haev the power of life and death over you - and they will deny claims. Every insurance company has to - the difference being with single payer there's no alternative when they do.

Secondly, you are right. health care does need to be accessible to all, and when you put profits in front of th epeople the people pay the price - but what you are suggesting is doing just that - institutionalizeing and strengthening a system taht puts profits ahead of people.
I'm tired of one person getting an effective treatment for the same condition that somebody else has and their insurance company can deny that coverage even if it will work. 

Again, look at Japan, not Europe. Stop putitng more and more power into a bigger and bigger insurance system and start looking at regulating the cost to consumer and getting rid of excessive profits.
I'm so very tired of all this political posturing and bullshit. I feel left out of the entire political system. So I'm going to vote for the wild haired Jew who's impressed me with his humanist proposals. I'm going to vote where my conscience says I should.

And surprise, I agree with you (except for the wildhaired Jew part). You should be involved, you should vote your conscience. But be an informed voter. Read beyond the campaign promises and look at what's real.

Both political parties have alienated the majority of American voters by pandering to their own power. I feel left out too. We all do. And perhaps it's time to dump the failed two party system.

But here's the thing - you and I have the same goals - just different ideas of the best means to get there. Too often people (especially on social media) demonize the person as wanting "X" (immigrants, the sick, women, children, etc.) to die, because they dont' agree with a particular law or policy. I frankly am sick of this tribalism (on both sides of the fence). Let's at least presume that people are decent and if they don't want law "X" or policy "Y" it's because they have a different law or policy in mind that they think is better, not because they hate people.

When you say "what's wrong with all people getting decent health care" I say "not a thing - let's do it!" The difference is not that one of us wants good things and the other wants to stop good things, the difference is that we have different ideas about the best way to provide those good things.

I believe that the best way to provide affordable health care is to give more control to the people, not big business. I believe that the role of the government is to level the playing field so the little guy has a voice in getting goods and services, not to be the sole provider of goods and services.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

The Revealing Science of God

This is in response to a recent discussion on Facebook wherein an atheist claimed religion was wrong because it did not follow the scientific method. Specifically it does not admit that it might be wrong.

I wonder if this person would admit that he is wrong about religion, because he is - about Christianity, at least. Yes, there are religions that are entirely "this is the way things are because Religion™" but Christianity is not one of them. Here's what I mean:

1. Christianity is based on empirical evidence. Unlike every other religion, the basis of Christianity is a series of events that are public and were historically documented. Jesus performed miracles and taught to thousands of people. He was executed publicly and after his Resurrection continued his public ministry to thousands.

These events are documented not jus tin the Bible, but by secular historians and witnesses. We have said evidence that these events actually took place - not just by the number of people who witnessed them, but by the fact that those witness would undergo torture and death rather than rescind their testimony.


2. Christianity is based on logic. After Christ's Ascension some of the best minds over the next few hundred years teased out the logical implications of those events. The principle of "Occam's Razor" is sometimes thrown about by atheists to imply that the explanation of religion is overly complex. Yet they fail to remember that William of Ockham was a Catholic Franciscan Friar.

Attempts to dismiss Christianity based on logic arguments fall down themselves based on logical contradictions. Because it is evidence based, Christianity is the most easily falsifiable religion. And yet if you deny the basis of Christianity you come up with a problem elsewhere that requires extraordinary faith to solve.

For instance, suppose we believe the Resurrection didn't happen. Then what happened to Christ's body? Do you propose that a small group of frightened persecuted Jews were able to overcome Roman guards? All the Romans had to do to discredit the Christians was to produce the body of the man they had killed.

OK, maybe Christ didn't really die. Now you suppose that Roman executioners whose job it was to ensure the condemned were really dead, couldn't do so. And that putting a spear through someone's heart was not enough to kill him. Or, for that matter, that someone who had undergone scourging or the other tortures to which Jesus was publicly subjected to could, in three days, heal enough to walk long distance and teach people?

Every explanation leads to more difficulties than it addresses. By the application of Occam's razor Christianity is the simplest hypothesis that explains observed facts.

3. Science does not admit to "being wrong" either. The main objection by the original poster was that religion insists that everything it says is right, while Science™admits that it could be wrong about anything. However, this is not quite true. Yes, science admits that its explanation for phenomena could be incomplete, but it does not admit that basic scientific truths are "wrong" or changeable.

For instance, Newton formulated that force = mass times acceleration (F = ma).  It will never be the case that scientists say "oh by the way, force mass and acceleration? Not related, it turns out." We may refine the formula to be more precise under more conditions (think relativity) but those refinements better reduce to the underlying equation in the ideal case.

There are also things in Christianity that we just don't know, things that we have theories about, and things that are "settled science" (like the existence of God).




Thursday, December 31, 2015

Dark Matter

A dear friend of mine was remarking on how he struggles with some of the darker passages of scripture - God commanding the Israelites to kill women and children. At some point, if you read the Bible, you have to come to grips with these sorts of things.

So let's consider a hypothetical situation. Grandma passes away, and in her effects you discover her diary, and begin reading it. You find page after page about what a kind, gentle man your Grandpa was, but then there's a date on which she wrote "John beat the children today." What do you believe about your grandfather in light of that?

Some possibilities come to mind.

  • Perhaps it was an expression. Families are full (or at least mine is full) of inside jokes and odd expressions that don't always mean what they say at face value.
  • Perhaps she meant it in a different context ("John beat the children [at backgammon] today").
  • Perhaps it was paternal correction in a time where corporal punishment wasn't considered evil (e.g. the children were playing with matches and grandpa taught them a lesson).
  • Perhaps Grandpa really was a child abuser and Grandma just ignored it most of the time but couldn't on that particular day.

No exegetical analysis of Grandma's diary is going to settle the question. It all falls back on two things. Your relationship with your grandfather and your relationship with your grandmother.

How did your grandfather treat you? Is one sentence enough to undo the lifetime of memories of him pushing you on the swing, teaching you magic tricks and building a bird house together?

What do you know of your grandmother? Was she the sort of woman who would let her children be abused? Didn't she take your brothers to task when they picked on you? Hasn't she always been stern, yet fair?

Similarly, what do we think when we see these passages of Scripture? Some possibilities come to mind.

  • Perhaps the Israelites attributed things to God that were not really His attributes. There are plenty of examples in the Old testament where God is depicted as being "evil" "angry" or having "wings." These are all recognized as literary devices.
  • Perhaps the author used God as an excuse to justify something the Israelites wanted to do, even though it was not His will. There are examples of this in the Bible as well. One example is the law permitting divorce, which Jesus explicitly points out as the case where God allowed men to make an unjust law because of the "hardness of their hearts."
  • Perhaps the actions themselves are expressions, not literal things that were done. For instance, in Psalm 137 the author says "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" - but in the psalm the "mother" is understood to be the city of Babylon and her "children" refers to her army.
  • Perhaps the actions are exaggerated to make the event seem more than it was. For instance the Canaanites were supposedly all killed, yet they return to fight again later. Likewise the Amalekites. Saying that the Israelites killed every living thing, down to the last child, was likely an exaggeration of a decisive victory.
  • Or perhaps God really is evil. and Jesus' and the prophets' exhortations of peace and love are all a ruse to snare gullible believers.

In the end you have to rely on your relationship with God and with His Church. What kind of a god do you think God is? How has the Church seems Him? What are the "fruits" of His believers?

If you have a personal relationship with God, you know what He is like, and these passages don't shake that. If you don't have a relationship, it's all a matter of which exegesis you want to believe. Much of what's available today is written by non-believers who wish to see things in a harsh light. For a more balanced view look to books like Light on the Dark Passages of Scripture by Mark Giszczak

Friday, December 18, 2015

Opposite jobs

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Gebirah

The other day as I was leaving the clinic, after having prayed the rosary aloud, one of my Protestant friends called out to me "Queen Mother isn't capitalized in the Bible, you know." I asked what he meant, and he indicated that the rosary was wrong (and giving too high an honor to Mary) because it called her the "Queen Mother" and that doesn't appear in the Bible.

N.B. The rosary doesn't actually call her "Queen Mother" that I know of. I think he was referring to "Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy" which is actually two separate titles ("Hole Queen" and "Mother of Mercy"). Rather than get into defining those two titles I thought I would address the issue of "Queen Mother", which is also an acceptable title for Mary.

We had had a similar conversation before about calling Mary queen, and I had urged him to read about the "Gebirah" (Hebrew), or Queen Mother in the books of Kings. I take it he did, and that was what he found, hence our conversation.

I had to go, but I noted to him that the original Hebrew wouldn't have capitalized anything, a point which I think only confused matters. As I left I promised that next week I would come back armed with a bunch of scripture references to show my point. The rest of this blog post is my intended reply to this gentleman.



What I meant when I was talking about the Old Testament being written in Hebrew is that ancient Hebrew had no upper and lower case letters. So saying “queen mother” isn't capitalized in the Bible just means the translator didn't capitalize it – it says nothing about the original text. For that matter, although the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the translator was just a fallible man, and so your English Bible can have mistakes in the sense that it doesn't convey the correct meaning of the original perfect text. That's why when arguing about the authority of Scripture it is important to understand not only what King James says, but what the Sacred author actually wrote.

But on to the subject at hand – is Mary the “Queen Mother”?

We are told Jesus sits on the throne of David (Luke 1:32 - He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.) - so we should look at the kings of Israel to find out what is meant by that. One of the things characterizing the kingdom of Israel (and most ancient kingdoms) was the Gebirah (in Hebrew גְּבִירָה) , or Queen Mother (sometimes translated as “Great Lady”).

The Gebirah, the Queen Mother of the Kingdom of Judah, was an official position held by the mother of the Davidic kings. The Hebrew word gebirah is found 15 times in the Old Testament. In Genesis 16:4, 8, 9 it refers to Sarah (Abraham's wife, who is promised to be the mother of kings). In 1 Kings 11:19 it is used to refer to the queen of Egypt.

In 1 Kings 15:13 we see Asa, descendent of David, restoring God's rule to Judah after his father Abijam, had don evil. The Bible says “And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.” Well, he could hardly remove his mother as queen if she were not the queen. The same event is described in 2 Chronicals 15:16 “And also concerning Maachah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.”

In 2 Kings 10:13 the brethren of Ahaziah go to meet “the children of the King and the children of the queen” - they wouldn't have to meet the children of the queen if she were the king's wife – they would also be the children of the king. And it is important that they meet both, because their intention was to slay them all, and if they had only slain the children of the king then the children of the queen (the kings' brothers and sisters) would inherit the throne, and they wanted to eradicate the royal line.

In 1 Kings 2, Scripture says the Gebirah sat a throne alongside her son and had a role as counselor and intercessor to the king (see also 2 Chronicles 22:3):

19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.

20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.

In times of conquest, both the king and his mother both represented royal power (2 Kings 24:12 – 12 “And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.”). Note that his wife is not mentioned, but his mother is.

In Sacred Scripture the mother of the Davidic king is listed along with her son in the books of 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles when he assumes the throne. The only queen mothers not listed are those of King Jehoram, who married wicked Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Israel (2 Kings 8:17-18); King Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2-3); and King Asa (1 Kings 15:10). In the case of Jehoram and Ahaz, their mothers may have died prior to their sons assuming the throne of David, and in the case of Asa, his grandmother is named as the Gebirah, his mother having died or perhaps his grandmother, the former Gebirah, did not relinquish her power and authority upon the succession of her grandson.

Note that when Israel splits into Israel (north) and Judah (south), the northern kings abandon the gebirah (and God – they eventually become the pagan Samaritans) while the Davidic line passes to Judah, who are the chosen of God (where we get the name Jews). Here are the kings of Israel/Judah:


1. Rehoboam
930-913 BC
Son of Solomon
Mother: Naamah the Ammonite
1 Kings 11:42-14:31
2 Chronicles 9:31-12:16
2. Abijam (Abijah)
913-911
Son of Rehoboam
Mother: Maacah (Micaiah) descendant of David's son Absalom
1 Kings 14:31-15:8
2 Chronicles 13:1-23
3. Asa
911-870
Son of Abijam
Gebirah = grandmother Maacah
1 Kings 15:8-24
2 Chronicles 13:23-16:14
4. Jehoshaphat
870-848
Son of Asa
Mother: Azubah
1 Kings 15:24' 22"41-51
2 Chronicles 17:1-21:1
5. Jehoram
848-841
Son of Jehoshaphat
Mother: ?
2 Kings 8:16-24
2 Chronicles 21:1-20
6. Ahaziah
841
Son of Jehoram
Mother: Athaliah
2 Kings 8:24-29; 9:14-26
2 Chronicles 22:1-12
7. Athaliah (Queen Mother)
841-835
Daughter of Ahab and Jezebel of Israel
2 Kings 11L1-20
2 Chronicles 22:1-15
8. Jehoash (Joash)
835-796
Grandson of Athaliah and son of Ahaziah;
Mother: Zibiah (Beersheba)
1 Kings 11:1-12:21
2 Chronicles 22:10-23; 24:27
9. Amaziah
796-781
Son of Jehoash
Mother: Jehoaddan
2 Kings 14:1-22
2 Chronicles 26:1-23
10. Uzziah
781-740
Son of Amaziah
Mother: Jecoliah
2 Kings 15:1-7
2 Chronicles 26:23-27:9
11. Jotham
740-736
Son of Uzziah
Mother: Jerushah
2 Kings 15:32-38
2 Chronicles 26:9-27:9
12. Ahaz
736-716
Son of Jotham
Mother:?
2 Kings 15:38-16:20
2 Chronicles 27:9-28:27
13. Hezekiah
716-687
Son of Ahaz
Mother: Abijah
2 Kings 16:20; 18:1-20:21
2 Chronicles 28:27-32:33
14. Manasseh
697-642
Son of Hezekiah
Mother: Hephzibah
2 Kings 21:1-18
2 Chronicles 32:33-33:20
15. Amon
642-640
Son of Manasseh
Mother: Meshullemeth
2 Kings 21:18-26
2 Chronicles 33:20-25
16. Josiah
640-609
Son of Amon
Mother: Jedidiah
2 Kings 21:26-23:30
2 Chronicles 33:25-35:27
17. Eliakim/Jehoahaz
609
Son of Josiah
Mother: Hamutal
2 Kings 23:30-34
2 Chronicles 36:5-8
18. Jehoiakim
Brother of Eliakim
Mother: Zebidah
2 Kings 23:34-24:6
2 Chronicles 36:5-8
19. Jehoiachin
598-597
Son of Jehoiakim
Mother: Nehusta
2 Kings 24:6-17
2 Chronicles 36:8-10
20. Mattaniah/Zedekiah
597-587/6
Parental uncle of Jehoiachin and son of Jehoiakim
Mother: Hamital
2 Kings 24:17-25:30
2 Chronicles 36:10-13;
Ezekiel 17:13-16


The Gebirah was clearly the most important woman in the Kingdom of Judah; a king had many wives, but only one mother. The Gebirah of the eternal Davidic Kingdom of Jesus Christ is Mary of Nazareth. She appears in this role in Revelation 12:1 - “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” - this is clearly a reference to Mary because we see in verse 5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” which is clearly Jesus.


Thus according to the Bible it is correct to use the title Gebirah, or Queen Mother, for Mary.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

The second amendment is about the military, not the individual

This post is the fourth part of my response on a gun control thread on Facebook. Specifically, my response to:

4. The second amendment doesn't guarantee individual rights to self defense, only those in military service can bear arms.

This falsehood is based on articles like this one in the NY Time, which says “Most federal appeals courts have said that the amendment read as a whole protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias.” But appeals courts are not infallible.

The second amendment reads:

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.

The whole controversy rests on whether the first phrase constrains the second to refer only to states' militias. Before we get into the law and history involved, let's try a little experiment. Replace the “controversial” terms with equivalent “neutral” terms and see how a reasonable person would interpret it.

A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

So, in the above statement, who has the right to keep and read books? Registered voters, or the people? It is pretty clear that the first phrase merely defines the purpose for the statement, not a limitation. The Supreme court agrees. In D.C. v. Heller the majority opinion states:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Bill of Rights contains two other amendments which use the phrase “the right of the people.” In both cases the phrase refers to an individual right.

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Furthermore a grammatical analysis of the second amendment reveals

"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,'... constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). 

The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

We can also look at the founders and framers of the Constitution to see what they said relevant to the second amendment.

George Mason said “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778).

Richard Henry Lee said “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” (Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788)

Samuel Adams said “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...” (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788)

Thomas Jefferson wrote “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment)

He also wrote “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” (Letter to Peter Carr, 178)

Thomas Paine wrote “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” (Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775)

Realize that the second amendment, while it affirms the natural right to self defense, states explicitly that the people have the right to defend themselves and their community against not only criminals, but armies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore such things as “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional. The quotes around “assault weapons” are because the weapons banned by these laws are, according to the federal government's own definitions not assault weapons. In fact, when the federal government buys more powerful, more deadly versions of these firearms, they call them “personal defense weapons” or PDWs.

To summarize:

  • The founders of our country considered the second amendment to be an individual right.
  • A grammatical analysis of the second amendment affirms it to be referring to an individual right.
  • The Supreme Court has affirmed multiple times that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Self defense is a limited right

This post is the third part of my response on a gun control thread on Facebook. Specifically, my response to:

3. Self defense is a natural right, but it is not unlimited.

This statement is obvious, and I agree with it. The problem is it's being used to justify the disarming of law abiding citizens because they don't “need” a gun. So let's get into the moral and ethical side of self defense.

What does a right to self defense mean? It means that you have a God-given right to preserve your own life against someone who would take it, or cause you serious harm. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

It's pretty explicitly stated in 2265 “those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” One could argue that this is restricted to police and military, since it talks about the "civil community". However, the basic unit of a community is the family and parents have legitimate authority over the family. I would therefore claim that this statement includes parents in the explicit right to bear arms.

Furthermore limiting this to police and military has a problem in that police are not charged with repelling aggressors, but merely arresting those who have broken the law. Several Supreme court cases have affirmed the fact that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens. So a narrow view of this would be that only the military can bear arms.

Even conceding a narrow view of paragraph 2265, what does the rest of it say about firearms? Note that “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow” so lethal weapons are not out of the question.

What constitutes a legitimate means of self defense? Certainly one has the right to use one's body to defend itself (e.g. fists). But what if a 5 foot tall 90 pound woman is being attacked by a 6 foot 5, 290 pound man? Saying she has the right to use fists is essentially denying her any effective defense.

Any effective means of self defense must at least even the odds of the defender and attacker. In a
world where attackers are likely to be armed with deadly weapons (knives, guns, etc.) anything less than that is really no defense at all. There is an old adage “God made men, Sam Colt made men equal” referring to firearms manufacturer Colt. There is some truth to the saying.

A 5 foot tall 90 pound woman can hold off a much larger stronger attacker if she possesses a firearm and knows how to use it. There really isn't another weapon that can effectively stop an attacker who is physically superior. I'm not saying everyone should have a firearm, I'm saying that the right to self defense implies a right to be able to morally possess a firearm.

To summarize:
  • A right to self defense requires a right to tools sufficient to defend oneself from likely attacks.
  • Police have no duty to protect citizens from criminal attack.
  • Since attackers are likely to have deadly weapons (knives, guns, bats) defenders should have recourse to similar tools.
  • Firearms are the only practical means of self defense against a physically stronger attacker.