1.4 The reasons to arm and organize now

2

Introduction to the Free Militia

Prerequisite(s): Section 1

Restriction(s): Prospective recruits approved by the cell leader

2.1 Who and what is the Free Militia?

2.2 Equipping yourself for the Free Militia

2.3 General organization of the Free Militia

2.4 Secrecy and security within the Free Militia

*****************************************************************************************

Foreword by Skipp Porteous

An hour and a half after the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the Institute for First Amendment Studies received a fax identifying the perpetrators as members of the "Christian Identity" movement. Skeptical at first, because the investigation then focused on overseas terrorist groups, we took a "wait and see" attitude.

Soon it became evident that the terrorists were indeed U.S. citizens. Now it is known that the alleged perpetrators, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, have connections with the Christian Identity movement, sometimes known as Christian Patriots.

Christian Identity adherents share the idea that white Christians are direct descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, which they believe ended up in northern Europe. A theologically similar group calls itself British Israelites.

The majority of Christian Identity devotees — numbering about 40,000 in the United States — are racist and anti-Jewish. Except for the "identity" aspect, most Christian Identity believers embrace classic Christian fundamentalism and a growing number are Pentecostal. The main difference between fundamentalists and Pentecostals is that Pentecostals believe in spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and faith healing. (It should be noted, however, that most Christian fundamentalists and Pentecostals do not espouse the Identity message.)

Christian Identity proponents also hold to various conspiracy theories concerning a New World Order in which the United Nations will take over the world. Behind the scenes, they believe, are certain "European bankers" (long recognized as a code referring to Jews) who hold the purse strings to bring this about.

Pastor Pete Peters, a well-known Identity minister, has written and spoken a great deal about this alleged plot. But it was the Christian Coalition's Pat Robertson who broadened the appeal of this conspiracy in his 1991 best selling book, The New World Order. With sales of more than 500,000 copies, The New World Order introduced these ideas to mainstream evangelical and Pentecostal Christians.

Because they believe the government plans to impose draconian measures, taking away their religious freedom, Patriots appeal to their "right to keep and bear arms" as the only way to defend religious freedom. Patriots seldom mention participation in democracy as a valid way to change the system.

A day after the Oklahoma City bombing, Christian Patriots gathered at the International Coalition of Covenant Congregations Conference held at the Lodge of the Ozarks in Branson, Missouri. The conference featured leading figures in the Identity movement, including Pete Peters and Larry Pratt. Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, spoke on the "Biblical Mandate to Arm."

One of the 550 attendees told Freedom Writer, "I mingled with a lot of people there, and there was not a shred of sympathy for what happened in Oklahoma." "This is just the beginning," another person added.

Asked about the innocent children killed in the blast, many of the participants echoed the same response: "What about all the unborn babies killed at abortion clinics?"

Because of the Oklahoma City bombing, the media has placed a lot of focus on the militia movement. Militias, or paramilitary groups, are private armies training to fight the "tyrannical" United States government. Most of the active militias today were formed after the August 22, 1992 raid of Randy Weaver's cabin in Ruby Ridge; the April 19, 1993 tragedy at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; and the passage of the Brady Bill of November 1993, which requires a five-day waiting period to purchase a firearm. Patriots view the government's botched role at Ruby Ridge as an encroachment on their freedoms; and the Waco incident as an armed assault against religious freedom, and think that their church or group may be next. The Brady Bill is seen as another step taken by the government to disarm Patriots.

With 50,000 or more members, operating in more than 30 states, approximately 85% of the militias are comprised of Christian Patriots — though not necessarily Identity Christians. Most Christians, of course, abhor violence, and very few would attempt to justify what happened in Oklahoma City. Still, it is a fact that the militia movement is largely a movement of those calling themselves Christians.

Widely circulated among militia groups is the Field Manual of the Free Militia. The first chapter of the manual goes to great lengths to prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. After making that assertion, it makes the claim that Jesus not only authorized Christians to arm themselves, but that it is a Christian's duty to take up arms.

The field manual, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), appeals to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to justify an armed citizenry. This plays well in NRA fundraising letters, but the NRA never uses this argument in court. The courts have never interpreted the Second Amendment as granting ordinary citizens the right to bear arms. There may be legitimate reasons for citizens to possess firearms, but the Second Amendment is not one of them.

The Second Amendment states: "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." It is important to read every word of this amendment in context.

The militias of the colonies — where able-bodied men kept arms in their homes, to be ready at a moment's notice to defend their village or farm — no longer exist. Today, the closest manifestation of the early militias are state National Guards, overseen by our governors. Thus, a "well-regulated militia" is a function of individual states, not self-appointed commanders and generals running a private army.

The Field Manual of the Free Militia never quite identities "the enemy" with whom it is to do battle. It espouses an affinity with "local" police, and asserts that the Free Militia probably would not engage the U.S. Army in combat. Thus, agents of the federal government are the only possible "enemies" left.

Among the reasons listed for creating militias are Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun control, and abortion. These situations point primarily to federal agencies. Thus, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), and (because they are used to protect abortion clinics) the U.S. Marshals, are obviously the enemy the militias are prepared to confront.

In conclusion, private armies, or paramilitary groups, are not only unnecessary, they are dangerous. However, because the First Amendment of the Constitution upholds "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," most militias enjoy protected status. They step over the line as soon as they advocate or commit illegal acts.

The militia movement is connected to the radical religious right in many ways. Militias count Christian Coalition constituents, John Birchers, Traditional Values Coalition members, and other mainstream religious right people among its ranks. If attempts to take over America through the democratic process fail, certain elements of the radical religious right are prepared to resort to more drastic methods.

Skipp Porteous

January 1996

****************************

1.1 The Morality of Arming and Organizing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorize: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" — Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36)

1.1.1 Biblical inspiration and authority

Before we can rightly consider arming and organizing ourselves as a militia, we must consider whether or not doing so is the right thing to do. Later on we will see that we have the historical and constitutional right to form a militia. But ultimately, right and wrong is determined by God's will, and God's will is determined from the Bible. Why turn to the Bible to answer our questions about right and wrong?

If you are a Bible believer, you must be committed to following its moral standards. If you do not believe the Bible, you should still know and weigh what it says and use it to justify your actions to Bible believers.

To answer this question we will briefly look at what the Bible says about its own inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority.

First, look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God- breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Here the apostle Paul is teaching us that the Bible (or Scriptures) are inspired by God or God-breathed. Take careful note of two things that Paul says are God-breathed or inspired. He says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." Notice here that it is the actual Scriptures themselves, the words of the Bible, that are inspired (God-breathed) and not simply the authors. God gave us the precise wording of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, not just the main ideas. Paul also says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." It is not just portions of the Bible that are inspired but all of it. We therefore say that the Bible is the word of God! This testimony that the Bible is the word of God runs throughout the whole Bible. (See, for example, Exodus 34:27, 2 Samuel 23:2, Jeremiah 26:2, John 12:49, John 17:8, 1 Corinthians 14:37, and Revelation 2:18.)

Now to say that the entire Bible is equally inspired word-for- word does not necessarily mean that it is all of equal value or interest to us. It simply means that word-for-word it all came from God.

The Bible is word-for-word the word of God. Therefore it is completely true or without any errors. This is what we mean by "inerrancy." Think about it. If God knows everything (1 John 3:20) and cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and if the Bible's words are God's words, then there cannot be any mistakes in the Bible. Otherwise, God would either have to be wrong himself or lying to us.

While this line of reasoning is undeniable, the Bible does not leave us to make our own conclusions about its truthfulness. The concept of infallibility or inerrancy is clearly the Bible's own teaching about itself. Jesus said, "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Matthew 5:18). In other words, the Bible must be fulfilled in the smallest detail. He also taught that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and praying to the Father stated, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). God's word can only be truth if it is free from errors. Remember in school when true or false questions on tests were false if any part of them were wrong? Luke wrote his gospel "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). Peter wrote, "We have the word of the prophets made more certain" (2 Peter 1:19). More certain than what? Read 2 Peter 1:16-18. Peters says that the word of the prophets is more certain than his own eyewitness experience of Jesus Christ.

Now the fact that the Bible doesn't have any mistakes is not simply "academic" truth. It is of immense practical importance. Only if it is all true can we know for sure that any particular part of it is true. Do you want to do right by obeying a command in the Bible only to find out later that you were wrong to do what you did? Of course not. We need a Bible that is true throughout to have any real hope of pleasing God.

There is still more you need to know about the Bible. Not only is it God's word, not only is it true, but it contains everything you need to know about God and your relationship with him. The fact that it is everything we need to know is summed up by the word "sufficient" and is clearly taught by Paul the apostle in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It tells us everything we need to know for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15), truth (2 Timothy 3:16), and good works (2 Timothy 3:17). This is why the Bible tells us over and over again never to add to it or to take away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18).

Now when we say that the Bible tells us everything we need to know, we need to realize that some things are stated directly and some indirectly. A good algebra textbook, for instance, may not give answers to every algebra problem. Yet is does fully define the rules and principles by which every algebra problem may be solved. The Bible likewise contains all that we need for our relationship with God even if it does not provide direct answers for every problem or question we face. On such indirect issues we must draw valid conclusions based on what Scripture does say.

This leads us to the final point which needs to be made about the Bible: the Bible alone is authoritative meaning that it, and only it, must be completely believed and obeyed. Since all of the Bible is God's word we cannot pick and choose what we want to obey. Since it is all true we cannot neglect a portion of it by raising doubts about its reliability. Since it contains all we need for our Christian walks we cannot appeal to something or someone besides the Bible as our final authority on some issue.

We cannot argue with any part of the Bible any more than we can argue with God himself! God has "laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed" (Psalm 119:4). If we disobey, we will surely fail (Matthew 7:24-25).

We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force, conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.

1.1.2 The continuity of the Old and New Testaments

If the Bible is the word of God, is it a self-consistent message? Yes! Some sincere Christians believe that the New Testament overturned the Old Testament rendering the Old Testament obsolete. But this is false.

The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.

Look at what Jesus Christ said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, unto heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). Several things should be noted about these two verses.

First, Jesus did not abolish what the Old Testament said. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not contradict anything said by the Old Testament. Rather than abolishing the law against murder, he went beyond it to prohibit hatred (Matthew 5:21-22). He did not abolish the law against adultery but went beyond it to prohibit lust (Matthew 5:27-28). He did not abolish the principle that punishment by the state should be limited to "an eye for an eye" but simply corrected the abuse of this legal principle of justice by forbidding personal vengeance (Matthew 5:38-39) which the Old Testament also forbids (Deuteronomy 32:35). And he did not negate any Old Testament law by telling us not to hate our enemy because this was a tradition of the scribes found nowhere in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:43-44).

Whenever Jesus wanted to justify his actions or establish a truth, he did it by quoting the Old Testament, not by denying it. Even when he said that loving God and loving our neighbor are the greatest commandments, he was quoting Old Testament commandments that were still in effect. The fact is, the law is still in effect and binding today. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).

Second, Jesus did come to fulfill the Old Testament. In Colossians 2:16-17 the apostle Paul says, "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however is found in Christ." So it is true that some things in the Old Testament no longer apply to us because Jesus has fulfilled them. But it is only ceremonial aspects of the law that were changed, not the moral aspects. And whatever was finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ was replaced by something better.

The religious festivals of the Old Testament pointed to Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Old Testament priesthood was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is our High Priest and replaced by the priesthood of all believers (Hebrews 7:23-24). The Old Testament physical temple was fulled in Jesus Christ and replaced by the spiritual temple of the church. The Old Testament sacrificed were fulfilled once and for all by the death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:27). There is no such thing as something in the Old Testament which was abolished without being substituted by something better in Jesus Christ.

Third, the whole law remains binding until the end of the world. Nowhere did Jesus or the apostles ever change or do away with any moral law or principle of the Old Testament. We have already seen that Jesus based his morals on the Old Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament emphasis on love is not instead of the law but the essence of it.

Paul wrote, "Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). Just because we are filled with Christian love does not mean that we can now sleep around, murder, steal, and covet. Indeed, our love makes us do what the Old Testament law commands.

The relationship of the Old Testament law to salvation

This brings us to the question of why Paul deprecates the law and good works (Roman 3:20, Galatians 24, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.). Nowhere does Paul deny the validity of the moral laws for determining what is right and wrong and for guiding our everyday lives. Like Jesus, his arguments and teaching were always based on the Old Testament itself (Acts 17:2-3, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). What Paul denies is the validity of the view that obedience to God's laws can save us. As sinners, we are incapable of full obedience to the law and therefore cannot please God (Romans 3:20, Romans 8:6-8). So we must depend upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ to be forgiven (Romans 6:23).

But this was nothing new! Obeying God's laws did not save anyone in the Old Testament anymore than in the New Testament, and grace did not save anyone any less. No one in the Old Testament was forgiven or saved because they obeyed the law; the law simply made them aware of their sin just as in the New Testament (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7-8, Galatians 3:24).

The Lord looked with favor or grace on Abel (Genesis 4:4) who made his offering in faith (Hebrews 11:4).

Noah found favor (grace) in the eyes of God (Genesis 6:8) because of his faith (Hebrews 11:7).

Abraham was saved by faith (Genesis 15:6) in the gospel of Jesus (Galatians 3:8) and is a pattern for our faith (Romans 4:1-10).

Moses found favor in the eyes of the Lord because God is gracious, not because Moses obeyed the law (Exodus 34:6-9, Psalm 103:7-8).

David depended on God's mercy for forgiveness (Psalm 51:1-5).

The point of all this is that the Old and New Testaments are equally valid and totally consistent in teaching what is right and wrong. Anyone reading the Old Testament will easily recognize the fact that it does not condemn violence or war when it is justified by biblical principles. Abraham rightly fought to rescue his nephew Lot from invaders (Genesis 14). God gave ground rules for conducting warfare (Deuteronomy 20). The book of Judges is basically a history of heroes and patriots who fought against the tyranny of invading armies and ungodly rulers. David was the greatest king of Israel as well as one of its best soldiers (1 and 2 Samuel). Nothing in the New Testament changes any of these facts.

1.1.3 Jesus Christ was not a pacifist

Of course, Christ's emphasis on love is sometimes perceived to imply that he was a pacifist who condemned all violence and war. But this is a misunderstanding.

A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and will demonstrate that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.

Neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, nor the apostles condemned soldiering.

"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't exhort money and don't accuse people falsely — be content with your pay'" (Luke 3:14). John the Baptist did not tell soldiers that being soldiers was immoral per se, but simply condemned the abuse of their position as soldiers.

Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for being a soldier, but commended him for the faith that came from his understanding of authority in the military (Matthew 8:5-13; see also Acts 10:1-48).

Jesus Christ both permitted and commanded his followers to be armed.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36). Now that the apostles had learned the lesson of trusting in God (Luke 10:4), they were to be prepared to defend themselves as they travelled through dangerous areas to take the gospel to the whole world.

"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?'" (John 18:10-11). Notice that Jesus allowed Peter to have the sword both before and after this incident. The problem was not that defending someone is wrong; the problem was that it was inappropriate at this time since Jesus wanted to die for our sins (Mark 10:45).

"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'" (Matthew 26:52). Again, Jesus did not necessarily condemn using the sword. He told Peter to put it back in its scabbard, not to get rid of it. What Jesus is saying is that anyone who fights risks his life in doing so. This is a matter of fact, not of ethics.

Jesus Christ used just force.

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).

"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).

Jesus Christ would have been justified in defending himself.

On several occasions Jesus Christ evaded an angry crowd rather than giving in to their intent to kill him (Luke 4:28-30, John 8:58-59, John 10:35-39). It was not yet the time for him to sacrifice himself for the sins of many. When the time did come, and his disciples tried to defend him, Jesus said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matthew 26:53). Jesus was quite capable of taking care of himself if he wanted to be defended. And his statement that he could call on the Father did not only mean that he had the ability to defend himself, but that he was morally justified in doing so as well. He was under no inherent obligation to die, although he and the Father did plan for him to die.

Jesus Christ will someday use deadly force on a wide scale.

All through the Bible we read of the day when Jesus will return to set things straight. At his second coming he will throw the wicked into the fiery furnace (Matthew 13:41-43). He will separate the righteous from the wicked and send the latter into the eternal fire (Matthew 25:41). He will bring destruction upon unbelievers (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). He will lay waste to the present heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:10). And with justice he will judge and make war on the evildoers of the earth (Revelation 19:11-21). This all demonstrates that Jesus is not absolutely opposed to the deadly punishment of wrongdoers. Indeed, there will come a day when he brings it about on a universal scale. But for now, he is delaying his just wrath while giving mankind a chance to repent of their wicked deeds (2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus taught that force was a last resort.

Of course, it is true that violence is not always — indeed rarely — justified. "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place'" (John 18:36). So Christians should not use force to establish or maintain the kingdom of God or impose their religious beliefs on others. But this does not mean that Christians should never use force. Jesus implies that if the situation was different, if his kingdom was an earthly kingdom, then force would be acceptable.

Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) showering that our goal should always be to seek peaceful resolutions if at all possible (see also Romans 12:17-19). Later he said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Slapping the right cheek was not a life-threatening attack, but a personal insult similar to spitting on someone. So Jesus was teaching that we should not resort to force when we face minor personal insults and mistreatment. But he was not condemning self-defense when our very lives are threatened as we have already seen.

Finally, Christ tells us, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). How can we love our enemies and kill them at the same time? Clearly Jesus is saying we should harbor no hatred towards anyone. Our actions should never be motivated by hatred or vengeance but only by justice. Judges can and do justly sentence criminals to prison while having compassion on them. God can and does desire a sinner's repentance as he condemns him forever. So also it is possible and necessary for us to love our mortal enemies, to pray for their souls and seek to change their minds and behavior, even when we are forced to take up arms against them.

1.1.4 Principles of just war

As we have seen, Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and it is sometimes necessary to respond to evil with force. But why and when is force right and when is it wrong? Through the Bible there are several key principles to answer this question.

The right to life. All through the Bible it is assumed that individuals have the right to life. For instance, Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." The reasons we cannot murder is because God says so. But the reason he says so is because he has given us the right to live. This right to life implies the right to self-defense. If we should not be murdered, then we are justified in preventing someone from killing us. This is shown throughout the Bible.

Capital punishment. For various terrible crimes and sins, only death is a sufficient punishment. God himself instituted capital punishment. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). "Anyone who strikes a man and kill shim shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12). Consistent with the principle of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 23-25), only a murderer's death can satisfy the demands of justice for murder. Capital punishment is also the just penalty for despising authority (Deuteronomy 17:12), rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:21), and kidnapping (Deuteronomy 24:7). It makes no difference in principle whether an individual, or an army, or political leaders are guilty. If a man is guilty of a capital crime, he should die at the hands of an executioner. If any army is guilty of a wide-scale crime, they too should die, at the hands of an opposing army if necessary. If our leaders are corrupted to the extent of imposing tyranny upon the people, then they should be forcefully overthrown and replaced by a legitimate government.

Resisting tyranny. This idea of resisting tyranny is common in the Bible. Clearly we should not resort to force when mere possessions are at stake. High taxes and the like can be endured and do warrant taking lives. But when leaders are responsible for murder, deny civil liberties, and generally impose a draconian regime upon the people, then we should disobey, resist, and rise up to fight. In Exodus 1:15-22 the king of Egypt ordered that all newborn boys be killed. But the Hebrew midwives did right by disobeying and sparing the innocent babies. As we said previously, the book of Judges is full of accounts of leaders raised up by God for express purpose of delivering Israel from the hands of tyranny. Read about Ehud (Judges 3), Deborah (Judges 4), Gideon (Judges 6- 7), and Samson (Judges 13-16). These people are commended for their faith in the New Testament because they responded to God's calling to fight against tyranny (Hebrews 11:32-34).

Justice not revenge, collective not personal. Paul the apostle wrote, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody" (Romans 12:17). We must always be motivated to do what is right. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18). By all means we must seek peaceful resolutions. "Do not take revenge my friends" (Romans 12:19). We are not to get even with an evildoer nor are we to take justice into our own hands. But it is not evil or vengeful for people to individually defend themselves or to collectively exact just punishment.

Obeying authority. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must follow its commands and principles. We must take seriously the concept of just war taught explicitly in the Old Testament and implicitly in the New since the Bible is consistent in its moral precepts. Since Jesus was not a pacifist, we cannot say that christians renounce all armed conflict. And while force should be a last resort it is sometimes necessary for self-defense and to resist tyranny.

This leads us to the all important idea of authority. Who is in charge. What must we obey? When is resistance justified? "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'" (Matthew 28:18). All legitimate authority rests in the Lord Jesus Christ. All earthly authority is therefore derived and limited authority. Christ gives parents the authority to raise children according to his principles (Ephesians 6:1-4). But we have no authority to abuse our children or lead them astray. He gives ordained leaders of the church authority within the church, but they are accountable to Christ (Hebrews 13:17). They also have no authority to abuse or lead astray Christians. Likewise, he gives authority to governments to maintain law and order, not to abuse citizens or to perpetrate evil.

Consider Romans 13:1-5 which is perhaps the most important biblical passage about the authority of governments. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). In America, the highest governing authority is the Constitution, not elected officials who are sworn to uphold and defend it.

"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:2). Violating Constitutional liberties is rebelling against God, whether it is done by a criminal or the politicians. Thus,

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you" (Romans 13:3). If you do what is Constitutionally right by forming a militia and the government accuses you of wrongdoing, then in fact they have lost all authority because they have turned away from the very thing which legitimizes them.

"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). God intends the government to do you good by maintaining law, order, and justice. When the government systematically punishes the upright citizen and commends wrongdoing, it is no longer serving God's purpose.

"Therefore , it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5). Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority and the Constitution is the real governing authority. If we are submitted to Jesus Christ and committed to Constitutional liberties, then our conscience demands the resistance of unconstitutional authority which is no authority at all.

1.1.5 Discussion questions

To determine what is right and wrong in ethical matters, should we follow public opinion, existing laws, our own opinion, or the Bible? Why?

Do you believe that there is any inconsistency in what the Bible has to say about the morality of self-defense and war waged against tyranny? If not, why not? If so, please specify what "inconsistency" you perceive. Is there any way you can see these "inconsistencies" can be reconciled?

Do you believe that Jesus was, or Christians should be, complete pacifists? Why or why not?

How is the idea of just war consistent or inconsistent with loving God? With loving our neighbor? With loving our enemy?

Describe the general continuity of principle among capital punishment, law enforcement by the police, personal self-defense, and just war.

Can you describe the difference between acting out of revenge and acting in behalf of justice? Why is the one right and the other wrong?

What is your definition of authority that must be obeyed?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do not justify armed resistance? Why isn't fighting right in such cases?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do justify armed resistance? Why is fighting right in such cases?

Main ideas of this section

We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force, conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.

The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.

A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist, and will demonstrate that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

Further reading

If you desire to read and study these issues in more depth, I recommend the following books available from the Free Militia.

On the inspiration and authority of the Bible

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? (Nutley, New Jersey, The Craig Press, 1968), 120pp.

Garrett, Duanne A. and Melick, Richard R., Jr. (editors). Authority and Interpretation: A Baptist Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1987), 220pp.

Giesler, Norman (editor). Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1980), 516pp.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth, 1957), 274pp.

On the morality and ethics of just war

Boettner, Loraine. The Christian Attitude Toward War (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1940/1985), 91pp.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985), 299pp.

Morey, Robert A. When Is It Right to Fight? (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bethany House Publishers, 1985), 143pp.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1957), 272pp.

******************

1.2 The heritage of arming and organizing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorize: "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 now what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" — Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

1.2.1 Give me liberty or give me death!

When the second revolutionary convention of Virginia met in March of 1775, the majority of those in attendance favored quiet preparations for war but wanted to continue seeking peace with the king of England and Parliament. So when resolutions were introduced proposing that Virginia formally assume a defensive posture in anticipation of war, the majority cringed at the prospect of war being inevitable. The resolutions were about to be defeated when Patrick henry rose to address the assembly. It was his speech that changed minds so that the resolutions were carried. It was his speech that first openly advocated war. It was his speech which arguably mobilized the American colonies for eventual victory.

I therefore will quote the speech in its entirety to set the context of the American Revolution and to remind us of the similar perils we face today. As you read it, keep several things in mind.

First, Patrick Henry was promoting war to a group of informed men who were predisposed to peace. His speech was meant to convince the skeptical rather than to agitate warmongers.

Second, Patrick Henry was promoting war against the greatest military power on the face of the earth, the British Empire. The men in that assembly did not have the benefit of hindsight but were contemplating a war which, from their perspective, was by no means sure to be won.

Third, Patrick Henry was promoting war as a necessary last resort. He was not a "trigger-happy" glory seeker. He was facing facts that peaceful approaches had been impotent for over ten years of struggle.

Keeping these facts in mind will keep us from mistaking Patrick Henry for an impatient, violent man and keep his speech in proper perspective. And now, let Patrick Henry's words speak for themselves.

"No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very honorable gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of Hope. We are apt to shut out 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 own 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 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 preparation 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 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 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 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 already been 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 are 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 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 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 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 the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand 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!"

Thus was Patrick Henry's speech. Thus were the resolutions to prepare for war carried. Let me make a few more remarks so you can see the parallels with our situation today and so there is no misunderstanding.

Neither Patrick Henry, nor the resolutions he sought to approve advocated attacking the British army. They simply advocated being ready for the inevitable British attack. Neither does the Free Militia propose to attack anyone but only to be prepared to defend.

Just as the colonists sought to alleviate unjust taxation without representation with every possible form of peaceful means, there has been an ongoing attempt with all branches of the federal government to demonstrate how unconstitutional many laws, programs, and taxes are, to no avail. The Constitutional is routinely ignored and petitions to obey it are met with an "insidious smile" but no serious action.

The great danger of Patrick Henry's day was the growing strength of British forces along with the growing measures to disarm the colonies. Today we see the multiplication of police officers, agencies, prisons, and government power simultaneous with attacks on personal gun rights.

1.2.2 The beginning of the American Revolution

Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was not fought because the colonists were taxed without representation. It is true that for years preceding the revolution, taxes and fair representation were the issues that energized patriots. These were the questions that first caused friction between the colonies and England. But no American patriot took up arms to kill a British soldier because he thought his taxes were too high.

American patriots took up arms against the British and began the revolution only when — and precisely because — the British attempted to disarm them.

The first incident was when the British tried to confiscate stores of gunpowder and weapons to disarm the militia in New England. Almost at the same time (news travelled slowly in those days) the British confiscated the colonists' gunpowder in Williamsburg. The events in New England resulted n bloodshed; in Virginia the bloodshed was averted. But both historic confrontations took place because the British attempted to disarm citizens.

March 23, 1775. Patrick Henry gave his famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech.

April 18, 1775. British soldiers set out from Boston to confiscate muskets, gunpowder, and cannons from the colonists. Paul Revere rode out of town to warn the Americans.

April 19, 1775. The British encountered their first resistance by minutemen at Lexington Green. After pushing on to Concord, the British were repelled, and then routed, by the American minutemen and sustained casualties.

April 21, 1775. Still unaware of fighting in New England, the governor of Virginia ordered British marines to confiscate all gunpowder held in the public magazine at Williamsburg.

May 2, 1775. Captain Patrick Henry led an armed militia of Virginians on a march to Williamsburg. Soon five thousand men sprang to arms and joined the march.

May 4, 1775. The British agreed to compensate the Virginians for the gunpowder that was confiscated before the armed militia arrived in Williamsburg, thus averting armed conflict.

Two lessons should be noted about these two incidents which really started the American Revolution. First, the British government's attempts to disarm American colonists, even though the colonists had not attacked the British, was considered to be an act of war by the Americans. They knew that if they were successfully disarmed, the British would be unchecked in their attempts to subjugate and enslave them.

Second, when the acts of war were perceived, it was not Americans acting under the authority of the British Crown that opposed them. It was ordinary armed citizens — outlaws as the British saw them — who fought.

Our country sprang into being and is founded on the principle of ordinary citizens like you and me arming and organizing ourselves to fight tyranny.

1.2.3 The Declaration of Independence

About a year after hostilities broke out at Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence. This declaration officially severed political ties with England and established the thirteen American colonies as independent states.

On the one hand, it took quite a long time to finalize and ratify the Declaration of Independence considering that the country had already been at war with Great Britain for a year and there was no real prospect for a peaceful resolution. But what this delay accomplished was a consensus among the delegations from all thirteen colonies about the justification of revolution and independence. It is therefore enlightening to examine their rationale in the Declaration of Independence since it represents the universal position of the leaders of all the colonies as to why America was justified in its revolt against the king and Parliament.

The relevant text is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which reads as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. —"

What follows is an enumeration of particular abuses by Britain, many of which were particular to that day. I shall not comment on these except to say that one complain rings very literally true today: "He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." We also are harassed by every conceivable kind of regulatory agency, trivial law, and arrogant official which "eat our substance" through confiscatory taxes that get us coming (income taxes), standing (property taxes), and going (sales taxes).

Now for some relevant thoughts on the second paragraph:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Man is granted certain rights by God. These rights precede the formation of any government. Since governments are established by God and derive their authority from him, they cannot legitimately take away rights that have been graciously given by God.

"That among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice it says, "among these are." This is not a comprehensive list of man's rights. Even the Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list as indicated by the Ninth Amendment. But our rights can be organized or classified under the headings of life, liberty, and happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This demonstrates that governments are formed to protect our rights, not to give them.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." This clearly advocates dissolution of any government which does not act to defend the rights of the people. Notice that "the People," that is, individuals, have the right to make this adjustment. In our present case, we do not need to change, abolish, or replace the Constitution; what we need is to change our government so it will conform — by force if necessary — to the Constitution.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." No one should be quick to resist minor and isolated abuses of power. These are inevitable in any government staffed by human beings.

"And accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Americans have indeed suffered evil after evil from the government — infractions of free speech, gun restrictions, exorbitant taxes, and violations of property and state rights — for a very long time.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to thrown off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." For now we will not consider whether or not such a systematic abuse of power exists in the United States. What is important to note is that when systematic abuses exist it is the people's (remember this means you and me, not elected officials or law enforcement agencies) RIGHT and DUTY to "throw off such Government."

If you become convinced that the federal government is bent on systematic violations of our personal liberties, it is your moral duty and obligation to join with others so convinced to restore true liberty for all Americans.

This is a radical conclusion, but our forefathers were "radicals" and this is the premise upon which our nation was founded and has its being.

1.2.4 Guns are not the problem

Americans have a rich heritage of arming and organizing themselves into militias. We have not even considered the Old West where virtually everyone had a gun for self-defense. Nor have we considered the fact that up until the turn of the century, states required by law that every able-bodied adult male citizen possess a gun and ammunition.

But aren't guns the cause of all kinds of evil? Ostensibly, recent movements to restrict private gun ownership or use have been intended to reduce accidents and violent crime. But facts simply do not support this.

Fewer accidents occur with guns than by many other common things in life.

In 1987, there were only 1,695 accidental deaths involving firearms in the United States (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 59).

It is 26 times more likely that you will die in an auto accident than by a gun accident (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 60). Yet there is no organized movement to ban car ownership like there is for guns which are Constitutionally protected.

Accidents involving firearms have decreased by 42% from 1970 to 1983 (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 60).

There is no basis for the belief that restricting gun ownership or use will significantly reduce violent crime. While it would be stretching the truth to say that gun ownership prevents crime, it certainly does not cause it.

Violent crimes such as murder have not been invented since the advent of firearms but have occurred as long as sinful man has existed. Crime is encouraged by culture and sin, not mechanical instruments.

Florida has the nation's highest violent crime rate and 8.6 gun dealers per 10,000 people. North Dakota has the lowest violent crime rate and 25.8 gun dealers per 10,000 people. This is consistent with crime and gun dealer rates in other states. (U.S. News & World Report, 1/17/94). There is no correlation between gun sales and crime.

Gun control activists point to Great Britain as an example of a country with strict gun control and low crime rates. However, the British murder rate was lower than America's BEFORE the instituted gun control and their rate of increase in murders is FASTER than in the U.S. (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 77-78).

The countries of Switzerland, Israel, Denmark, and Finland have the world's very highest per capita gun ownership and some of the world's lowest rime rates (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 78). Therefore, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.

Taiwan, Mexico, and Jamaica have much stricter gun control than the U.S. and much higher murder rates. Since 1974, possession of just a single bullet in Jamaica has been punishable with life imprisonment! Yet Jamaica has six times as many gun deaths per capita as our murder capital, Washington, D.C. (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 78-79). There is no correlation between gun laws and crime.

The National Sheriff's Association, American Federation of Police, and the National Police Officer's Association of America all officially support gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 111).

So-called assault rifles are not the weapon of choice among criminals. They are singled out for gun control not because they threaten the law-abiding citizen but because they threaten an unconstitutional government.

One gets the impression from television and newspapers that so-called assault rifles are responsible for most murders since headlines often tell of maniacs shooting masses of people. In fact, only 4% of homicides involve any kind of rifle and less than 1% involve assault weapons (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 150, 154).

The anti-assault rifle craze in the media is analogous to coverage of aircraft crashes. Although many more people are killed in care accidents, it is the isolated case of an airliner crash that gets the publicity because the story is more sensational. Likewise, the coverage of murders with "assault rifles" distorts the truth that assault rifles kill very few people.

In fact, military rifles are designed to wound rather than kill. The .223 caliber cartridge of the M-16 is much lighter than a .30-06 hunting rifle. Moreover, military cartridges have "full metal jackets" to minimize tissue damage because killing the enemy eliminates one soldier while wounding him occupies several to remove him from the field and tend to his wounds.

Furthermore, genuine assault rifles have not been legal for private, unlicensed ownership since 1968. The Department of Defense defines an "assault rifle" as a military rifle that discharges multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger (i.e., a machine gun). Today's focus is on semi-automatic weapons which by definition are not assault rifles.

No legally registered automatic assault weapon has ever been used in a crime in the United States (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 149). Either such weapons are not used for crime, or those who do use them totally ignore gun control laws.

In Switzerland, every able-bodied adult male trains two or three weeks each year in the army and is required to keep an automatic assault rifle and ammunition in his home (Fodor's Guide to Switzerland, pp. 60-61). Yet violent crime is virtually non- existent in Switzerland.

Do not believe gun control activists who claim they only want to regulate and not eliminate gun ownership and use by law-abiding private citizens.

Nazis in Denmark, the military in Greece, and officials in Hungary have all used pre-existing gun owners lists to confiscate weapons (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 88-89).

The stated purpose of Handgun Control is the elimination of guns in the hands of private citizens. Waiting periods and registration are simply the tactical first step towards disarming the public totally ("Handguns Under Heavy Fire," 3/13/94, p. B-6).

1.2.5 Discussion questions

What were your first impressions of Patrick Henry when you read his speech? Do you think he was a realist or an alarmist? Subversive or patriotic? Principled or power-hungry? Bold or foolhardy?

Read Patrick Henry's speech again in the light of today's situation (substitute America for Great Britain, Congress for Parliament, etc.). Using a highlighter, highlight the statements and ideas that apply now. What are the main parallels between Patrick Henry's day and ours?

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Christian theologian Loraine Boettner wrote, "We desire peace, but not the kind that is found in the slave camp or cemetery." What do you say?

Why do you suppose that the American Revolution was ignited over guns instead of taxes, even though taxes had been the main issue for so long?

What is your definition of a "right" and where do rights come from?

What is the purpose of the government and where does it gets its authority?

What is the proper, just, and moral response of an American citizen to a government which systematically violates the "unalienable rights" of the people? Why?

If a person would publicly advocate the ideas of Patrick Henry or the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence today, how do you think he would be labeled and treated by the federal government? By the news media? By the typical American citizen?

What do