Pajamas Media

106 Comments

1. Adina Kutnicki,Israel:

The very fact that the Iranian citizens do not have the right to bear arms and this is the reason why they are being murdered in the streets.

When a leadership strips its citizens of this right-assuming that they had it to begin with-the alarm bells should go off as to why they are doing so.

Those who cannot or will not see the connection are condoning a fascist relationship between a government and their citizens.

Simple as that.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:35 am 2. SteveOfTheNorth:

True,lets not forget that ALL things the Government has/runs can be turned against it,
not just the rifles etc…Power,Water,and even traffic.

In a free state, the police would turn against government,but when you separate the police
from the people so as to control law enforcement then the ability to calm crowds becomes nil.

Another example:USSR in Afghanistan during their invasion the Russians brought air-defense
weapons yet aircraft were not much/or no threat.the weapons were turned against the Soviet
troops.Police states become inflexible and might bring weapons that will fall into revolutionary hands.An iron fist always becomes a sieve,such is human nature.

The mind is always the first weapon of the revolutionary, the rifle is the second one.

“Ride hard,Shoot straight and Speak the truth” ~Col. Jeff Cooper

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:49 am 3. eon:

Also, to follow Mr. Cramer’s analogy, what if Private A notices that one of the protesters he has been orders to shoot down is someone he knows, or is even related to? There’s an old military axiom which states that it’s a very bad idea to do your fighting in the same place you’re doing your recruiting.

As to the ability of an army- any army- to control or suppress an armed populace, an observation from World War II is apropos’. While interrogating high-ranking Japanese officers in 1945-46, U.S. Army officers asked them why there were no plans for any attempted landings or invasions of U.S. soil, other than the landings in the Aleutians (Dutch Harbor).

The Japanese generals explained that they were well aware of the large percentage of Americans who owned firearms, especially in rural areas, and particularly rifles and shotguns used for hunting. (A hunting rifle is essentially the same thing as a military rifle of that era, except probably with a telescopic sight in addition to iron sights.) The Japanese command had done the math, and concluded that they simply did not have the sheer number of soldiers it would take to suppress and control an armed populace on that level; in fact, all the evidence indicated that attempting to do so would mean the near-total destruction of their ground forces to no actual gain.

They decided that it would be foolish, and suicidal, to even attempt an invasion of the continental United States for exactly that reason. In their own words, it would be “like marching into the mouth of a dragon”.

With modern weapons of mass destruction, it is certainly possible to “negate” an armed populace by simply killing them en masse’. Suppressing or controlling that populace without resorting to such measures is another matter entirely.

clear ether

eon

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:56 am 4. "progressive"watch:

Though-provoking,well-reasoned on Cramer’s part. It seems to me that Obamamao is eager to disarm American citizens and equally eager to empower himself.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:24 am 5. J. B. Layne:

The Iranians could do a lot with improvised weapons. There seems, from press reports, to be a lot of motorcycle mounted Basij militiamen. Caltrops could be fashioned from nails and would disable motorcycles and cars used for drive-by shootings, wire was used by French resistance, stretched across roadways, to dismount motorcyclists, if not decapitate them. Once they are on the ground they can be clubbed and their weapons seized. Trashcans can be converted into claymore mines, using fertilizer, crankcase oil, and scrap metal–surely some bright chemistry major could conjure up detonators. Bows and arrows still make effective weaponry, and can be easily fabricated. There is all sorts of things they can do, if they only have the will to try.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:31 am 6. elvis:

guns in the citizens keep them free!

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:52 am 7. sheesh:

Wonderful. More fodder for the .44 caliber freaks show. I asked this before and nobody could muster the guts to answer it. It started with one of you folks bleating, “I am not going to be come a slave to Obama’s government, I will take the to streets. I will fight in the streets before I do that.”

OK, what will it take for you to “take to the streets?” AND, what will you do when you get there? Who or what are you going to shoot?

Ready, fire, aim.

Jul 10, 2009 - 5:28 am 8. George Bruce:

Viewed properly, the Communists, Socialists, Nazis and Fascists (religious or secular) are all really the same thing. And they all impose strict gun control.

Jul 10, 2009 - 5:56 am 9. Broadsword:

sheesh…! Thanks for a wonderful question. I have never seen a more remarkable question. What resolve and courage, nay, guts it must have taken. In the sentence “It started with one of you folks bleating…”, what is the it? What started…? (Yes, genuinely curious.) Is it the it in the phrase ‘It’s all about the…”, or “It was a dark and stormy night”, or “It is raining”? Or maybe my own “…it must have taken”?

Clayton, nice of you to put up a pic of a CZ-75, (yes?).

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:23 am 10. antaine:

Yes, George, they are all big-government statists with a wide socialist streak that push against religion(s) and see value in limiting civilian weapons (remind you of a party in the US?)

Sheesh,
that would be up to individual people, but make NO question about it, the second amendment was not in there to guarantee hunting rights, defense from burglars, or defense from foreign invasion. At the time, all three were no-brainers and didn’t require a special amendment. People were guaranteed the right to keep AND BEAR arms to protect themselves FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

That was the safeguard by which the president wouldn’t “crown himself another king” or congress “become as tyrannical as king george and parliament.” The security of your liberty did not rest with your legislators or the courts, it rested with the bullet in your gun hanging above the hearth, ready to put teeth in your inalienable, God-given rights…

(and if you think the guns are obsolete now because we have the aclu, you live in a dreamworld)

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:38 am 11. BillH:

sheesh, you seem to have missed Clayton’s whole point. Most of us have a line. We don’t all advertise it. Just like the Iranians, there is a point at which many Americans will take to the streets. I doubt any party could get away with vote fraud on the scale the mullahs in Iran tried to, but I can easily imagine an attempt at gun registration/confiscation. Until that happens, scoff all you like.

There are a few who will go along with anything… it’s THE government, after all. Speaking of mustering the guts, it’s pretty easy to swing that at others. Is there anything that would get YOU in the street?

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:05 am 12. Herr Morgenholz:

Sheesh:

While the media won’t report it, people were in the streets in droves on both April 15 and July 4.

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:30 am 13. Kipling:

“But what’s so odd or “questionable” in suggesting that a population confronting a corrupt, dishonest, thuggish government would benefit from being armed?” – Whoa, thought you were talking about the Obama administration for a second.

#7 What would it take for people to take to the streets? Interesting question. The last time I checked, some people have been taking to the streets already, mostly in the form of Tea Parties. No violence there but a determination to win back their liberty. If the government moved to suppress free speech and intimidate the protesters then that might lead to confrontation but few in the police or armed forces would stoop that low as they swore to defend the Constitution. For violence to occur there would have to be a major violation of rights in direct defiance of the Constitution – i.e. confiscation of personal firearms, Mr. Obama running for a 3rd term, etc.

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:34 am 14. Thoughtful:

A core fact surrounding the founding of this country was that we the People had certain unalienable Rights. Among these were the Right to Life, The Right to Liberty and the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness.

These, however, are not the ONLY Rights given us by our Creator; often overlooked. Another RIGHT, just as important in the Founder’s minds, was the Right To Bear Arms in defense of Individual Liberty. This is a Right reserved to the People. The Second Amendment only states that the Government can’t TAKE THIS RIGHT AWAY.

In other words this is a basic Right of the People that can’t be amended away. Just like your Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness cannot be Abridged IN ANY WAY by the government. These are Rights given to each of us by our Creator.

Think about it.

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:40 am 15. carol:

sheeesh…get back under the bride..

don’t feed the troll folks..

He has missed the point intentionally…..on all the posts that you find him…always negative, always calling names, always on line posting

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:44 am 16. carol:

hahahah…okay, not under the bride…the bridge..the bride would have to be fumegated…

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:46 am 17. Old Soldier:

People forget that our Constitution was written by successful revolutionaries – and very wise men. They knew the history in Europe had allows trended towards concentration of power and any oppression necessary to keep that power. The 2nd Amendment was their poison pill against oppressive government. Ban all the weapons you want – I will never turn mine in.

Sheesh – What is happening in Iran would certainly be enough for me to start shooting the Revolutionary Guard. A few well-organized raids on poorly guarded military or police depots would help balance things out and make it more like the situation in Romania.

At least some of the people I’ve protesting claim to be Iran / Iraq war vets. It would be a shame if some captured Taliban AK’s found their way into their hands. I bet they could be a lot more dangerous than unarmed mobs.

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:50 am 18. Clayton E. Cramer:

OK, what will it take for you to “take to the streets?” AND, what will you do when you get there? Who or what are you going to shoot?

If Americans started to be arrested for no apparent criminal actions, disappeared into the federal jail system, and were held incommunicado–or worse, all we got were postcards from them in a re-education camp in Nevada, but they never responded to letters–that would be a “take to the streets” situation. I can imagine a number of others as well.

Of course, attempts to disarm the population provoked the Battle of Lexington in 1775. The Barcelona Uprising during the Spanish Civil War, in which Anarchists fought against their supposed allies, the Communists, was provoked by the Communist effort to disarm the Anarchists. (It also assisted in Fascist victory.)

Another stunt like Waco might lead to an uprising. It is interesting that the “Freemen” siege in Montana soon put a pile of armed civilians behind the FBI. The Freemen were actually fraudsters using political rhetoric to mask their criminal actions, but after Waco, a fair number of people found it useful to remind the FBI that they needed to resolve this matter peacefully, if there was any way to do so.

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:52 am 19. Clayton E. Cramer:

Clayton, nice of you to put up a pic of a CZ-75, (yes?).

That wasn’t my selection. I’m partial to the Browning Hi-Power, myself!

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:53 am 20. Clayton E. Cramer:

A few well-organized raids on poorly guarded military or police depots would help balance things out and make it more like the situation in Romania.

This is one of the advantages that the U.S. has–our population is allowed to own firearms in the standard military calibers. If push came to shove, more than a few National Guard armories would be liberated (and the National Guardsmen responsible for securing those facilities, might not require much persuasion). But what about ammo? California, for example, centralized storage of all their ammo. But no matter: Americans have truly vast quantities of 9mm, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56mm ammo at home.

Mexico, by comparison, to the extent that it allows civilians to own guns at all, prohibits them from having military caliber weapons. Thus, for many years, Colt made pistols in .38 Super, partly for the Mexican market, where .45 ACP or 9mm wasn’t allowed. A number of rifles are made in .222 specifically because Mexico doesn’t allow hunters to have rifles in .223 (a standard military caliber).

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:00 am 21. Clayton E. Cramer:

They decided that it would be foolish, and suicidal, to even attempt an invasion of the continental United States for exactly that reason. In their own words, it would be “like marching into the mouth of a dragon”.

You might find this article from the March 20009 America’s First Freedom of interest. Some state governors called out the unorganized militia (the armed civilians) to prepare to fight back against invasion: in Alaska, Oregon, and Maryland. And I suspect that there were others that I didn’t find.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:05 am 22. maak:

17. Old Soldier: “People forget that our Constitution was written by successful revolutionaries – and very wise men. They knew the history in Europe had allows trended towards concentration of power and any oppression necessary to keep that power. The 2nd Amendment was their poison pill against oppressive government.”

Yep. I don’t think they were thinking about sportsmen when they included the 2nd Amendment. I said a out loud in the first days of the Iran revolt that they were at a great disadvantage with out weapons.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:07 am 23. gracie:

Do you think that as an individual you would actualy start shooting at people…as an individual.. Here in america I would be afraid to shoot first even in a group, because no one would follow, and then they’ed point their fingers and say..”he did it mister”

We talk a lot. Nothing more. The people that wrote the consititution were not cowards.

Wanna be brave?…go vote in 2010. Vote out EVERYONE that is in office now (and up for reelection) that did not read the bills they have passed…

Be brave, do something.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:13 am 24. sallie:

Once again…a country where religion tries to dictate to man…And that is all religion is good for…telling you what god has told “certain people” to tell you..

Communications are better now, people see things differently daily. I would like to be able to help those people, but as Americans, we can’t even help ourselves.

Just because it has gone on for centuries does not mean it’s right.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:17 am 25. EnemyoftheState:

I swore an oath many years ago, at the start of my military career, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I’ve been branded an enemy of the state by Janet Napolitano and the DHS for my veteran status and my religious and moral beliefs. I support the Tea Parties and State Sovereignity but have been to no meetings, I’m still part of the “silent majority”.

I’d like to stress that I am not a right-wing extremist of any variety. I don’t hate anybody. But I’m very unhappy about what’s happening to my country. My oath to defend the U.S. Constitution has no expiration date. The military trained me to be an expert marksman, and I’ve maintained my skills. I’m ready. Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:30 am 26. Old Soldier:

gracie: You probably described the feelings at Lexington pretty accurately. One reason Ralph Waldo Emerson called itthe “Shot Heard Round the World”. But, others pulled their triggers too – then more at Concord.

Once one side is shooting, shooting back is a lot easier – and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is shooting.

Jul 10, 2009 - 8:57 am 27. Professor Guvinoff:

At this point the Iranian protesters lack the kinetic bite. The monopoly of arms is with those who are supposed to be loyal to the regime. The tilting of the balance hinges on the cracks in the apparatus of repression. Victory is not just a matter of military superiority. Lack of cohesion in the opposing camp is just as important, if the insurgents have a more solid motivation.

The first breach will be the critical precedent. We are justifiably concerned about the malfeasance of iranian actors in Iraq, but the porosity of the very long border between Iran and Iraq is not a one-way path. Arms can be (and will be) smuggled eastwards sooner or later. You don’t need arms superiority if the opponents have latent lines of cleavage in their web of loyalties, but you do need some measure of parity in the seminal places where the loyalties can be switched. The turncoats need to know that the opposition has some viability before they take the chance.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:07 am 28. Clayton E. Cramer:

Wanna be brave?…go vote in 2010.

That doesn’t take any bravery–all the more reason to preserve our freedoms by voting.

We defend our freedoms with four boxes (and in this order): soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Try to persuade others; vote for good people; refuse to convict people charged under unjust laws; and only in the gravest extreme, is armed revolution an option.

The last three “boxes” are progressively greater personal risk. If you can solve a problem peacefully, all the better.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:11 am 29. Clayton E. Cramer:

Once again…a country where religion tries to dictate to man…And that is all religion is good for…telling you what god has told “certain people” to tell you..

You might want to read Reading Lolita in Tehran and see how well the mullahocracy matches up to your apparent fantasy of American theocracy.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:13 am 30. sallie:

Religion in ANYANYANY country, is there to control the people. It is bowed to , it is regarded as the high authority, any country. i did not mean to sound like I was excluding America. I was merely stating Iran was just one more.

It is thugs in robes pretending to do what God has directed them to do. Such as the Christian Crusades of old. I firmly believe this.

I had to endure 4 years of theology in school. I am far from an expert, but the same thing runs through each one that I remember, control of some sort. Ultimately it ends up in the government controlling the people in mass . Be it Christian or the religion of Islam.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:30 am 31. Brad Hanson:

The problem is that today you’d be labelled a “terrorist.”

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:37 am 32. Clayton E. Cramer:

It is thugs in robes pretending to do what God has directed them to do. Such as the Christian Crusades of old. I firmly believe this.

I had to endure 4 years of theology in school.

You might want to read up on the Crusades and their motivations, objectives, and effects. It’s a bit more complex than you are describing.

Religion without governmental power can’t control anyone without their permission.

Jul 10, 2009 - 10:24 am 33. CitizenAuthority:

Sheesh

You know – I do walk in the streets, into buildings, and pretty much any place I desire with the ability to enforce my wishes if it comes to that – all “legal” mind you! As a concealed carry permit holder, I relish the “right” I still retain to protect my liberties – both from government and thugs who prey upon those who don’t take their personal safety seriously. It’s called taking responsibility for ones self and personal duty! Educate yourself man -

Clayton

Thank you for this thoughtful article and a chance to ponder the “what could be” if those in Iran had the ability to “enforce” their will. My hope is that we as “citizen’s” will be vigilant in our fight to remain free to exercise a God given right! I’m currently in Namibia and had the chance to discuss this very issue with a very close friend. Here in Namibia, they are now creating an environment that is very intolerant of firearms – making it difficult to obtain and maintain current arms. It’s funny how a revolutionary government seeks to deny its populous firearms once it has taken power – fear of those whom now reside in their new found power vacuum ultimately forces them to deny what they themselves fought for! One more reason to gasp in awe at the foresight and wisdom of our founding fathers.

Jul 10, 2009 - 10:35 am 34. Sandra:

Question to lib: “How do you deal with a government thatkills you if you say or believe the wrong things?”

Lib answer: *pause, disappears* They took off for a flight to go make friends with that type of government. (Venezuela… Iran… Syria [Nancy Pelosi]…)

Jul 10, 2009 - 10:39 am 35. Clayton E. Cramer:

It’s funny how a revolutionary government seeks to deny its populous firearms once it has taken power – fear of those whom now reside in their new found power vacuum ultimately forces them to deny what they themselves fought for!

As much as I detested the Sandinistas, one of the signs of their level of belief that they represented popular will is that they did not generally disarm their population. Most governments that distrust their population generally disarm their population.

Jul 10, 2009 - 10:58 am 36. j huettl:

The New Constitution of Mexico ratified in 1917 does indeed recognize the Citizens of Mexico have the right of arms listed in:

Constitution of Mexico
Title One
Chapter 1
(Individual Guarantees)
Article 10

So,when you are in Mexico and you see someone that is packing a weapon with a banned military caliber, remember how they get around that little INDIVIDUAL GUARANTEE: they carry a card that says they are on permanent leave from the National Guard. (Oops a loophole.)Just more Mordita.

The wonderful Mexico Constitution also forbids the flying of any flag other than the Flags of Mexico, yet they allow vehicles to display as a decal ( not flying from a stick) flags other than the flags of Mexico.

Jul 10, 2009 - 11:02 am 37. Clayton E. Cramer:

It turns out that the 1857 Mexican Constitution also had a right to keep and bear arms, and like ours until quite recently, largely ignored by the courts. I mention this in passing in a paper about the origins of the 1824 Mexican Constitution.

Jul 10, 2009 - 11:22 am 38. mememem:

America needs to clean up america before we start with other countries..

BO will never take a positive stand in ANY middle east country that goes against the current

Jul 10, 2009 - 11:35 am 39. Juvenal:

I think we all need to remember that, unlike the Founders, we still have the vote.

It’s not that Obama & Co. aren’t trying to game the system as much as possible in their favor, and it’s not that that system–political, cultural and economic–wasn’t seriously degraded already before Obama.

But it’s still possible to make your case, appeal to people’s reason and let your ideas compete with theirs. We’re still at the ballot box level.

The day that we lose the vote, or the vote becomes a sham–as it is in Iran, or as it was in Ceausescu’s Romania, then I would be willing to consider our situation in this country similar to theirs. Will we see that day while Obama is president? I don’t know, but I admit that the past few months have made me think about it for the first time.

Jul 10, 2009 - 11:57 am 40. Jon Rowe:

I thought Mr. Cramer was a bible believing evangelical Christian. Note, there is nothing in the orthodox understanding of the Bible that forbids supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. However, the Bible most certainly does categorically forbid “armed revolt.” See for instance Romans 13 and Titus 3. Calling something a “God given right” doesn’t necessarily make it biblical. The DOI is NOT the Bible. It’s about as similar to the Bible as the Book of Mormon.

Jul 10, 2009 - 12:22 pm 41. shcb:

Just to show that some things never change, I recall reading a piece by George Washington where he went through the calculations that a well organized army with military weapons could go up against a civilian force with civilian weapons with a ten to one advantage. The point of his piece was that we should never let the military exceed that 10 to 1 ratio so the populace could always defeat the government.

Jul 10, 2009 - 12:22 pm 42. Clayton E. Cramer:

However, the Bible most certainly does categorically forbid “armed revolt.” See for instance Romans 13 and Titus 3.

Oddly enough, throughout recent history, Bible-believing Christians (like Dietrich Bonhoeffer) did not see any conflict between their faith and overthrowing genocidal monsters. It’s very easy to pick bits and pieces out of the Bible to construct whatever model you want (just like those who pull the Constitutional clause that grants to coin gold and silver, and then decide that paper money isn’t lawful).

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:12 pm 43. Clayton E. Cramer:

The DOI is NOT the Bible.

Wow! I didn’t know that!

It’s about as similar to the Bible as the Book of Mormon.

And yet oddly enough, a nation that was overwhelmingly Christian (even if some of its leaders held somewhat unorthodox beliefs) regarded the Declaration of Independence with great reverence. Perhaps they knew about their religious beliefs–being on the inside–than Jon Rowe knows about them, being on the outside.

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:14 pm 44. Clayton E. Cramer:

Note, there is nothing in the orthodox understanding of the Bible that forbids supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

Jesus actually directed his disciples to buy swords (Luke 22:36-37). Perhaps they were to cut up very tough steaks.

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:19 pm 45. Jon Rowe:

Actually from my meticulous study of the record which spans the entire 2000 years of Christian history, it’s the pro-revolters who adopt the cafeteria theology method. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But let’s see it for what it is.

I think part of the problem is lack of spiritual discernment on the part of Christians. The Bible is a big book and theology is complicated. I’ll give you a telling example. I watched one of the leading young Roman Catholic natural law scholars lecture on the rights of religious conscience under the natural law at Princeton and I asked him how his vision squared with Romans 13. His answer? What does Romans 13 say?

But here is, in a nutshell, how it went down in America: 1/3 of Americans were pro-Tory Loyalists (whose understanding of Romans 13 was mine); 1/3 were Whigs; and 1/3 were on the fence. Self identified “Christian” clergy played the decisive role in in arguing for revolt. The leading names included Revs. Jonathan Mayhew, Samuels West and Cooper, and Charles Chauncy. They tended to be theological unitarians and Enlightenment rationalists who looked to Locke and the natural law/rights (defined as what man discovers from reason) and ignored or otherwise explained away the proof texts in Romans 13 and Titus 3.

Even John Witherspoon, who was an orthodox Christian of the Calvinist bent, when he argued for revolt turned to LOCKE and NATURE and NOT the Bible, because the Bible doesn’t teach revolt against tyrants as permitted.

I may be mistaken about Bonhoeffer; but I think he was, like MLK a theological liberal. That’s the lesson that needs to be learned; the orthodox understanding of the Bible is as a book of salvation or how to live one’s life, i.e., spiritual not political. It’s ALWAYS been the liberals who turn the Bible into a book of politics. The “political revolutionary” understanding of the Bible is liberation theology.

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:28 pm 46. Clayton E. Cramer:

I recall reading a piece by George Washington where he went through the calculations that a well organized army with military weapons could go up against a civilian force with civilian weapons with a ten to one advantage. The point of his piece was that we should never let the military exceed that 10 to 1 ratio so the populace could always defeat the government.

Are you sure you aren’t thinking of James Madison’s discussion in Federalist 46? If you have seen such a discussion from Washington, please tell me more.

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:42 pm 47. Clayton E. Cramer:

Actually from my meticulous study of the record which spans the entire 2000 years of Christian history, it’s the pro-revolters who adopt the cafeteria theology method.

Since your “meticulous” study of Revolutionary America concludes that Christianity wasn’t that big of an influence on America, you can understand my skepticism. A lot of people think that pacifism is the dominant view of Christianity, because they can quote “turn the other cheek.” And yet, throughout the history of Christianity, pacifism has been the minority viewpoint–and there are strong arguments that I had never heard until I was an adult that those quoting this verse are actually cherry-picking.

The Bible is a big book and theology is complicated. I’ll give you a telling example. I watched one of the leading young Roman Catholic natural law scholars lecture on the rights of religious conscience under the natural law at Princeton and I asked him how his vision squared with Romans 13. His answer? What does Romans 13 say?

I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised. The Catholic Church doesn’t put the same emphasis on the primacy of the Bible that Protestants do. And “leading young… scholar,” in my experience, means “someone who is far enough left to make academics happy.”

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:23 pm 48. shcb:

You might be right, it’s been a while, I’ll look tonight and see if I can find it. The book I am thinking of only had one or two letters from GW in it so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, but who knows, my memory is so bad anymore.

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:25 pm 49. Marc:

I am a Vet, and an old soldier now.

I guarantee you that if you are being shot at, and you have a firearm, you will have no problem shooting back. I went to Viet Nam unsure that I could ever shoot at someone. I have no problem shooting someone who is trying to harm me, or now me and my family.

I shot Expert with the M-16 with the open sights. Now I use a scope to aid these old eyes.

I have several firearms and will refuse to give them up if it comes to that.

….And then they came for me.

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:27 pm 50. CitizenAuthority:

Jon Rowe

Well, the “God given right” is to protect ones self and is a duty that each of us hold regardless of belief – it’s a natural law given to man. You cannot place that responsibility on another and keep the commandments of God. If one decides not to resist evil men through armed conflict then that’s their decision. He leaves that to each individual – it’s called choice.

As for armed revolt – if a Nation of any sort infringes on God given rights of its citizens then “YES” the Bible and the Book of Mormon would support such actions so long as every path had been taken to resolve the issue. If you read the Book of Mormon, it’s full of detailed scenarios of treachery by those who sought power over others. In fact, Captain Moroni, leader of the Nephite armies opposed to the Freemen who had just gained sole power of the Government, called the people to armed resistance. If you read carefully – every citizen was armed and ready to fight. In fact, they came running to support the cause of freedom of which they were about to surrender if they did nothing! Moreover, he didn’t put up with traitors, thieves, misfits, and foreign enemies. He disposed of them if they failed to me a particular criteria – either support liberty or – be put to death. Captain Moroni was considered a prophet and great leader whom God said would even shake the very “gates of hell” due to his righteousness. So, we need to understand scripture and properly access the situation.

Quite a nice read as Captain Moroni became an enemy of the state at one point in order to regain the government and secure freedom. He was instructed by God to retain his freedom at all costs. We may yet have to follow the same path.

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:32 pm 51. Jon Rowe:

Re Luke 22:36-37, Clayton, I’d admonish you to be careful because if your God is real He’s not going to appreciate you distorting and politicizing the meaning of His word. It’s NOT anything remotely like the 2nd Amendment.

Here is Dr. Gregg Frazer, one of the leading evangelical-fundamentalist academics on Romans 13 and revolt on that very passage:

Jesus did NOT tell his disciples to “get their swords” when they came for Him — what’s the verse? BEFORE they came for Him, He told his disciples to CARRY swords in order to fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:37). When they said they had two swords (for 12 men), He said that was enough — because they weren’t to be USED. He rebuked Peter for USING a sword, which was never the intent (John 18:36).

Click on my name to go to Dr. Frazer’s entire remarks.

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:34 pm 52. Delia:

I was able to fight off a rapist who crept up on me one night when I was walking home from a local little grocery store by brandishing my grandfather’s hunting knife I kept in my purse but, I had to take him by surprise and I had to be damned ready to stab him if I had to. Would I have stabbed the guy if he hadn’t have run scared? YES and he saw that in my eyes when I told him I was going to kill him if he didn’t run. Boy oh boy did he run. lol

The idea of violence or killing someone scares the crap out of me but if someone ever threatened my daughter or myself or even my big, strapping husband, I’d do what I had to do to protect us.

I keep knives in every room of my house. I keep my guns locked up in certain rooms for emergencies only.

Criminals will ALWAYS have guns.

Law abiding citizens having guns is NOT the problem in our Country.

Remember the 9/11 hijackers? Did they use guns?

No. They used freakin’ BOX CUTTERS!

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:39 pm 53. Jon Rowe:

Citizen Authority,

I don’t entirely disagree with what your write. If you use the natural law and Book of Mormon as authorities on part with the OT and NT, yes, you could arrive at your conclusion. Rather I’m arguing my case on the grounds of traditional Sola Scriptura OT and NT.

Also re the “natural law,” yes, some of the “natural lawyers” “found” the right to revolt in Nature using their reason. But most of them, throughout the history of Christendom, did not.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:01 pm 54. Jon Rowe:

Since your “meticulous” study of Revolutionary America concludes that Christianity wasn’t that big of an influence on America, you can understand my skepticism.

Well to clarify I conclude, after Bernard Bailyn, that biblical Christianity was one of FIVE key ideological influences. It was Christianity plus other non-Christian sources, mixed together in a synthesis that produced a different animal.

A lot of people think that pacifism is the dominant view of Christianity, because they can quote “turn the other cheek.” And yet, throughout the history of Christianity, pacifism has been the minority viewpoint–and there are strong arguments that I had never heard until I was an adult that those quoting this verse are actually cherry-picking.

My view — what I argue is the dominant view throughout the history of orthodox Christianity (which remember spans 2000 not, 300 years) — has NOTHING to do with pacifism and EVERYTHING to do with AUTHORITY.

I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised. The Catholic Church doesn’t put the same emphasis on the primacy of the Bible that Protestants do.

Point well taken; he conceded this point by saying something like “I’m a Catholic, why are you asking me about the Bible.” I think he was joking though. However, I argue my position from the orthodox Protestant perspective. What I’ve recited is the position of both Luther AND Calvin.

And “leading young… scholar,” in my experience, means “someone who is far enough left to make academics happy.”

LOL. You are wrong there. He was one of Robbie George’s handpicked boys. He believes a fertilized egg is a human being with full civil rights and that masturbation, contraception and homosexuality all violate the natural law. The context of his speech, if I remember correctly, was a natural right of government health care workers to refuse to perform abortions and give contraception without fear of job retribution.

I would mention his name, in fact I might because what he says is worth listening to, however, I don’t want to come off as demeaning a brilliant fellow who very kindlly gave me the time of day when I asked him a that Q.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:12 pm 55. Clayton E. Cramer:

Re Luke 22:36-37, Clayton, I’d admonish you to be careful because if your God is real He’s not going to appreciate you distorting and politicizing the meaning of His word. It’s NOT anything remotely like the 2nd Amendment.

Nor did I say otherwise. I was pointing out that Jesus was not simply silent about self-defense, but supported it. The “Jesus was a pacifist” claim made by gun control advocates is pretty well demolished by that.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:25 pm 56. CitizenAuthority:

Jon

First off, in Luke 22:36-37, Christ didn’t tell his disciples to get rid of the swords either. He simply understood that they were afraid and didn’t understand what was about to happen. Moreover, Christ rebuked Peter because he didn’t understand that Christ was about to fulfill part of his earthly role and do what was necessary to lead us back to our Father. Lastly, Christ didn’t need protection (I know you know that) – if he wanted it he could have called legions of angels to resolve the problem!

As for being subject to kings, principalities , and such – yes, we need to be subject to law and to governments, however, if we are abused and chained to unjust and evil rulers/government, do you not think that God would have us choose liberty and happiness over wickedness? We’re commanded to live in righteousness correct? Q: Would not the Israelites have been justified to revolt against their slave masters the Egyptians? Why didn’t they? Well, they did not because they became a fallen and corrupt people full of idolatry after being in bondage! How’s life in Russia these days even after the fall of communism?

God doesn’t want us to fight against our brothers and sisters on earth – but he also doesn’t want his children to support evil either. How can we be happy if we’re in bondage? How can we live the gospel if we’re under the yoke of evil government? Yes, we can live the gospel in our hearts. Yes, we can in our prayers. Yes, we can by doing good even under difficult situations. However, God doesn’t ask us to simply let tyrants or wicked leaders assume power with out a fight! That would be contrary to the plan of happiness.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:29 pm 57. Clayton E. Cramer:

When they said they had two swords (for 12 men), He said that was enough — because they weren’t to be USED. He rebuked Peter for USING a sword, which was never the intent (John 18:36).

And there are those who argue that Jesus rebuked Peter because Jesus’ arrest was necessary for the rest of these events to take place, which Peter didn’t understand. Perhaps the purpose of having two swords was to discourage common bandits from attacking. Of course, that’s the primary purpose of most people being armed: to discourage criminals both private and public.

Jul 10, 2009 - 3:32 pm 58. Clayton E. Cramer:

Well to clarify I conclude, after Bernard Bailyn, that biblical Christianity was one of FIVE key ideological influences. It was Christianity plus other non-Christian sources, mixed together in a synthesis that produced a different animal.

Well of course there were other influences. Very little of human history operates under the influence of a single movement or idea. But Christianity wasn’t exactly a minor player on this. There’s a reason that most state constitutions in the period impose or allow religious tests for holding public office, usually limiting it to Christians or specifically Protestants.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:02 pm 59. Strawman:

That doesn’t take any bravery–all the more reason to preserve our freedoms by voting.

Until Black Panther guards are posted at all polling places.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:12 pm 60. Jon Rowe:

Clayton,

I don’t think Jesus was a Pacifist. I’m not sure how to properly understand “turn the other cheek” and lots of other of his utterances though. I DO agree with the uber-orthodox view, however, that Jesus presented himself as someone who transcended politics and delivered an otherwordly message that was entirely spiritual, not political at all. If he were an Incarnate God, he would, as Citizen Authority alluded, have the power to obliterate in the blink of an eye, anyone who opposed him, no need for a sword, gun or anything. With that power, he (or He) accepted crucifiction.

CitizenAuthority,

As I understand orthodox-biblical theology (which differs from Mormon theology and that of America’s Founders) God isn’t concerned that men be happy on earth and yes, you can live a Godly life while SUBMITTING to tyrannical government — see the First Apostles, most of whom submitted to tyranny and were executed for their Christianity! The message of the Bible is salvation or freedom from sin and its consequences, NOT political liberty or freedom from political tyranny.

Re Moses, he didn’t lead a rebellion. Here is Dr. Frazer on the matter (again click on my named hyperlink).

God did NOT tell Moses to “break away from Pharaoh” — where? What verse? He told Moses to go to Pharaoh (not organize a rebellion) and repeat to him God’s demand that he let the Israelites go. When Pharaoh refused, Moses still did not organize rebellion — he just kept repeating God’s words to Pharaoh. Revolution is always wrong and God is not a liar.

[It's best to be accurate in what you say before casually throwing around an accusation against God]

As for rulers going down, God uses the sinful activity of men for His purposes and makes it work to fulfill His plan — but that does not change the fact that the action was sinful/wrong [the end does not justify the means].

Where does the Bible say that God sent Moses to revolt — what verse?

What is the connection between killing an individual Egyptian and revolution against the government of Egypt? FORTY YEARS elapsed between the killing of the Egyptian and Moses’ return to Egypt to confront Pharaoh.

Where does the Bible say that Moses (or the Israelites) took up arms against the Egyptian government — what verse?

On the contrary, Moses presented GOD’S demands (not his) and then merely obeyed Pharaoh’s command to leave Egypt in Exodus 12:31-32 — they didn’t fight their way out or try to overthrow the government of Pharaoh. All of the attacks on Pharaoh’s people and all of the deaths were done by God Himself — not by Moses or the Israelites.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:13 pm 61. Jones:

I think to die in the service of overthrowing a corrupt government would be a good death.

Maybe it will happen here a 2nd time.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:18 pm 62. Jones:

>Remember the 9/11 hijackers? Did they use guns?

No. They used freakin’ BOX CUTTERS!

which could have been easily defeated if there were a few guns in the right hands on those planes that day

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:20 pm 63. Kipling:

Does the Bible condone armed revolt against an oppressive government? Yes

Mark 12:13-17 with the key verse beign v. 17: “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

Mark 12:17 was a very controversial statement to make at a time when Caesar claimed divine status and ordered everyone to worship him. Jesus makes it clear here that some things do not belong to Caesar. He also makes it clear that certain things belong to God and Caesar cannot interfere with rendering unto God what is His.

Romans 13 is not so much an order to blindly follow any government but rather a restriction on the powers of government. In v. 3 rulers are not to be a terror to those who do good but to those who do evil. In v. 4 government is called upon to be a minister for good not evil.

Christians are to submit to a government unless that government requires them to do something that is evil or that should be rendered unto God. Early Christians defied the order of Caeser by not worshiping him and by meeting in direct defiance of his orders. Peter and John defied the order of the Jewish authorities to stop preaching in the name of Jesus. Other examples abound in both the Old and New Testament.

The Declaration of Independence points out that our rights come from the Creator and not from government. Therefore, Caesar has no right to take from us what comes from God. Government may be able to deny us the ability to exercise our rights but we are not required to submit to a government in that regard or to assist the government in deprivng others of their God given rights. According to Romans 13, a government that acts in such a way is outside of the will of God.

Jul 10, 2009 - 4:52 pm 64. Kipling:

Was Jesus a pacifist?

First of all, pacifism is a relatively new doctrine in the church. It basically argues that Christians are to be passive and allow evil to win. Was the Jesus who made a whip and drove the moneychangers out of the temple a pacifist? What about the Jesus in Revelatios who comes again on a white charger with His robe dipped in the blood of His enemies? Jesus never told a soldier to find another profession. The gospels portray centurians in a very positive light. Paul’s favorite metaphor for the Christian life was a soldier. There should be no such thing as passive Christians.

Jul 10, 2009 - 5:00 pm 65. Jon Rowe:

Kipling:

1) Your statement re Mark 12:13-17 does nothing to justify revolt against tyrannical government. Whatever belonged to “God” that text of the Bible does NOT claim the right to revolt to tyranny is included.

2) Re Romans 13, you seem confused: Christians are to submit to govt unless govt directly commands you to disobey God. That means SUBMIT TO THE TYRANT until the tyrant tells you to stop preaching the Bible or for instance to actively perform and abortion or star in a pornographic movie.

The Declaration of Independence, other than its invocation of a monotheistic “God” has NOTHING to do with the Bible. The idea of God given “unalienable rights” is entirely a-biblical. You might as well be citing the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Jul 10, 2009 - 5:19 pm 66. Carol/la:

Do any of you actually believe that the people in charge would ever stop and say…”oh, lets stop and read what the Christian Bible says about our doing that”? HELLO!!!!! If you do, I have a bridge for sale…

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:23 pm 67. Frank:

#1 Adina:

All human beings have the right to self defense, it’s just that some governments don’t recognize that right and some people choose not to exercise it, that doesn’t mean that the right doesn’t exist… the Iranian people have that right, and the Iranian thugocracy tramples all over it

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:32 pm 68. Gozer the Carpathian:

I’m sorry, but I think the Bible discussion about an armed overthrow is a major side-show. Not that it’s uninteresting but really a moot point here.

The point here is would private citizens with guns help in an Iran like situation. Short answer I believe is yes. A bit longer is HELL YES.

Basically the point is this: without personal firearms you get what’s happening now. A one sided slaughter of those poor people who are trying to stand up for what they believe in. They have NO support when it comes to defending themselves from a government who doesn’t care whether they live or die. None. Hence their chance to actually succeed is pretty much zero.

Oh sure they COULD start improvising and finally take some from the government, but at a much higher cost then them having weapons in the first place.

Say what you will about peaceful resistance, in the end if you can’t fight for what you want you ain’t getting it. I point to Tibet. Free Tibet! We’ll be all happy and protest and speak out. Don’t get me wrong I respect the Dali Lama but last time I checked China could care less what anyone says who doesn’t have a way of making them do anything.

As for in the USA? I have a feeling the shooting would start up really fast as soon as someone stupidly follows the orders of someone telling them to break up a protest “by any means.” The second a cop or guard unit breaks up a normally peaceful protest then the guns come out.

For me personally? Who knows? I have the means, but what would push me into jumping up and fighting? Honestly I’m not sure but I know this much, I won’t be the first most likely. There are many far quicker on the draw than me, and honestly with my little daughter and my wife I’d be slow to do anything as well. Unelss of course I can get them to Australia with the family there. *Shrugs*

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:43 pm 69. Michael G. Gallagher:

Not directly associated with armed revolt, but still relevant. In fact, it seems to be becoming more relevant all the time

Dear people, whoever you may be,

I’ve finished rereading Atlas Shrugged for the third time. The first two times (a long time ago) I applied its lessons to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. Now Ayn Rand’s work seems more pertinent than ever due the events unfolding in my homeland.

The reason I say my homeland is because I’m an expatriate American English teacher living in South Korea. I’ve been living and working in the ROK for twelve years, but I still send in my absentee ballot for presidential elections every four years.

What I’ve been seeing taking place in the USA since January 20 is making me more upset by the day. The mounting deficits, the growing and dangerous dependence on China (many South Koreans are very jittery about China) to finance those deficits, the talk of instituting new (VAT and a big one at that) taxes to help cover those very same deficits, the bailouts of GM, and particularly Chrysler, the attempt to remove choice and private enterprise from the U.S. health care system, the stimulus that went mostly to government drones rather things that would really stimulate, and above all, the despicable behavior of the mainstream media in covering up Obama’s real Chicago background. I had to go and find the red star at the top of William Ayers website all by myself!

All these things have made me very alarmed concerning the future of my country. So I’ve reached one overriding conclusion: it’s time for Americans to revolt against royal authority for the second time in 234 years.

I say this because I don’t believe the traditional legislative process can stop my country’s slide towards the comfortable euthanasia of West European-style socialism. With the idiocy of Bush to guide them, the Republicans have done a very creditable job of taking Dirty Harry’s 357. and pointing it at least at their feet, if not their heads.

So it’s time to revolt. This will be a difficult idea for many Americans to grasp. After all, we are the product of a culture that has based on the rule of law from its very beginnings back in medieval England.

What I’m talking about is starving the Government Beast. Come next April 15, 2010 don’t send in your tax forms. Refuse to pay! If you’re a small businessman don’t pay your state (If you live in California, New York, or New Jersey, this applies especially to you) or federal business taxes. Don’t pay your licensing fees! When the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, don’t file! Simply don’t feed the Beast!

If you’re worried about prosecution, there’s safety in numbers. If ten million Americans refuse to pay, the looters can’t possibly oppress more than a very small number of people. If ten million small business people refuse to knuckle under to the New Jealously Class, then the Beast will be truly crippled and will be forced to beg for mercy. View your refusal to pay blackmail to the looters as a civil rights issue along the lines of what inspired Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and the early 1960s. IT IS NOT YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO PAY HIGHER TAXES! In fact, it can be considered a form of treason to file on April 15, 2010.

Anyway, this has happened before. What most Americans don’t remember or never learned is that in the run-up to the American Revolution the British backed down twice over the issue of taxes. Parliament repealed both the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts in the face of fierce colonial protests. Remember, the looters don’t have the mighty Royal Navy behind them, or ranks of hard fighting British Grenadiers, all they have in their favor is the willingness to submit of a people who have been comfortable for far too long.

Michael G. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Seoul, Korea

Jul 10, 2009 - 7:07 pm 70. Carol/la:

wow, all this bible talk over a remark by Kraushaar of the Politico..the Politico!!! I don’t think anyone at the Politico knows what a bible is..
Armchair thealogians?

I agree with #68 , except for the Australia part.

You go Marco Rubio!!

I have no idea what we could do to help the Iranians . However, I do not believe any one should have to live under the tyranny the people in iran, or Iraq etc do. Man controlling man in the name of religion is especially disgusting. We will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.

Hope Kraushaar had to eat his words,.. literally…

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:32 pm 71. sallie:

#69

that will never happen, period.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:52 pm 72. Kipling:

Jon Rowe:

1. All tyranical governments will eventually declare the state to have absolute authority and demand total allegiance to the state. The denarius Jesus requested in the passage did just that by proclaiming the divinity of Caesar. Jesus took that denarius and essentially said that the power of government was limited. In other words, government had power over certain things but could not claim the things that belong to God – i.e. worship, absolute authority, total allegiance, etc.

2. I believe you are the one confused about Romans 13:1-7. In the text, Paul is basically elaborating on Mark 12:17. Government, based on Mark 12:17, does not have the proper authority to command a Christian to disobey God and to render to the state that which belongs to God. That is why Paul states that an authority instituted by God will (v.3) be a terror only to evil and (v.4) be a minister for good. Applying reason, any government then that is a terror to those that do good or is a minister for evil, is not a God sanctioned authority.

3. The Founding Fathers – men influenced by the Reformation and the Enlightenment – recognized the need for limited government and that government was not an authority in and of itself and could not claim absolute allegiance. You claim that unalienable rights are a-Biblical but the Founding Fathers did not believe so and neither do I. Rights come from God and their fulfillment is only found in God. Only God can revoke the rights he bestowed. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the rights of men, women, slaves, children, foreigners, etc. God gave those rights and defined them. He threatened to judge anyone who violated His statues by denying someone their rights. The prophets made that clear. Jesus made the same point when he talked about how the the religious leaders of His day sanctioned the plunderng of widows,the dishonoring of parents, and the burdening of the people with oppression.

4. Government is a creation of God to restrain the evil of men. It can only fulfill its function when it reflects the moral order of the universe as revealed in Scripture. A governemnt that reflects God is pictured in Scripture as a beautiful tree which gives shelter, protection, and a chance to live free to the birds and animals. Scripture depicts a government that does not reflect God as a beast. It has power but no morality and can only devour.

5. All of this is to say that a government that does not honor God or His purpose for it cannot appeal to Scripture to keep people oppressed.

Jul 10, 2009 - 10:44 pm 73. CitizenAuthority:

Gozer the Carpathian

Thanks for the redirect. You are right on in terms of our situation and the need to take a hard look at what is going on in this country. How do we solve this madness? Obviously, the populous needs to get involved in effective government first. Right now our countrymen are sleeping and many are participating in this madness through ignorance or sheer stupidity. Therefore, armed revolt does nothing if the general populous doesn’t have a clue what they’d be fighting for. Right now I believe that most American’s are so ignorant concerning our founding principles of “effective” government, that any form of armed resistance at this point would actually be dangerous. But Clayton is correct in writing this article if nothing more than to point out that we must defend the “right” to bear arms.

While I do not agree with Jon Rowe on many points in our “theological” connections to the “right” to bear and use arms to counter tyranny, he was correct in his assessment in that participation of the colonists who sided to break from the crown in the revolutionary war, was extremely low. Conversely, I think such low numbers demonstrates a general unwillingness of people to side against those who hold power due to apathy and fear of the potential results. It must be stated, very few individuals fought for the freedoms we all enjoy today as American’s, even if it is an imperfect system. It has been estimated that less than 7% of colonists actually participated in the revolutionary cause. Imagine that! Moreover, those who revile against our very freedoms today from within enjoy the blessing these few brought to us as a Nation. Quite extraordinary if one takes a moment to think about it! Man is generally passive so long as he has food on his table and has some form of outlet to pursue various desires. It’s unfortunate, but this way of thinking has been manifested and repeated over and over through out history with disastrous results. The last 200 years since the Revolutionary War should provide us with ample material.

As for the conversation on the Bible and our ability to defend our liberties – this is a very important aspect that should and “must” be part of any conversation regarding this Nation. Are we a Christian Nation? Some say yes – others say no. Were we founded on Christian principles? Yes indeed. Will we continue to be so? At present it looks grim if we follow our current path of political and social entropy. What will happen if we as a Nation decide to turn from Christian beliefs all together as a foundation for our liberty? The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is very clear on the matter – we have been warned through scripture and through modern-day prophets that if we as a Nation turn from the true and living God, this Nation and its people will be swept off the land, and it will be given to another. In that event, we will have turned from absolute freedom and knowledge willingly! We as a Nation, even in our imperfections – which are many – have been blessed above every nation. To turn from the blessings of freedom is unacceptable to God!

So, for me the decision is clear. I must live a righteous life and seek the blessings of God through participating in sound Government first. On the other hand, if the time comes that I must defend my God given “rights” to defend my family, right to worship, and protect my liberties by arms – I’ll gladly do so. I believe that I’m justified! In fact, I believe that I’m commanded to do so if I wish to truly follow Christ.

In conclusion, regardless of our differing doctrines on Christianity, I think we can all come to some agreement that we must live according to Gods commandments, strive to do all we can to provide good and effective government through peaceful means, and in the event of tyranny – fight for it!

Jul 11, 2009 - 12:58 am 74. Jon Rowe:

Kipling,

I am not confused about Romans 13. I’ve spent the last few years meticulously studying the historical understanding of that text over the entire 2000 year span of Christendom:

Applying reason, any government then that is a terror to those that do good or is a minister for evil, is not a God sanctioned authority.

That’s the problem, you’ve applied “reason” and added something to the text that’s not there. ALL governments, including Nazi Germany and American from 1787-2009 do both GOOD AND EVIL. There is no place to draw the line and conclude when a government loses its “God sanctioned” authority by declaring it a “minister for evil.” The Bible doesn’t say that; rather it says that governments are ordained by God period.

Remember when St. Paul wrote that passage, the leader to whom he told believers to obey and submit to was Nero a psychopathic pagan tyrant.

You claim that unalienable rights are a-Biblical but the Founding Fathers did not believe so and neither do I.

Well, 1) the Bible doesn’t use the term “unalienable rights,” 2) when the FFs “discovered” God-given unalienable rights, they tended to look to “Nature,” not the Bible. I will concede that there were some Enlightenment ministers who “read in” Enlightenment rights oriented concepts to the biblical record. If you click on my hyperlink and scroll for a little while you’ll see I’ve dissected many of these sermons. In the mid to late 18th Century the patriotic preachers were quoting Locke, finding “essences” in “Nature” and terming what Ancient Israel had a “republic” (when in reality it was a theocracy). In the later part of the century, the patriotic preachers, still quoting Locke, thought that the French Revolution was a continuation of the American and would successfully and triumphantly usher in a biblical millennial republic of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” They made Jesus into a universal Francophile.

Only God can revoke the rights he bestowed. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the rights of men, women, slaves, children, foreigners, etc. God gave those rights and defined them.

Yes, I’ve read Leviticus and it does NOT use the term or even the language of “rights” and is quite a “rule oriented book.” It’s about “duties” not “rights” and the law of Moses is one of the most politically UNFREE codes one could imagine as it governs almost every aspect of one’s personal life.

He threatened to judge anyone who violated His statues by denying someone their rights.

As a libertarian, I wish that were so. God threatened people who violated HIS RULES, NOT people who “didn’t respect the rights of others.”

The Bible speaks in the language of “justice” and “duties,” NOT unalienable political rights.

Jul 11, 2009 - 5:59 am 75. Clayton E. Cramer:

Do any of you actually believe that the people in charge would ever stop and say…”oh, lets stop and read what the Christian Bible says about our doing that”?

It is a side show brought up by Jon Rowe because he has a need to discredit the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States, since Christianity and homosexuality are clearly in opposition.

Jul 11, 2009 - 6:46 am 76. Jon Rowe:

For the sake of perspective I am going to quote John Calvin’s “Institutes” on Romans 13 and government to demonstrate how that text USED to be viewed before the revolutionary watershed. Bible believing Christians should seriously ponder whether Calvin’s understanding what correct or whether the more “enlightened” version is. Also keep in mind that Luther viewed the issue similarly.

“We are to be subject not only to the authority of those princes who do their duty towards us as they should, and uprightly, but to all of them, however they came by their office,even if the very last thing they do is act like [true] princes.”

[...]

“[W]e must honour [even] the worst tyrant in the office in which the Lord has seen fit to set him….”

[...]

“[I]f you go on to infer that only just governments are to be repaid by obedience, your reasoning is stupid.”

[...]

“Make no mistake: it is impossible to resist the magistrate without also resisting God.”

[...]

“And even if the punishment of unbridled tyranny is the Lord’s vengeance [on tyrants], we are not to imagine that it is we ourselves who have been called upon to inflict it. All that has been assigned to us is to obey and suffer.”

– Book IV, Chapter 20 of Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion”

Jul 11, 2009 - 6:49 am 77. Clayton E. Cramer:

It has been estimated that less than 7% of colonists actually participated in the revolutionary cause.

If you mean “actually fought in the Revolutionary cause” that is probably correct. But there were large numbers of Americans who paid taxes to the Revolutionary state governments, and sold necessary goods for paper money that would be utterly worthless if the Revolution failed. That’s not in the same category as risking life and limb for the Revolution, but it’s not a trivial sacrifice at the time, either.

It is commonly claimed that the Revolutionary population was 1/3 for it, 1/3 against it, and 1/3 neutral. From what I have read, this is a misreading of something that John Adams wrote in a different context. The Revolution enjoyed general support in America, or most of these state governments could not have continued their actions.

After the Revolution, tens of thousands of Americans moved to Britain or Canada as a statement of loyalty to the Crown (or about 1% of the population). I’m sure that there were many more who did not approve of the Revolution, but were not prepared to pull up stakes–but it is hard to imagine that a million Americans opposed the Revolution, but then decided to stay here anyway.

Jul 11, 2009 - 6:55 am 78. Jon Rowe:

CitizenAuthority:

I think you’d enjoy my blog “American Creation.” We have two Mormon contributors there and discuss this “Christian Nation” controversy from a variety of perspectives, religious right, secular left, all over and in between. Much of the controversy depends on how one “defines” Christianity. Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin all considered themselves “Christians,” but rejected original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible. Likewise, many evangelicals today don’t consider Mormons to be “Christians.”

America could be “Christian Nation” according to a broader, more ecumenical understanding that considers Mormonism and what Jeff., Frank. and Adams believed in as “Christianity.” However according to the way evangelicals understand “Christianity,” these systems are not, but rather part of some “other” theological system.

My friend Dr. Gregg Frazer from the Master’s College is probably the most honest and learned evangelical who consistently applies these principles to the history and political theology of America’s Founding era. He shows, not just according to the way evangelicals understand “Christianity,” but according to the way EVERY single late 18th Century American Church save the Quakers (who didn’t have a creed) defined Christianity, America’s key FFs (the first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and some others) were not “Christians” and America’s Founding political theology was not “Christianity,” but something else. But that “other” system was not Deism either.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:30 am 79. Jon Rowe:

It is a side show brought up by Jon Rowe because he has a need to discredit the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States, since Christianity and homosexuality are clearly in opposition.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis Clayton. Regardless of what piqued my interest in this topic, it doesn’t change the fact that my research has taken on a life of its own and speaks for itself.

From what I know about you, we could say the same thing. You got interested in the gun issue after becoming a gun owner motivated by some psycho homos harassing you.

Should that fact taint all of your historical research?

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:54 am 80. Jon Rowe:

It is commonly claimed that the Revolutionary population was 1/3 for it, 1/3 against it, and 1/3 neutral. From what I have read, this is a misreading of something that John Adams wrote in a different context. The Revolution enjoyed general support in America, or most of these state governments could not have continued their actions.

The revolution enjoyed “general support” AFTER ministers like Jonathan Mayhew (described as the “morning gun of the Revolution”) convinced that 1/3 to get off the fence. And these ministers did so by removing the theological obstacle — the traditional Calvinistic understanding of Romans 13 — by arguing it away using Locke and Nature.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:59 am 81. Lock and Load:

Lock and load says buy many guns and more ammo and be prepared for the party in the streets that is on its way

Jul 11, 2009 - 8:45 am 82. Kipling:

One last post to Jon Rowe and I will desist. My intent was not to become part of a side show Mr. Cramer but to defend the role of Christianity in the American Revolution by showing that their actions were not un-Biblical. Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause is a good counter to Bailyn and Gordon Wood who are more anti-Christianity in their work. Don Higginotham the military historian goes into a lot of detail into what motivated the troops and chaplains in The War of American Independence. My fear is that people will erroneously use Romans 13 to sideline Christians from resisting an oppressive government.

1. We cannot pick and choose Scripture but must interpret it in its entirity. One cannot say that God sanctions all government and man must submit without also citing the second part of the same verses that define the proper role of the state in opposing evil and defending good. My reference to Mark 12:17 clearly shows that the authority of government is limited and does not extend to all things.

2. Leviticus and Deuternonomy contain rules for the governance of God’s people but these rules also define the rights of the people. For example, God commanded the people to support the Levites because the Levites were to serve as priests and did not receive a portion of the land to farm. Therefore, the Levites had a right to expect support from their fellow Israelites. One cannot have duties without rights.

3. Reason, in its proper place, is not the enemy of revelation (Scripture) but its handmaiden and servant. Neither Luther, Calvin, or Wesley would eradicate reason from understanding Scripture. Reason was not to take the place of revelation but to serve it. I did not use reason to add anything to Scripture but instead insisted that the verses mentioned in the previous post had to be interpreted in their entirity.

4. As to John Calvin, Calvin takes a more thoughtful approach to Romans 13 than just blind obedience to government. You left out a lot of relevant material in your “….” You also left out context. Calvin wrote to counter the growing Anabaptist movement which he saw as a form of anarchy that would throw off all earthly rule. You also failed to quote section 32 “Obedience due only insofar as compatible with the word of God” or section 9 “Of the duty of magistrates. Their irst cre the preservation of Christian religion and true piety. This proved.”

Let me quote briefly from section 32: “We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against him let us not pay the least regard to it norbe moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates – a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in an respect aginst the king when he refused to obey his impious decree (Daniel 6:22), because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned or having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king.”

I encouraged anyone interested to read the Institutes of Christian Religion especially Book Four and the sections mentioned.

As to the Founding Fathers, I refer the readers to their actual writings and to Novak’s On Two Wings..

Jul 11, 2009 - 9:19 am 83. Jon Rowe:

Let me make some brief replies to Kipling, not for the sake of arguing, just for clarity and enlightenment.

1) I agree we cannot pick and choose scripture. My understanding is vindicated by harmonizing every single competing biblical text that might appear to contradict one another. I never argued the Bible teaches govt authority is unlimited. Rather I argued there is NEVER a right to revolt, but there a right, actually a biblical DUTY, to DISOBEY govt ONLY when govt affirmatively commands one to sin like for instance if govt told you to stop preaching the gospel or tried to make you perform an abortion or star in a porn movie.

2) I’m content to let most of this go, other than to note that whatever “rights” you may find in the Old Testament, they are NOT the same thing as what was argued for in 1776-1791.

3) You reiterate the traditional Christian understanding of the proper relationship between “reason” and “revelation.” However, the problem is many of the key Founders flipped the relationship on its head: Revelation was now to be the handmaiden to man’s reason, which would serve as the ultimate trump. I have a quotation from John Adams where he states even if he were on Mt. Sinai with Moses and God revealed the Trinity to him personally, he still wouldn’t believe it because his reason told him 1+1+1 = 3, not 1. This is probably the most arrogant elevation of reason over revelation that I’ve come across.

4) I did not mean to nor do I think I did distort Calvin’s words. In fact, the quotes from Calvin you offer I think are consistent with what I have written in “1)” at the top of this comment. You ALWAYS submit to government, but have a DUTY (not even a “right”) to “disobey” government whenever it tries to get you to disobey God. Always obey God not man. That means, if govt sets the speed limit at 65 one day and 55 the next, you obey govt simply because it said so. However, if govt tries to get you to perform an abortion, star in a porn movie, or stop preaching the gospel, then you have a DUTY to obey God not man. And when govt comes to arrest you for disobedience, you DON’T resist or try to revolt but ACCEPT the civil legitimacy of the punishment just as the early apostles did. You may, however, work WITHIN the confines of the legal system to try and better yourself.

Everything you offered from Calvin for “context” is consistent with this.

Jul 11, 2009 - 10:35 am 84. Clayton E. Cramer:

From what I know about you, we could say the same thing. You got interested in the gun issue after becoming a gun owner motivated by some psycho homos harassing you.

Should that fact taint all of your historical research?

It isn’t even correct. I became interested in the gun issue in 1981 because large numbers of people that my wife and I knew in Los Angeles had been victims of violent felonies. That’s way before I found out that lots of gay activists were prepared to defend pedophiles.

Jul 11, 2009 - 10:53 am 85. Clayton E. Cramer:

America’s key FFs (the first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and some others) were not “Christians” and America’s Founding political theology was not “Christianity,” but something else. But that “other” system was not Deism either.

There’s certainly no question that some of the Framers were not orthodox Christians, and some became less so over time (such as John Adams).

“Political theology” doesn’t make much sense. I think you mean “political philosophy.”

It is certainly the case that there were many factors that contribute to the political philosophy of the time, and some of the Framers considered themselves Christians in spite of not sharing some rather core beliefs with orthodox Christians. None of them, however, were prepared to defend homosexuality (which is what is driving Rowe’s desire to de-Christianize the early Republic). Jefferson, being one of the liberals, wanted to reduce the penalty for buggery from capital to castration.

Jul 11, 2009 - 11:00 am 86. Jon Rowe:

It isn’t even correct. I became interested in the gun issue in 1981 because large numbers of people that my wife and I knew in Los Angeles had been victims of violent felonies.

Well I live in a relatively nice neighborhood in Bucks County PA. Should things take a turn for the worse, I’ll ask your advise on what gun to buy.

Jul 11, 2009 - 11:23 am 87. Jon Rowe:

Actually Clayton, homosexuality is the furthest thing from my mind when I study the FFs & religion. Case in point, I have many fans, AND I follow many scholars, whose views on homosexuality are more or less the same as yours.

J. Adams did appear to become more heterodox over time; however, he self defined as a “unitarian” since 1750.

Finally “political theology” is a term of art that defines in a specific way and is an interdisciplinary area of scholarship. What I actually do is study the crossroads of history, religion and politics in the late 18th Century America, with law and philosophy as tangential areas of study.

But to learn more about “political theology” as a specific interdisciplinary area of scholarship, see the Cato Institute’s symposium on political theology with Columbia’s Mark Lilla’s lead essay, responses from Philip Jenkins, Andrew Sullivan and Damon Linker and don’t forget to check out my essay that Cato reproduced on the matter as “best of the blogs”:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/october-2007/

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/10/15/the-editors/best-of-the-blogs-jonathan-rowe-on-american-political-theology/

Jul 11, 2009 - 11:37 am 88. Clayton E. Cramer:

Actually Clayton, homosexuality is the furthest thing from my mind when I study the FFs & religion.

Since it seems to be a rather important part of how you identify yourself, I rather doubt that it wouldn’t influence what you read, and what weight you put on what you find. Hence, you emphasize the more heterodox Framers who are definitely a minority (albeit, an unusually important minority) of the Framers. I emphasize what appears to have been the majority perspective of leaders–as demonstrated by the state constitutions adopted during the period, which take rather strident stands for what today would be called fundamentalist Christianity, but back then was simply orthodox Protestantism. For example, the 1776 Delaware Constitutional Convention’s requirement that delegates swear an oath, “And I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine Inspiration.”

Both points of view were present–both what used to be liberal Christian theology and what is now fundamentalism–but as you acknowledge, even those of very liberal theological convictions identified themselves as Christians, and recognized that Christianity was at the core of our form of government.

Jul 11, 2009 - 1:14 pm 89. Clayton E. Cramer:

Well I live in a relatively nice neighborhood in Bucks County PA. Should things take a turn for the worse, I’ll ask your advise on what gun to buy.

Good for you. Where I live now, there’s really no crime. The principal need for a firearm is to deal with animals.

Jul 11, 2009 - 1:15 pm 90. Clayton E. Cramer:

The revolution enjoyed “general support” AFTER ministers like Jonathan Mayhew (described as the “morning gun of the Revolution”) convinced that 1/3 to get off the fence.

You don’t suppose that the events of the Revolution itself might have motivated some of the motion?

Jul 11, 2009 - 1:16 pm 91. BamBam:

Most of the comments above are circular arguments that seem to be made to re-enforce the beliefs of the commenter, mental masturbation. None of the bible verse or other quoted lines/sources has much to do with the current situation. Far more on target are the comments and writing of men like Michael Z. Williamson, Robert Heinlein, Robert Stirling and John Ross of “Unintended Consequences” fame. You know the book the ATF made threats against people selling it. Self defense does not require justification by the self appointed elites or government drones. It just is, at the point you have to fight to keep yourself and your loved ones alive. At some point the society will reach a cusp, a tipping point like a fluid changes from liquid to solid in a super saturated solution. This “revolution cycle” seems to be a cycle of history, an artifact of human thought and narcissism of greed for power as a means of self aggrandizement. (Think end of the USSR) The over analysis of the current part of the cycle will change nothing and adds nothing to the current debate. Some of you will be on the barricades and some will be hiding under your beds hoping better ruff men (and woman) will prevail. Thus it has always been and shall be. Guns in the hands of general citizens will as a well known Vulcan said, “make it a little less bloody”, in the long run, as the founders intended and understood. Jefferson I think made the comment of watering the tree of liberty with blood, he was not just making a metaphysical comment but a soul deep belief in the cycle of history based on his understanding of the mind of man and its limits.

Jul 11, 2009 - 4:29 pm 92. JackT:

Guns won’t solve the problems in Iran. If you arm the people, you’ll only end up with dead people with guns in their hands.

Jul 11, 2009 - 6:54 pm 93. myth buster:

Romans 13 requires us to obey LAWFUL authority. However, when a so-called king or president claims powers for himself that the law says he does not possess, then he is a usurper, not a legitimate ruler, and rebellion against him is permissible. King George flagrantly violated the Magna Carta and claimed tyrannical powers that he had no legal claim to. Thus, the colonies were loosed from a moral obligation to obey him and submit to him.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:26 pm 94. myth buster:

Note that in this country the Constitution is a higher authority than the government. Lower than God, yes, but higher than the government. Thus, if the Constitution says we don’t have to obey an unlawful order, Romans 13 says obey the Constitution, not the usurper giving the unlawful order. Americans have no obligation to submit to tyrants, because American law does not recognize the tyrant’s office, and furthermore, the law expressly grants citizens authority to both the means and the act of resisting an unlawful claim to power.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:39 pm 95. Gary Ogletree:

There are millions of AK 47 rifles in that part of the world. Only a matter of time and money. I bought an AR 15 recently because the National Socialists don’t want me to have one. 79 others got one when the shipment arrived at the gun dealer’s, just one of a series of bulk buys in search of low prices. Now ammo is appearing on shelves again, suggesting people have stocked up enough to ease demand.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:43 pm 96. Joshua:

I’m afraid we’ve all been barking up the wrong tree here. Most of this thread has been devoted to discussing justifications for armed revolution in Christian and Biblical terms. Last time I checked, Iran is still an Islamic republic with an Islamist government, set against an opposition that also identifies as Muslim. So I doubt that arguments made either way from a Biblical standpoint would carry much weight with either side in this particular conflict.

Then again, trying to justify any revolution against an Islamic government in Koranic terms would likely make for a very short, and not very encouraging discussion. In a way, the Iranian opposition is even braver than our Founding Fathers ever were. The FF’s put merely their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line. The Iranian revolutionaries are also betting their immortal souls that Allah will ultimately judge them to be in the right, no matter what the Koran may have to say on the matter.

Jul 11, 2009 - 7:51 pm 97. Gary Ogletree:

Clayton, when the Sandinistas did their land reform, basically returning granpa’s farm from the thieving colonels, they handed over the deed accompanied by an AK so the farmer could defend his land, knowing the farmers could turn against them if they wanted. Totalitarians don’t do that. The Sandinistas got the same media smear as Sarah Palin. Reagan copied Carter’s support for the thugocracies of Central America when he could have supported the popular goal of mixed economies and representative democracies in the European style. This very ugly side of Reagan is not discussed, when he was so blinded by his understandable hatred of the Soviet system that he supported armies of “anti-communist” criminals to prey on the subjugated people of the region.

Jul 11, 2009 - 8:15 pm 98. Robohobo:

Clayton E. Cramer @ 18: “If Americans started to be arrested for no apparent criminal actions, disappeared into the federal jail system, and were held incommunicado–or worse, all we got were postcards from them in a re-education camp in Nevada, …”

See HR 645. That bill accounts for 6 regional centers. Ostensibly to “…establish national emergency centers on military installations.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h645:

Jul 11, 2009 - 10:08 pm 99. Jon Rowe:

Romans 13 requires us to obey LAWFUL authority. However, when a so-called king or president claims powers for himself that the law says he does not possess, then he is a usurper, not a legitimate ruler, and rebellion against him is permissible. King George flagrantly violated the Magna Carta and claimed tyrannical powers that he had no legal claim to. Thus, the colonies were loosed from a moral obligation to obey him and submit to him.

OR one could argue King George and Parliament were the lawful rulers against whom America rebelled. And Romans 13 forbids this. If you’ve read Blackstone’s comments about the legal powers of Parliament you’d see why he was a Tory and concluded the American Revolution violated English law.

I’ve seen mythbusters’ argument made before usually to try to make what the FFs did “fit” with Calvin’s doctrine of interposition. And that is Romans 13 says submit to the positive law; therefore if there is a positive law mechanism for removing a King use it. King George could be removed only if they violated positive English law and said law provided a remedy for their removal.

That might take care of what the FFs DID, but not the revolutionary rhetoric of the DOI. The DOI says that when government doesn’t meet certain “ends” — ends by the way not spoken of in the bible — the people have a right to revolt. This is NOT what Romans 13 says and it is not Calvin’s interposition either.

Jul 12, 2009 - 5:59 am 100. Jack:

Armed resitance to vote fraud has precident in 20th century America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Non violent protest is next to useless against a government that is willing to kill en mass it’s own citizens ala Tianemen Square.

The civil rights movement was successful in the US because the powers that be were unwilling to mow down unarmed protesters. The mullahs have no such predilictions.

Jul 12, 2009 - 7:56 am 101. BillH:

So Jon Rowe, I really have to question your motives here. Just what has been your point through all of this? And don’t tell me “Romans 13 says, John Calvin says”. Those of us who are Christian know what Romans 13 says. Those of us who are Christian also know that like every single one of the other prescriptions in God’s Word, the call to submission to rulers is one that not all will follow. Human beings are broken. All have sinned and fall short. Twas ever, and will always be, thus.

Your first words were “I thought Mr. Cramer was a bible believing evangelical Christian.” And the whole comment thread has been hijacked since that, by your personal insult and your personal hobbyhorse. OK sir, we’re all impressed by your diligent study and your great education. Thank you. But give it a rest now…

Jul 12, 2009 - 2:40 pm 102. Bob:

If you wanted to get rid of those responsible for turning America into a hellhole of PC ideology, multiculturalism, and one-world craps, just get rid of the Council of Foreign Relations, the organizations and treasonous Americans that favor one-world government over the USA.

Jul 12, 2009 - 2:54 pm 103. Jon Rowe:

101: I don’t have much to add. My point was simply to note, if one is a bible believing Christian, should one really countenance “REVOLT” as a viable option?

That’s all. I have no problem giving it a rest.

Jul 12, 2009 - 7:06 pm 104. Marc:

Perhaps “Nuke them to glass and let God sort them out” is the way to go.

A real waste of Plutonium, Technical grade, ready to use. Sigh…

You arm chair “Diplomats” figure that dichotomy.

Jul 14, 2009 - 8:14 pm 105. samurai sword:

Great article. Great Blog. I will visit again.

thanks.

Tom the Sword Gu

Aug 5, 2009 - 10:00 am 106. Erik Stone:

The problem is that the government might not bother to use soldiers with an armed revolution of the people. The US has unmanned aircraft that don’t need to think about which side they are fighting before they shoot.

Oct 28, 2009 - 11:37 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: