My Perfect Right!

I have a high level of confidence that anyone who has raised kids or observed nieces and nephews being raised has surely heard the kids speak words like “I have the right to do this”; “You have no right to tell me not to do this because it is my perfect right to do this”! Some may say that these pronouncements by kids would have never been uttered by kids back in the “Good Ole Days” and are just further evidence of the pathology of our permissive society gone awry. While there may be some truth to this, I am here to tell you that there is a compelling argument to be made that human nature is always prone to seek its rights and many times without regard to the possible deleterious consequences for others. Let me explain my case for this below.

I always enjoy what the Apostle Paul has to say about having the perfect right to do something but an even more compelling reason not to make use of that perfect right. In I Corinthians 9:9-14 Paul is emphatic that he and others who are proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ have every right to be paid by those who are the recipients of their ministry. But Paul disclaims this right to be paid because he believes that being paid might in some way hinder the success of his ministry. Also, in I Corinthians 8:8-13, Paul makes clear that there is no intrinsic quality associated with food which draws us closer to God, and for the purpose of our relationship with God it is irrelevant whether we eat or not. However, Paul cautions that this freedom to eat as one pleases should be utilized thoughtfully so as not to harm and weaken the faith of those immature in their knowledge of the Gospel who mistakenly believe that food does impact one’s relationship with God.

So why am I discussing an individual’s right to do something in contrast with reasons to forbear in exercising this right?  An excellent question. Let’s turn back to the tragic event in Minneapolis last week where an ICU nurse was shot and killed by ICE Officers while exercising the First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech in demonstrating against the Trump Administration’s immigration policies. This shooting is appropriately under federal and state investigation, and we will learn later if the shooting was justified under the law. One fact that is not in dispute regarding the encounter is the fact that the ICU nurse was armed with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. So, did the nurse have the legal right to possess and carry this weapon? The answer is clearly yes. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right for citizens to bear arms, and the nurse had also secured a conceal/carry permit for the handgun as required by Minnesota Law.

Let me be clear that I firmly and unequivocally support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I believe this right to bear arms is essential for a free society. In rural America, it may take 20 minutes or longer for sheriff’s deputies to reach a residence experiencing a home invasion, and the homeowner should not be left to the mercy of the intruder. A New York City subway rider should not be denied the opportunity to protect herself from a deranged individual seeking to do her harm when law enforcement is not available. But with this right to bear arms is a concomitant responsibility to exercise this right safely and prudently. In our polarized and white-hot political environment, should an individual exercising his First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech come to an intense politically charged event armed with a concealed high-powered handgun?  Even if there is no adverse encounter with law enforcement, what else could possibly go wrong with this exercise of Second Amendment rights? Is there a distinction between this type of Second Amendment exercise and the Second Amendment exercise by a rural farm family dealing with an intruder or a subway rider dealing with a deranged attacker? I have my opinion and encourage my readers to form their own opinion.  

God bless you and thank you for the privilege of your time in reading my blog.