Elections and wars have this in common

Elections and wars have this in common: they don’t resolve political differences; they just determine who has the upper hand and who is forced to submit. And they sometimes go hand in hand because elections can avert war or cause war, depending on the willingness of the parties involved to yield to opposing views.

One doesn’t have to look far back in history to see the truthfulness of the above statements. World War I didn’t solve Europe’s problems. Another World War was fought there and Europe still struggles, and ideologies still clash.

America’s Civil War didn’t solve the issues which brought it about. Though slaves were freed, slavery didn’t end with the war. It just took other forms, including welfare. And the real cause of the war — the rights of states to leave the Union when Constitutional guarantees were threatened (if you doubt this, read Lincoln) — remains a contested issue today, and even more so as the federal government usurps more and more power over the states by striking down state laws and enacting laws and orders where no constitutional authority exists.

We are drawing close to another election, and political views and opinions are in competition for the upper hand. And in this election, perhaps more than in previous elections, the fight is focused more on preventing one party or the other from obtaining power and getting its way than upon the merits of one party or candidate over another.

And the election won’t solve America’s woes. It wouldn’t even solve them if my preferred candidates from a third party, the Constitution Party, were elected and empowered to do what (in my view) is right for America. Why? Because the rift in our thinking would still be there. Those who hold to the liberal and socialist views of mod- ern society would still hold to their liberal and socialist views even if those in power held to Biblical morals and a constitutional role for federal government. And, should the election put in power those who reject traditional values and a limited constitutional government, those of us who hold those values and views are not likely to change our beliefs either.

As the divide gets greater and the views of the left move even further away from traditional, Biblical and moral values and away from the constitutional republic granted us by the wisdom and blood of our forefathers, I fear another war.

Sometimes I don’t think our rulers know how close they push America toward civil war when they force upon Americans values and morals they cannot accept. I am truly surprised that decisions forced upon Americans by liberal court decisions allowing for abortion and protecting same-sex marriage haven’t already led to war, with states refusing to yield and perhaps even seceding to preserve their integrity and morality. Now we have the issues of transgender-bathroom use being pushed and forced upon us, and who knows what is next — perhaps polygamy or the right to molest children or to practice bestiality? I wouldn’t be surprised anymore.

Since so many Americans have an apathetic attitude and are unwilling to take a stand if the decision or ruling doesn’t directly impact their lives and their plans, I expect the spark which may set off the fire could come over gun rights. Those on the left have already made it clear their ultimate goal is to make private ownership of guns and ammunition by the people illegal or so difficult that the freedoms protected by the Second Amendment would be gone. Look at the restrictions being put in place in California, where the left is in control. Ammunition sales will be restricted. Magazine size is restricted. Certain types of rifles and shotguns will be outlawed and must be destroyed. And the list goes on. What will happen if the left gains control and is able to legislate and take away citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms across our nation? Then, it will become more personal to many Americans who have stood down when unethical and immoral rulings and laws were put in place which did not have a direct and visible impact on their own lives.

And, perhaps I shouldn’t say that rulers don’t know how close we are to civil uprisings and war. Why else would almost every federal agency have its own police or security force and have purchased a multitude of weapons and more ammunition than many armies? It would seem they see a possible need in the near future.

But civil war won’t solve the problems which could or might bring one on. Wars don’t change people’s moral and political views, except maybe how ready one is to go to war. The divide remains and is sure to raise its head again at another time or in another generation. Dissolving a politicallydivided nation might work, but only if the factions were already geographically divided by state or region.

I believe the only option for me is to preach and proclaim the truth of the Bible — the judgment of God our Creator upon those who reject Him and His moral laws, and His grace and mercy in Jesus Christ upon those who repent and trust in Jesus and His cross for pardon, forgiveness and life eternal. I know many will not repent and believe — the Bible tells me so — but I also know that God will graciously bring His elect to see their sinfulness and to look in faith to the crucified and risen Christ Jesus. I can’t and wouldn’t even try to force anyone to believe the Bible. All I can do is proclaim it and point people to the evidence which supports it.

And while believers will unite around the teaching of the Bible, it won’t unite America unless all America repents and turns to Christ. In fact, the liberal left, as well as many in the moreconservative right or center, will likely hate me and my views all the more because the Bible condemns their moral values and standards and they don’t wish to be reminded of what their consciences already, deep down, tell them. Rough days could be ahead for Biblebelieving Christians.

Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at rmoll@nwadg.com. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Editor’s Note: Abraham Lincoln did oppose slavery (as do I), but the reason for the Civil War, while related to slavery, was to preserve the Union and not to end slavery. Read Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, written during the war: Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862. Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir. I have just read yours of the 19th addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft- expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln.

If California is the pacesetter state, what just happened there could soon be on the dockets of all state legislatures or imposed upon all gun owners at the federal level. Democrats effectively control California. Their political party significantly dominates all branches of government in the state. With such power, they have passed a litany of new laws on gun magazines, ammunition, gun registration, gun ownership and lending of firearms. In essence, California’s legislators have shot (excuse the metaphor) so many bullets into the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as to render it impotent.

All this legislation has resulted despite the clear language in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government infringement on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The anti-self-defense people despise the following language of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There exists no sentence in the Constitution that was more understood at the time. A militia then was the people. And, an armed populace was understood to be necessary for a free country in two ways: an armed populace could assist the military in standing against foreign invasion, and it would be in place should the biggest enemy to liberty be one’s own government — as in the American Revolution against British tyranny.

Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, amount of ammunition, where or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or hunting, these were already assumed. Founding documents show it was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (no pun intended) squarely at the government should it become tyrannical, as happened before under the British.

But, certainly, we need have no fear of the government today, have we? Given California’s new gun laws, which follow, perhaps we should be afraid.

Background checks on all ammunition purchases within the state will be required under Senate Bill 1235, effective in 2019. As patrons may make several purchases a year, this is likely to overwhelm a background system already overwhelmed with gun purchases alone, resulting in long delays. The new law also requires all ammunition vendors to submit sales reports to the California Department of Justice for the creation of an ammunition registration system. The anticipated effect for gunrights haters is that smaller outlets will cease selling ammunition because of all the paperwork. But this restriction gets worse, you may not give friends or family members ammunition without going first to a gun store for the gift to be processed. Hereafter, it will be a crime to “transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition within a 30-day period.” Should you opt to purchase ammunition in another state, you may not bring more than 50-rounds into California unless you are a licensed ammunition vendor.

Self defense advocates are now more restricted in gun ownership and use than ever before. Start- ing in January 2017, “all semi-automatic centerfire rifles that do not have fixed magazines will be illegal if they have a bad ‘feature,’ such as a thumbhole stock, a telescoping or folding stock, or a pistol grip.” Moreover, such weapons may not be transferred as part of an inheritance. California already had a gun law prohibiting the lending of a firearm for more than 30 days between friends or family members. That too is now forbidden. Instead, you and your brother or friend must both go to a gun shop and submit to a background check and 10day waiting period for him to use your firearm and then, when it is returned, both have to return to the store with a new background check and 10-day waiting period on you, the owner and lender.

In California, gun magazine sales have been limited to 10 rounds for the last 17 years, but persons already in possession of magazines exceeding this number could keep them. Now, State Senate Bill 1446 requires the confiscation of all these high-capacity magazines by July 1, 2017. To get rid of them, owners may turn them in to law enforcement for destruction, destroy them themselves, remove them from the state or sell them to licensed firearm dealers.

Imagine how these restrictions might emasculate citizens in their ability to assist the military against a foreign invasion (as in the case of citizens stopping the British invasion in the Battle of Saratoga) or to oppose our own government should it become tyrannical, as has also happened before. Our founders did not deny future generations the same means of resisting tyranny that they themselves used.

All these new laws violate the Second Amendment, which placed off-limits to government any restriction upon the people keeping and bearing arms; and it used the strongest language possible in doing so, stating that this right “shall not be infringed.”

If the Second Amendment to the Constitution is felt to be inadequate for the needs of today, the only constitutional option available is an amendment to the Constitution abolishing this one and state approval of another amendment to replace it, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution — this was done to end prohibition.

Legislators, whether state or federal, have no authority to undermine or destroy an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, in California it is being done; and what’s happening in California is a threat to the freedoms of all Americans.

Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www. LibertyUnderFire.org.