Recently Rand Paul, Kentucky Senator, took to the Senate floor in Washington D.C.  He did not take to the floor because he had nothing else to do. In fact Paul had no plans of filibustering. But he had had enough with lies, untruths and misleading insinuations in respect to the use of drones and the prospective Central Intelligence Agency director’s view of such practices. His stand on the Senate floor was a stand to return to The Constitution and the principles which it holds.

     After nearly thirteen hours Paul’s stand proved to be effective. Some have asked questions regarding the constitutionality of the use of drones at best the answers were evasive. So, Paul sought to take a stand for The Constitution and a victory was won. The report is that:

The filibuster was a tactical win. Paul delayed the vote on Brennan because he was seeking White House clarification on what limits they believe the law places on the use of drones to kill Americans. He got his answer. Attorney General Eric Holder promptly sent a response on Thursday. During his afternoon briefing, White House press secretary Jay Carney emphasized that the administration had responded to Paul. “The answer to that question is no,” Mr. Carney reiterated.[1]

      With this evidence of taking a stand for what is right won out. But Paul is not the only one taking a stand for The Constitution. Many sheriffs are up in arms about the very idea that some politicians are working tirelessly to strip the rights of the people to “keep and bear arms” (U.S. Constitution, Article 2). The false premise is to protect the children in wake of the slaughter of many at one school. And while no one will argue against the tragic loss of all human lives had there been one person properly trained and armed those lives might have been saved. Nonetheless employing the Sandy Hook tragedy into the “gun control” discussion is within itself tragic. Even so many are standing for The Constitution.

      A number of politicians are seeking a number of ways to greatly limit this absolute right. For instance the State of Maryland presently has in place regulations stating that one needs to prove that he needs to carry a firearm before being given a permit. With this regulation in place the courts have determined that the requirement is too stringent and needs to fall more in line with The Constitution. As of this writing necessary changes have yet to be made but some are standing for The Constitution. So, too, are the sheriffs in Nevada. They refuse to give in to the political overtures of those that seek only to strengthen their own hands of power rather they stand firmly for The Constitution. The report is that “Stating they support citizens’ right to bear arms, the Nevada Sheriff’s Association last week issued a letter signed by all 17 sheriffs declaring their intention to uphold the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”[2]

      Along the same lines Sheriff James Singleton refuses to relent to winds that would tear at the very fundamental values that have kept this nation strong for more the two centuries. He is taking a stand by upholding The Constitution and has made that very clear with these words:

 That oath has not changed, nor have I wavered in my promise to keep that oath. And as long as I am your sheriff, I will continue to uphold that oath. My deputies and I “will not support, assist or condone any unconstitutional infringement of your right to keep and bear arms as set forth in the Second Amendment.

Changes in our laws do need to be made to keep criminals and the mentally impaired from being able to obtain firearms. So many times people with mental problems wind up in jail on some petty charge until someone can find a place for treatment. Jail is not the place for persons with mental issues.[3]

     Many applauds are made for those that hold to the truism of a great and wonderful nation. Stands certainly need to be made and those that stand for what is right deserve utmost accolades. But whatever happened to those that are supposed to uphold the standards of Scripture? Where are those that confess that they trust in the Most High? Is there a reason unbeknownst to the general populous that would cause the otherwise brave-hearted to retreat to a world of passivity and apathy? While these are certainly rhetorical questions the fact of the matter is that it is high time for Christians to take a stand.

     Ephesians 6:12-14 reads, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness.” In this the evidence shows that the Christian will face certain contrary winds. The winds will come from the ungodly as well as the unrighteous. Opposition comes from the spiritual realm as well as the natural. Despite this the Christian is encouraged to stand and then stand again.

     Much like The Constitution the Word of God is under attack. There are many that want God out of the picture as they want The Constitution to be nonexistent. Yet God is not to be ignored. He is and will continue to be. Nevertheless Christians need to take a stand. The stand is upholding that which is true and right. It is not compromising because of the lack of popularity, or the appearance thereof, of the Standard rather it is holding fast in the face of what seeks to tear down that which is true. It is holding onto the vow to serve God even if it means our own demise. After all if the Christian is in fact a disciple of God then he is a martyr. Taking a stand means that there is none more important than that which is stood for. It is high time that passivity and apathy became things of the past and that the Christian put on his boots and take a stand!