Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun...

[WIP]

I wonder....those that are so intent on the idea that if we own a firearm we are somehow leaving God out of our own personal protection, do you feel the same way about anything else that one might use for personal protection? How about medical care, medication, wearing seat belts or helmets, protective clothing, etc? Do you deny yourself and your loved ones medical care when they need it and leave it completely up to God or do you seek medical care from physicians who God has given the skills to help you in an emergency?

I own several guns and never....never.....never have I ever felt the need to carry one for protection from another human being. That is not why I own my firearms. I enjoy target shooting and hunting and that is why I own my firearms. To be perfectly honest, I would feel more comfortable with a baseball bat in my hands and the element of surprise if someone broke into my home during the night. The guns in my home are no more dangerous than the hammer in my tool belt hanging in my shop or the axe leaning against the woodpile or the many various butcher knives in the wooden block on my kitchen counter or the 3500 pound vehicle sitting in my driveway.

Those that fear guns are better off not having them and if you fear your car or a knife or a hammer then by all means don't own them. We'll all be safer for it.

 

[Lewis]

A Right To Bear Arms
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm


Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

One more time.

 

[Pard]

Chances are people ignore this post because they caqnnot dispute it but on the off chance that you guys actually just missed it I'll give you one last chance to redeem your position... Gosh sometimes I am just too nice!

I see no problems with your scripture references. I do find it naive to assume that people with guns don't trust God simply because they have a "boom-boom stick". As I illustrated for you before. To make a shot in the dark with you adrenaline pumping pretty much requires an act of divine intervention. It would be naive of me (in turn) to think that because I own guns I do not need God to protect me. I'm a sound sleeper if I were to wake up to glass breaking surely it is God's doing.

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

If your life is in danger then God has given us permission to act accordingly.

In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.

Waking around unarmed and without any means of defending oneself is dangerous in God's eyes. It takes a wicked man to seek out and kill. A goodly man would be in the wrong if he were to end up defenseless before such a wicked man for he would be spoiling the gift of Life that God so lovingly gave unto him.

It's easy in our civilized society to equate the good citizen with a doormat an the evil one with a boot. But it is not so!

"God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble." Psalm 46:1

In the same book it is then written that it is God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle". There is no conflict in the eyes of the writer and if all scripture is from God (as it truly is) then there is no conflict in God's eyes between trusting our lives unto Him and at the same time being ready to defend ourselves.

I have more but I'll wait as I have no doubt someone will fire a few key verses my way and the remainder of what I have will surely dispute the interpretations they will undoubtedly have to take.

 

[Classik]

Good perspectives from everyone
Good thinking!
How has carrying guns help our society today? Are we any better or are we any safer?


-
Protection! Self-defence! Vigilance! Use of weapons - the taste of this thread.
We see kids carry guns today and shoot at anyone in the name of protection, we see wives shoot at husbands in the name of protection, we see husbands shoot wives in the name of...
They tell you they are justified. Bad is not always bad and good is not always good.
*

We gave People guns and they are using them - are we better today?
I tell us, guns are not enough! Something weaker had existed before . Some are not satisfied yet - for they look for something more Powerful. Some are thinking how to replace guns with more deadly weapons.
..

 

[Classik]

so let me ask you this, when the cops come to save you and you are about to be killed with a knife slinger will you beg the cop not to kill him?

(post 19)
In case you did not see it, Jasoncran.
Your idea is I should approve of it! Jasoncran would say YES. So, dude...

Jasoncran enters a community and quarrels with a man. The man goes crazy and begins fighting. You give him a profesional blow; he falls. This man screams and 70 People ( men and women and teenagers) hear him and run towards you. They are all his relatives.

-
-
They overwhelm you and tie you unto a tree and were about to kill you.
A vehicle approaches - 12 armed cops. And they surrounded these People. Would you let the cops kill them?

Jasoncran, what would you do?

Anyone is free to answer...especially Jasoncran

 

[jasoncran]

(post 19)
In case you did not see it, Jasoncran.
Your idea is I should approve of it! Jasoncran would say YES. So, dude...



Jasoncran, what would you do?

Anyone is free to answer...especially Jasoncran

first off watch mma for a while and find out that taking somebody with one punch is rare. and even so when it does happens its called a knock out.

the guy is wobbly but not dead.

i have been ko'd and trust me you aint a fighting in that condition.


know riddle me this.

you and you daughter are walking down the street and a knife weilder takes your daughter from you at the threat of you both die and she is raped.

she is raped and because you didnt have a gun or means to stop here rape. she is now unable to have any healthy relationship with men, hates herself and also is depressed and commits suicide later.


think that doesnt happen? my sister was raped twice by a friend of the family whom we trusted and knew that he was an drunk but never a violent one till that day. and she went to the mental hospital and ran away and was raped again by a fellow bf who was an escapee and found walking on the road naked and helped by a motorist.

was she at fault? No. and the said thing is the first time it occured i was only a door away and was looking for my sister and even knocked on the door and was answered by the pedophile.

he walked as there was no proof as it was a yr later she told.



i will cut to the chase its the hands and men that kill and these pacifisitic gun hating countries dont get that.

case in point, in japan and canada and the uk almost all knifes are beeing looked at to ban. so whats next, handcuffs are manditory?

 

[jasoncran]

first off for a total stranger to simply wail on me would have to imply he is drunk, i stole his gf/wife or i angered him.

given the first i would just parry, the second which i kinda did flirt years ago with a mans wife and didnt know so this man came to my job and wanted to talk outside with his other friend and i said no. so i talked in the dining room of taco bell and that was that as i knew his friend and him would resort to violence and i change my habit. had his wife told me hey im married i would have stopped. she didnt. once again if its something i seee coming i will avoid i will. i have pissed off a friend who was ready to fight and i was in a car and i didnt roll down the window and that was the end of it as he cooled off. we still chuckle to this day over that incident.


so if one is that mad at me he must be mistaken. seldom have i caused trouble. yrs ago when i was with the ada unit at camp blanding at certain e-5 pushed me for a week on my christian walk and harrassed me and i told him to back off. one day i had enough. i walked away from that truck and he saw me kick the rocks and throw them with force and saw the intent in it. he then knew that i nearly was going to fight him but choose to be the better man. an another e-4 who was an e-5 in the army chewed that sgt out as he should have known better. had i actually punched him for that the chain command would have went have punished him not be for the fight.as he provocked it.

since that time we have become closer friends. so dont assume that i'm quick to draw, i am not , i am not.

what part of i hate fighting dont you get?

 

[Drew]

I intend to provide a more detailed treatment of the "get a sword" passage. I am convinced that it is not a provisioning instruction per se, but rather a carefully crafted maneuver on the part of Jesus to make Himself vulnerable to arrest by being seen as a transgressor.

Which is, of course, what the text really does say:

And He said to them, “But now, <SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP>whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and <SUP class=footnote value='[f]'>[f]</SUP>whoever has no sword is to sell his <SUP class=footnote value='[g]'>[g]</SUP>coat and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NASB-25902>37</SUP> For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<SUP class=xref value='(AL)'>(AL)</SUP>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for <SUP class=xref value='(AM)'>(AM)</SUP>that which refers to Me has its <SUP class=footnote value='[h]'>[h]</SUP>fulfillment.â€

I suggest a number of you are making error of believing that just because its is otherwise plausible that Jesus is giving a "provisioning" instruction, that this is therefore what He must be doing.

But, again, the text says what it says - Jesus certainly seems to explain the "provisioning" instruction in terms of fulfilling a prophecy about being seen as part of a group of transgressors.

And to be seen as such certainly makes sense - it will give the authorities further cause to arrest Him.

Anyway, I am getting ahead of myself - a more detailed argument will come later.

What I really want to say in this post is that while the "its common sense to defend yourself with violence" argument has a tremendous appeal, even to me, I do not see how it can be reconciled with the teachings and actions of Jesus.

After all, Jesus did not defend Himself.

Now I suspect you will all cry "special case - Jesus had to die to save us".

I would like to believe that, but I suggest Jesus closes the door on that option when He says this:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-24536>35</SUP> For whoever wants to save their life<SUP class=footnote value='[b]'>[b]</SUP> will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it

Uncomfortable words? Definitely.

At variance with the "right to bear arms in self-defence"? I suggest, "yes".

 

[theLords]

After all, Jesus did not defend Himself.

John 18 (ESV)
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said." 22When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?" 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

 

[Drew]

John 18 (ESV)
19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said." 22When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" 23Jesus answered him, "If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?" 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

I do not see how this supports the position I understand you as holding.

Yes, Jesus objects to being struck. And I suggest it is the understatement of all time to suggest that Jesus objected to being crucified.

But that is an entirely a distinct matter from the issue of striking back.

 

[theLords]

I do not see how this supports the position I understand you as holding.

Yes, Jesus objects to being struck. And I suggest it is the understatement of all time to suggest that Jesus objected to being crucified.

But that is an entirely a distinct matter from the issue of striking back.

You made the statement: "Jesus did not defend Himself." If you think, speaking up for yourself, is not an act of defending yourself... then, okay.

 

[jasoncran]

I intend to provide a more detailed treatment of the "get a sword" passage. I am convinced that it is not a provisioning instruction per se, but rather a carefully crafted maneuver on the part of Jesus to make Himself vulnerable to arrest by being seen as a transgressor.

Which is, of course, what the text really does say:

And He said to them, “But now, <sup class="footnote" value='[e]'>[e]</sup>whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and <sup class="footnote" value='[f]'>[f]</sup>whoever has no sword is to sell his <sup class="footnote" value='[g]'>[g]</sup>coat and buy one. <sup id="en-NASB-25902" class="versenum">37</sup> For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘<sup class="xref" value='(AL)'>(AL)</sup>AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for <sup class="xref" value='(AM)'>(AM)</sup>that which refers to Me has its <sup class="footnote" value='[h]'>[h]</sup>fulfillment.â€

I suggest a number of you are making error of believing that just because its is otherwise plausible that Jesus is giving a "provisioning" instruction, that this is therefore what He must be doing.

But, again, the text says what it says - Jesus certainly seems to explain the "provisioning" instruction in terms of fulfilling a prophecy about being seen as part of a group of transgressors.

And to be seen as such certainly makes sense - it will give the authorities further cause to arrest Him.

Anyway, I am getting ahead of myself - a more detailed argument will come later.

What I really want to say in this post is that while the "its common sense to defend yourself with violence" argument has a tremendous appeal, even to me, I do not see how it can be reconciled with the teachings and actions of Jesus.

After all, Jesus did not defend Himself.

Now I suspect you will all cry "special case - Jesus had to die to save us".

I would like to believe that, but I suggest Jesus closes the door on that option when He says this:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. <sup id="en-NIV-24536" class="versenum">35</sup> For whoever wants to save their life<sup class="footnote" value='[b]'>[b]</sup> will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it

Uncomfortable words? Definitely.

At variance with the "right to bear arms in self-defence"? I suggest, "yes".

so drew suggest that we just stand by and just let the rapist rape our daughters and wives, for if you use the law that is retalation. remember one cant claim calling the cops in makes you innocent. for if the law is the one who kills and you send them in to do that you are just as guilty.

common sense drew, calling the cops and defending life and limb isnt a sin. paul used his rights as a roman citizen and his action could have cost lives when his neck was on the line.

roman soldiers didnt just sweep in and not harm those that they thought were wrong or in defiance of the state., they killed them. paul was a roman citizen and to murder a roman citizen without trial isnt taken lightly.

 

[Drew]

You made the statement: "Jesus did not defend Himself." If you think, speaking up for yourself, is not an act of defending yourself... then, okay.

Let me qualify myself: I meant that Jesus did not resist by force.

 

[Drew]

so drew suggest that we just stand by and just let the rapist rape our daughters and wives, for if you use the law that is retalation.

When did I say this? Please identify the post.

 

[reba]

Seem to my simple mind if Jesus was telling the disciples to buy swords so Jesus could get into trouble with the law. Seems Jesus would have been a sinner.

My view.. the plan of God was put into effect. All those players did not have a choice they were distend to crucify Christ. As He said

Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

 

[Drew]

paul used his rights as a roman citizen and his action could have cost lives when his neck was on the line.

I do not think there is any evidence that Paul used, or advocated the use of force in any sense in any of his actions or statements.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

 

[jasoncran]

I do not think there is any evidence that Paul used, or advocated the use of force in any sense in any of his actions or statements.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?

he did it by actions

drew you cant just say well if the christian calls the cops and they kill the guy for you and you arent sinning you called the law and you acted on it.
acts 22

him.

<sup id="en-KJV-27730" class="versenum">25</sup>And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? <sup id="en-KJV-27731" class="versenum">26</sup>When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

he claimed his rights as roman citizenship.
acts 23

¹⁰And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle

 

[jasoncran]

When did I say this? Please identify the post.

drew it makes no sense to say that we cant defend yourself and then you say that one can call in the law.

the attacker is just as dead in either event so if God says that its vengeance when HE ORDAINED THAT SWORD AND YOU AND I USE IT to contain evil.

its not evil in the legal context of defense in our laws. our laws dont allow murder drew.save abortion.

so if i call in the law to save me and they do what is the difference between that and when the law says lawful ownership and legal defense in such case is valid.

so your point is mote then drew if the state has declared gun ownership valid and legally set limits for use of force then you are acting legally to take a life in such situations.

 

[handy]

What I really want to say in this post is that while the "its common sense to defend yourself with violence" argument has a tremendous appeal, even to me, I do not see how it can be reconciled with the teachings and actions of Jesus.

After all, Jesus did not defend Himself.

Now I suspect you will all cry "special case - Jesus had to die to save us".

I would like to believe that, but I suggest Jesus closes the door on that option when He says this:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24536">35</sup> For whoever wants to save their life<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;<a href=" http:="" www.christianforums.net="" #fen-niv-24536b&quot;"="" target="_blank"></sup> will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it

Uncomfortable words? Definitely.

At variance with the "right to bear arms in self-defense"? I suggest, "yes".

I agree with you to a point...but then this is the point:

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for Me and for the gospel will save it

See the difference?

Jesus qualifies what He is saying here. He isn't talking about defending oneself from a thug who would come in, kill the parents, take the children and rape and torture them (thinking of the Groene case here). He is talking about those who need to lay down their lives for the sake of the gospel. It was this text I had in mind when I said what I said earlier about defending myself or family against a predator (whether cougar, bear, wolf or human) but not defending myself against any who would say "Reject Christ or die".

That Jesus isn't speaking of simple self-defense against a murderer or rapist here is proved by what He says next:

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

To deny Christ is to forfeit the soul (however, Christ shows His willingness to forgive this as per Peter)...but, there is no "forfeiting" of one's soul if one is simply defending oneself from a murderer or a rapist.

Seem to my simple mind if Jesus was telling the disciples to buy swords so Jesus could get into trouble with the law. Seems Jesus would have been a sinner.

Absolutely this would have Jesus be a sinner...Here He is supposedly trumping up charges against Himself by what...having His disciples carry swords around...apparently in violation of a law? If carrying a sword was against the law, who was more likely to get into trouble for doing that? Jesus (who didn't carry the sword) or the disciples, whom He told to do so? So, Jesus, supposedly our loving Lord and Savior, is going to send His disciples up the river just to needlessly trump up charges against Himself.

First of all, there is no proof that it was even against the law for Jews to carry swords. I brought this up before, and it remains unanswered...

Drew, can you provide even one shred of evidence that it was against any law, either Jewish or Roman, for Jews to carry swords?

Then there is the whole fact that by the time Jesus told the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords, Judas had already betrayed Jesus and Jesus knew that he did. So, all these machinations would be totally unnecessary and Jesus would know that they would be unnecessary.

 

[handy]

Am waiting upon some proof as to whether or not it was illegal for Jews to carry swords.

If it was against the law for Jews to carry swords then the interpretation would make a little more sense...not much though because Jesus already knew that Judas was on his way to the priests.

However, if it wasn't against the law, then the disciples carrying swords (which they already were carrying swords, two of them were on the premises at the time) then again, your interpretation makes no sense.
[/COLOR]