Lewis
Member
This is a good article, the article below is not my words, but I love it.
In my research on firearms, I came across a pro-gun-law blogger, “dtb”, who clings to his (note: I don’t know the blogger’s gender) position that guns are designed to kill and thus the gun manufacturers should be held liable for any harm caused by the use of the products they create. We’re talking liability for properly functioning guns not defective guns that harm their shooters.
The obvious intent of this scheme is to create a target for gunshot victims (even those who were shot while committing crimes) and their families to sue and to try to litigate the firearms industry into extinction.
While the purpose of guns (to kill) may (or may not be) a valid point in favor of the gun-banners, this particular blogger seems to miss the point that criminals, by definition, don’t respect laws and they are armed. I’ll take up this liability issue at a later date…
The Christian Responsibility to Bear and Defend | Right to Bear Arms | Second Amendment Activism | Right to Bear Arms | Second Amendment Activism
I wrote this post after reading many of the comments that people have made in response to dtb’s silly statements. These responses have been quite enlightening (for instance, I’ve learned a bit about bullets designed to injure rather than kill enemy soldiers because wounded people drain resources).
Now, let’s get to the heart of the matter. The activity in question was the sponsorship, by a church, of an event that included a firearm giveaway. The accepted view by many Christians is that you should not fight (love your enemies, turn the other cheek…) but one interesting responder quoted Luke 22:36.
I pause here to underline the fact that you can pull Bible quotes out of context to support just about any idea that you have. I have strong opinions that are contrary to the popular teachings about the Biblical view of violence. Essentially, I believe that the humanly manufactured role of “pacifist Christian” is based on Biblical selections and ignores much, if not most, of what is in The Book. Further, it creates victims and hurts the society. I intend to fully investigate the subject and write about it in the future. However, the comment that sparked this posting was interesting enough for me to share it now – even before my deeper study.
I will give you a little more than just verse 36 for the purpose of better understanding the context and then I will paste the comment:
The Biblical Reference
Thus, it is not the Christian’s role to also lay down his life for the attacker. The Christian has responsibilities to protect and provide for his/her family and community and it is hard to do that when you are dead. Not only should the Christian live in a way that promotes good health, he/she should defend that life and health when attacked and teach others to do the same.
This point — self-defense — brings me to the mind of our nation’s Founding Fathers. Is it not fair to say that they were not looking for a fight? They had tolerated much abuse. But the day came when the abuse was no longer tolerable and they fought back. Their fight, the Revolutionary War, has lead to the unprecedented freedom that you and I enjoy today. Many around the world have enjoyed residual blessings because of what happened in our nation over 200 years ago.
Is our definition and implementation of freedom perfect? Not a chance. But it is much better than any man-made system that had existed prior.
In conclusion, self-defense against an individual or a government is an inalienable right (maybe we need to amend the Constitution so that people like Sonia Sotomayor will recognize it) and the Second Amendment assures the means for effective self-defense. Inalienable rights are those granted by God and therefore apply to Christians.
The next time a gunman (or woman) enters a church looking to slaughter lambs, I pray that the local shepherd (pastor) pulls his sidearm, steps up to the criminal like David to a lion, and puts him out of his misery first.
http://righttobear.org/276/the-christian-responsibility-to-bear-and-defend/
In my research on firearms, I came across a pro-gun-law blogger, “dtb”, who clings to his (note: I don’t know the blogger’s gender) position that guns are designed to kill and thus the gun manufacturers should be held liable for any harm caused by the use of the products they create. We’re talking liability for properly functioning guns not defective guns that harm their shooters.
The obvious intent of this scheme is to create a target for gunshot victims (even those who were shot while committing crimes) and their families to sue and to try to litigate the firearms industry into extinction.
While the purpose of guns (to kill) may (or may not be) a valid point in favor of the gun-banners, this particular blogger seems to miss the point that criminals, by definition, don’t respect laws and they are armed. I’ll take up this liability issue at a later date…
The Christian Responsibility to Bear and Defend | Right to Bear Arms | Second Amendment Activism | Right to Bear Arms | Second Amendment Activism
I wrote this post after reading many of the comments that people have made in response to dtb’s silly statements. These responses have been quite enlightening (for instance, I’ve learned a bit about bullets designed to injure rather than kill enemy soldiers because wounded people drain resources).
Now, let’s get to the heart of the matter. The activity in question was the sponsorship, by a church, of an event that included a firearm giveaway. The accepted view by many Christians is that you should not fight (love your enemies, turn the other cheek…) but one interesting responder quoted Luke 22:36.
I pause here to underline the fact that you can pull Bible quotes out of context to support just about any idea that you have. I have strong opinions that are contrary to the popular teachings about the Biblical view of violence. Essentially, I believe that the humanly manufactured role of “pacifist Christian” is based on Biblical selections and ignores much, if not most, of what is in The Book. Further, it creates victims and hurts the society. I intend to fully investigate the subject and write about it in the future. However, the comment that sparked this posting was interesting enough for me to share it now – even before my deeper study.
I will give you a little more than just verse 36 for the purpose of better understanding the context and then I will paste the comment:
The Biblical Reference
verse 35
And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
verse 36
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
verse 37
For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
verse 38
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”
The CommentAnd He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
verse 36
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
verse 37
For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
verse 38
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Since others have brought up the Christian aspect of it, I feel it appropriate to respond:
Christ DID exhort his Disciples to buy an “assault weapon”. The Sword was the “assault weapon” of the day.
Reading the entire story in context, it becomes apparent that His point was that He was soon going to be departing for His Heavenly home…while He had been on earth, His disciples had wanted for nothing. Money, food, protection, etc were provided for them. He was basically telling them “I’m not going to be around for much longer so you’d better be prepared to take care of yourselves.” Among the preparations to be made was the obtaining of at least a minimal number of weapons with which to effect their self defense.
Regarding the command to “turn the other cheek”: You are aware that the slapping of a cheek is an insult, not a deadly threat? He was not condemning self-defense in that passage, He was saying don’t respond to insults with anger or violence. There is significant difference between not responding to an insult with anger, and refusing to defend the life that is a gift from God.
Some would contend that Christians have a responsibility to defend their own lives and those of the innocent from violent predators by whatever means necessary.
And that doesn’t even address the the obvious question that the “Christians must be non-violent” argument elicits: Does that mean that Christians are precluded from careers in Law Enforcement or the Military? How can a Police Officer uphold a Christian faith that views all violence as sinful?
An interesting argument indeed…but it, unfortunately, has nothing at all to do with the story in question. Punching holes in a piece of paper from 100 yards away is not an act of violence by any stretch of the imagination.
I’d laugh if it wasn’t true… : Delaware Liberal
The bottom line is that resisting evil is a Christian’s duty as criminals are controlled by the Evil One. Christ has already given His life for the criminal – should the criminal choose to accept the gift and repent.Christ DID exhort his Disciples to buy an “assault weapon”. The Sword was the “assault weapon” of the day.
Reading the entire story in context, it becomes apparent that His point was that He was soon going to be departing for His Heavenly home…while He had been on earth, His disciples had wanted for nothing. Money, food, protection, etc were provided for them. He was basically telling them “I’m not going to be around for much longer so you’d better be prepared to take care of yourselves.” Among the preparations to be made was the obtaining of at least a minimal number of weapons with which to effect their self defense.
Regarding the command to “turn the other cheek”: You are aware that the slapping of a cheek is an insult, not a deadly threat? He was not condemning self-defense in that passage, He was saying don’t respond to insults with anger or violence. There is significant difference between not responding to an insult with anger, and refusing to defend the life that is a gift from God.
Some would contend that Christians have a responsibility to defend their own lives and those of the innocent from violent predators by whatever means necessary.
And that doesn’t even address the the obvious question that the “Christians must be non-violent” argument elicits: Does that mean that Christians are precluded from careers in Law Enforcement or the Military? How can a Police Officer uphold a Christian faith that views all violence as sinful?
An interesting argument indeed…but it, unfortunately, has nothing at all to do with the story in question. Punching holes in a piece of paper from 100 yards away is not an act of violence by any stretch of the imagination.
I’d laugh if it wasn’t true… : Delaware Liberal
Thus, it is not the Christian’s role to also lay down his life for the attacker. The Christian has responsibilities to protect and provide for his/her family and community and it is hard to do that when you are dead. Not only should the Christian live in a way that promotes good health, he/she should defend that life and health when attacked and teach others to do the same.
This point — self-defense — brings me to the mind of our nation’s Founding Fathers. Is it not fair to say that they were not looking for a fight? They had tolerated much abuse. But the day came when the abuse was no longer tolerable and they fought back. Their fight, the Revolutionary War, has lead to the unprecedented freedom that you and I enjoy today. Many around the world have enjoyed residual blessings because of what happened in our nation over 200 years ago.
Is our definition and implementation of freedom perfect? Not a chance. But it is much better than any man-made system that had existed prior.
In conclusion, self-defense against an individual or a government is an inalienable right (maybe we need to amend the Constitution so that people like Sonia Sotomayor will recognize it) and the Second Amendment assures the means for effective self-defense. Inalienable rights are those granted by God and therefore apply to Christians.
The next time a gunman (or woman) enters a church looking to slaughter lambs, I pray that the local shepherd (pastor) pulls his sidearm, steps up to the criminal like David to a lion, and puts him out of his misery first.
http://righttobear.org/276/the-christian-responsibility-to-bear-and-defend/
Last edited by a moderator:
