Christians and guns?

[GunTroll]

I was listening to some idiot on 850 koa last Sunday and he brought up a question I've been thinking of ever since...Why are there so many gun crazy Christians? If anyone else heard this you would know this guy is an idiot. Shaun something. But this question he claimed he didn't understand is a good one. I don't quite get it either. I'm no theologian or hard core bible pusher but believe in God and Jesus. I'm walking the line so to speak. But I know about turning a cheek and the 10 commandments and don't see the connection with fire power. I understand firearms are fun to all who own them, but some view them as tools and self defense,etc. Where does it say to pray and get armed to the teeth. What is the correlation? I'm sure this guy is asking this question based off of very little knowledge of either. He even claimed that and probably is talking about some cult like compound he saw on some news show.

What do you guys think of the connection?

[ryanek9freak]

yeah and it always kills me to hear people say the that 2A is a God given right. Umm, no, it was written by men, our forefathers. It's a right none the less, and can't be taken away, but it wasn't given by "God".

I don't remember any mention of firearms in the bible.

[Driftwood]

Chuck Baldwin (a pastor) is just one who wrote concerning this issue almost two years back. The pertinent Bible verses are in it, anyway. Check it:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071214.html


"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36 KJV)

Most of us are aware that the heroic actions of a brave woman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado a few days ago saved the lives of perhaps scores, or even hundreds, of people. However, her bravery would not have counted for much had she not been armed.

On that fateful December Sunday, a man by the name of Matthew Murray entered the church armed to the teeth. According to press reports, he was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, two handguns, some smoke grenades, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition.

By the time Murray arrived in the Colorado Springs church, he had already killed four people: two at a missionary training center miles away, and two in the church parking lot. He had wounded several others. No one realized it at the time, but the man was a serial killer in the midst of a rampage. He doubtless planned to kill as many people as he could, as there were thousands of people inside the church. Had there not been an armed citizen in the church house, the death toll would have been massive.

According to church spokesmen, the congregation has over a dozen members who volunteered to serve as security personnel for the church. Jeanne Assam was one of those volunteers.

A former police officer, Assam said, "I saw him [Murray] coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer. I came out of cover, I identified myself and engaged him and took him down." Murray died in the exchange. Although Assam shot him several times with her 9mm pistol, the coroner's office said that Murray actually succumbed to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. After being incapacitated by Assam's gunfire, Murray apparently turned one of his weapons on himself.

Chalk one up for the good guys, or in this case, good gals.

Have you noticed how the media dropped the Colorado story as soon as it was discovered that a lawfully armed citizen ended the potential massacre by using her own handgun? Had the killer been successful in murdering scores of people, however, it would have been at the top of the news for weeks. As it is, the story is already buried in the dungeon section of the news, if it is in the news at all.

One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times EVERY YEAR. That is more than 6,500 times EVERY DAY. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring. That is what Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) concluded after extensive research. According to Rep. Bartlett, the number of defensive uses is four times the number of crimes reported committed with guns.

John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, agrees with Bartlett. His book "More Guns, Less Crime" documents the fact that--instead of being a cause of crime--firearms in the hands of private citizens are actually a major deterrent to crime.

Another fact conveniently ignored by the major media is the connection between wanton killings and so-called "gun-free" zones. For an example of this, look no further than the Virginia Tech massacre. In spite of Virginia state laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, Virginia Tech forbade its students and faculty from carrying weapons for self-defense on campus. Had a student or faculty member been armed--as was Ms. Assam in the Colorado Springs attack--no doubt many, if not most, of the Virginia Tech victims would not have died. Obviously, bad guys do not pay any attention to "gun-free" zones, except to note that such zones create a free-killing environment.

Is it any wonder that those states and cities with the most restrictive gun control laws tend to also be home to the highest crime rates? The old saying is still true. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." There is another saying I like even better. "When guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw."

Even our Lord understood and validated the right of every person to arm themselves for personal self-defense. He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36 KJV) The old Roman sword was the First Century equivalent of a modern handgun. It was the most practical and convenient form of self-defense available at that time. Also, please note that at least two of Jesus' disciples (one of whom was Simon Peter) were in the habit of carrying their own personal swords, and Jesus never rebuked them. (See Luke 22:38.)

Jesus also acknowledged, "When a strong man ARMED [emphasis added] keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21)

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul said, emphatically, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (I Tim. 5:8) Does "not providing for his own" include not providing protection? Of course it does.

The right and, yes, obligation of personal self-defense is entrenched in both Christian and American tradition. People who would deny citizens the right to arm themselves are either naïvely ignorant or deliberately duplicitous. As Robert Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society."

America's Founding Fathers agreed with Heinlein. Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." He also said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Samuel Adams said, "[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

James Madison said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Thomas Paine said, "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

George Washington called the private collections of arms "the people's liberty's teeth."

America must always preserve the right to keep and bear arms. To do any less is to invite oppression and tyranny, not to mention acts of violence.

Some years back, Alan Rice of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) wrote, "Since 1900 at least seven major genocides have occurred resulting in the murder of 50-60 million people:

*Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered;
*Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered;
*Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazi murdered;
*China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered;
*Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered;
*Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
*Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered."

Rice continued to say, "In all seven of the genocides summarized above, gun control laws were in force before the genocide occurred, in some cases decades before. In five of the seven genocides, the lethal law, the gun control law was in force before the genocide regime took power."

Rice also said, "Gun control laws are usually enacted during a crisis or a perceived crisis." He then said, "Government officials, not hate groups or common criminals, were responsible for these seven genocides. In most of these cases the murder victims outnumbered their murderers; yet they were powerless to defend themselves because they were disarmed."

Do the math yourself. Absent an armed citizen, 32 innocent people lost their lives at Virginia Tech, while the presence of 1 armed citizen resulted in 2 innocent deaths in Colorado Springs. Furthermore, the presence of over 200 million firearms in the possession of the American people has done more to keep America free than any other human element--bar none!

Therefore, to help keep your family safe and your country free, go buy a gun.

© Chuck Baldwin

[CareyH]

[Luke 11:21] When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

[Luke 22:36] Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

[Rom 13:4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

[RRD3]

[Luke 22:36] Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.



If there were guns back then I'm pretty sure that the message would have been something like this.

Then said unto them, But now, he that hath a wallet, let him take, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no AR-15, let him sell his Leather jacket, and buy one.

[ROFL1]

[Pancho Villa]

Christianity is a fairly pacifistic religion as it stands. Turn the other cheek and the entire altruist morality fairly well implies that defending yourself is at least frowned upon.

Medieval europe was when the Christian faith was taken the most seriously...you did not see monks (Templars excluded, and anyone in the Templars who fought could only be a lay person, not to mention being disbanded for buggery) wearing swords, but they did renounce the "corrupt" material world for a life of contemplation of God and self-denial.

To be prepared to fight for your property and life, both of which should be worth little to you if you are an ideal Christian, seems to be a little odd.

You can take isolated bits of scripture to try and support the idea that Christianity isn't contrary to the ideas of self-defense and come up with some good ones, but the fact remains that the entire character that Christianity encourages and the long history of Christian thought (the vow of poverty was actually originally meant to be a vow renouncing the use of weapons, and is one of the key ideals of a man renouncing the 'corrupt' material world in order to be closer to God) idealizes the pacifist and sees the warrior as a necessary evil at best.

That said, Christianity cannot be practiced consistently in any man who wishes to live long on this earth. So a Christian is welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to pick and choose which parts of their faith to follow.

Of course, I'm an atheist (though I did take great interest in Christianity earlier in life, and studied scripture and the history of the church,) but I am trying to be objective in my analysis vis a vie weapons and Christianity. Historically it doesn't really fit with much Christian thought, but today's flavor of Christianity has a heavy pagan (Aristotlean, thanks to Thomas Aquinas, who is also largely responsible for pulling humanity out of the dark ages) influences. Christianity has had a lot more Aristotlean influence than most religious scholars are willing to admit.

[68Charger]

Christianity is a fairly pacifistic religion as it stands. Turn the other cheek and the entire altruist morality fairly well implies that defending yourself is at least frowned upon.

Medieval europe was when the Christian faith was taken the most seriously...you did not see monks (Templars excluded, and anyone in the Templars who fought could only be a lay person, not to mention being disbanded for buggery) wearing swords, but they did renounce the "corrupt" material world for a life of contemplation of God and self-denial.

To be prepared to fight for your property and life, both of which should be worth little to you if you are an ideal Christian, seems to be a little odd.

You can take isolated bits of scripture to try and support the idea that Christianity isn't contrary to the ideas of self-defense and come up with some good ones, but the fact remains that the entire character that Christianity encourages and the long history of Christian thought (the vow of poverty was actually originally meant to be a vow renouncing the use of weapons, and is one of the key ideals of a man renouncing the 'corrupt' material world in order to be closer to God) idealizes the pacifist and sees the warrior as a necessary evil at best.

That said, Christianity cannot be practiced consistently in any man who wishes to live long on this earth. So a Christian is welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to pick and choose which parts of their faith to follow.

Of course, I'm an atheist (though I did take great interest in Christianity earlier in life, and studied scripture and the history of the church,) but I am trying to be objective in my analysis vis a vie weapons and Christianity. Historically it doesn't really fit with much Christian thought, but today's flavor of Christianity has a heavy pagan (Aristotlean, thanks to Thomas Aquinas, who is also largely responsible for pulling humanity out of the dark ages) influences. Christianity has had a lot more Aristotlean influence than most religious scholars are willing to admit.

I would argue that what you've been taught is "Churchianty" rather that true Christianity...

The churches that you see are run by men, and are therefore subject to the flaws of man... my personal faith is much closer to what you'd find from John Eldredge.. not that I worship him- just that I agree with his viewpoints.. http://ransomedheart.com/

I've been trying to get this message out within my church, and would love to sit & talk with anyone about it... I'm not a "bible thumper", I'm not into forcing anything down anyone's throat... this has just made sense to me personally.. My father is an Atheist, and I was Agnostic for most of my life... it took my Mother's death to make me seek a more spiritual purpose to my life... but none if it made full sense until I heard this message...

your viewpoints are very close to mine- even with regards to the church in general... I believe that most organized religion has it's own agenda.... that is in many times in conflict with God.... which means at least some of it is influenced by other sources...

Christ himself was not a pacifist .. how would somebody that was completely pacifistic get crucified? His actions were completely in the face of the Pharisees, so much so that they wanted him DEAD.. they told him not to heal on the sabbath, and he chastised them... and did it again, right in front of them.. I've personally wondered if "turn the other cheek" is a form of defiance... (that didn't hurt, try the other cheek)

When Jesus confronted those at the temple that were participating in commerce with in the temple- he "made a whip" and cleared the temple by force.. does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He was tempered in his anger, but was far from non-confrontational...

I believe that the biblical position of protecting yourself personally may be open to debate, but when it comes to protecting the innocent, I think there's no question that even violence is not only condoned, but encouraged if required...

The Templars were well known for their selfish desires of power... at some point it stopped being about God, and started being about themselves....
using violence to FORCE people to believe something (the crusades) is also a false belief that has lead to many deaths... and is not biblical, IMHO...

I would hope that in the end, you don't let the fault of men to come between you & your relationship with God... there are some who would be pleased with that.. [Muaha]

any belief in God is going to be short lived, if you don't believe that God has an enemy that is poised to "steal, kill & destroy" all that would believe in him..

[DOC]

Its a slanderous statement about gun owners a stereotype about someone who likes guns. Its just not frowned at like making black jokes. But its the same thing just one is ok and the other is a federal offense.

[XJ]

You were trolled on the radio, during a discussion about firearms. C'mon now, that is funny.


I'll bet the radio-show caller would go apoplectic if he knew about JPFO.

[GunTroll]

You were trolled on the radio, during a discussion about firearms. C'mon now, that is funny.


I'll bet the radio-show caller would go apoplectic if he knew about JPFO.

I'm not sure what you mean with any of that internet lingo.

And if implying it was a caller it wasn't, it was the asshat radio jock that brought it up.

[Roger]

I started a security team at my church years ago. A couple of years ago there was a madman with guns that came in shooting. A team member dropped him with some well placed 9mm rounds. It made the news. Now most people not only accept the team and its weapons, on some level expect it.

Hmm, wonder why.

[RRD3]

I remember that.

Hat's off to you Roger. [Beer]

[Irving]

It's not a Federal offense to make a black joke!

Anyway, I don't think that this correlation exists, or if it does, it is a correlation without causation. Just because the media talks about "assault weapons," doesn't mean they exist either.

So no one has to read between the lines here, I think it has to do with being conservative in values and views in the first place. So, if one is conservative in values, they are more likely to own guns, and they are also more likely to be a vocal member of a conservative religion. I don't believe that there is a direct correlation between Christianity and gun ownership. There are approximately 200 million guns in this country of 300 million people. How many gun owners does that make? 150 million perhaps? How many "Christians" are there?

I think the talk show host was asking a question that could have been answered with a few moments worth of thought.

[DOC]

You know what I mean you can't discriminate against a race of people. But you can call all gun owners names no matter the race and get away with it.

[Irving]

I can get away with discriminating different races of people all day long. So long as it is not done by a business. Try telling someone that they have to leave your store because you don't like gun-toting catholics and see what happens.

[DOC]

Likely get punched in the mouth. Just guessing, I would never though.

[Pancho Villa]

I would argue that what you've been taught is "Churchianty" rather that true Christianity...

The churches that you see are run by men, and are therefore subject to the flaws of man... my personal faith is much closer to what you'd find from John Eldredge.. not that I worship him- just that I agree with his viewpoints.. http://ransomedheart.com/

I've been trying to get this message out within my church, and would love to sit & talk with anyone about it... I'm not a "bible thumper", I'm not into forcing anything down anyone's throat... this has just made sense to me personally.. My father is an Atheist, and I was Agnostic for most of my life... it took my Mother's death to make me seek a more spiritual purpose to my life... but none if it made full sense until I heard this message...

your viewpoints are very close to mine- even with regards to the church in general... I believe that most organized religion has it's own agenda.... that is in many times in conflict with God.... which means at least some of it is influenced by other sources...

Christ himself was not a pacifist .. how would somebody that was completely pacifistic get crucified? His actions were completely in the face of the Pharisees, so much so that they wanted him DEAD.. they told him not to heal on the sabbath, and he chastised them... and did it again, right in front of them.. I've personally wondered if "turn the other cheek" is a form of defiance... (that didn't hurt, try the other cheek)

When Jesus confronted those at the temple that were participating in commerce with in the temple- he "made a whip" and cleared the temple by force.. does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He was tempered in his anger, but was far from non-confrontational...

I believe that the biblical position of protecting yourself personally may be open to debate, but when it comes to protecting the innocent, I think there's no question that even violence is not only condoned, but encouraged if required...

The Templars were well known for their selfish desires of power... at some point it stopped being about God, and started being about themselves....
using violence to FORCE people to believe something (the crusades) is also a false belief that has lead to many deaths... and is not biblical, IMHO...

I would hope that in the end, you don't let the fault of men to come between you & your relationship with God... there are some who would be pleased with that.. [Muaha]

any belief in God is going to be short lived, if you don't believe that God has an enemy that is poised to "steal, kill & destroy" all that would believe in him..

As I said, I do not believe thoughts like this intruded into most Christian theology until about the time of Aquinas.

You can claim everyone before those kinds of thoughts was mistaken, and I'm not particularly interested in a theology discussion (as you've noted, there's plenty of room for interpretation in the Bible, not to mention the fact that I'm almost a decade out of practice,) but I do not think that jives well with such Christian virtues as humility, poverty*, chastity**, or such lauded actions as "turning the other cheek" and so forth.

Out of curiousity, how do you, personally, reconcile the ideal of turning the other cheek with defending yourself and/or your property from a thug? Please know I am not trying to attack you (or anyone else) here (its futile anyway, and I don't bear Christians any particular resentment so long as they stay out of my business, regardless of my thoughts on their belief system,) but I am genuinely curious how a (to all appearances) faithful man reconciles this heavily promoted Christian virtue with the ideals of self defense. I know the Templars justified that and also the sin of pride by being able to do violence only in defense of Christians (in the holy land,) and being able to take pride only in the organization they belonged to, not any pride in personal accomplishments. Is it something similar with you?

Anyway, I do not think any real 'debate' is possible on these points, which is why I only asked questions and gave my take on it. Faith is by definition belief in abscence of evidence***, and there really is no consistent, objective standard one can point to in matters of faith that everyone can agree to. Thus all the "bad" christians, many of whom genuinely believe or believed that they were being pious to the best of their ability.

So long as I'm left alone I don't have much problem with modern-day Christianity. If only that was more common than it was, but in this company at least I am fairly confident no one wants to push particulars of their belief system onto me.

*The oath of poverty that monks used to take was not, in fact, originally an oath to take on no material wealth (though of course you don't hear about any rich monks.) It was actually an agreement not to carry weapons, which is particularly relevant here.

**Thank God I don't hold that as a virtue! :P

***Before someone tries to present "proof" of God to me: I've heard it all, and I'd rather not go on that merry-go-round again.

[68Charger]

Out of curiousity, how do you, personally, reconcile the ideal of turning the other cheek with defending yourself and/or your property from a thug? <snip> I am genuinely curious how a (to all appearances) faithful man reconciles this heavily promoted Christian virtue with the ideals of self defense. I know the Templars justified that and also the sin of pride by being able to do violence only in defense of Christians (in the holy land,) and being able to take pride only in the organization they belonged to, not any pride in personal accomplishments. Is it something similar with you?

It's not based on pride, it's based on protection...
if they put my family in direct danger- then it's no longer just self-defense- but defense of my family...

if it were just my life that was threatened... do I let him kill me? how does that allow me to protect my family in the future? If he gets away with killing me, how many more would he kill after that?

if it were just property, It would depend on the circumstances... armed robbery, for example- puts people in danger.... if I were to let that person get away with it, they will most likely do it again- and what if somebody is killed the next time... would their blood be on my hands if It were in my means to stop him when he robbed me?

evil must be confronted & combated, or it will remain unchecked...

when I presented (to my pastor) the idea that "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as an act of defiance, he found it interesting- but would not fully disagree...
there are also cultural differences that make the specific wording more significant... such as striking the right cheek, offer him the other... to strike someone with your left (unclean in that time/culture) hand to strike the other cheek would bring dishonor on the striker... in the same passage, Jesus mentions "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." this is also a cultural reference- leaving yourself naked would bring shame upon those that viewed your nakedness... not upon the naked. There's also jewish law from the time that would prevent someone from taking "the shirt off your back" to pay a dept...

I believe that the overall message is one of not seeking vengance, not specifically letting someone beat the crap out of you...

[GunTroll]

The guy on the radio Kept talking about not being able to see Jesus with an AK. I agree....I see him with something a little more potent.....
http://xbradtc.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/800px-mk19-02.jpg

[Pancho Villa]

It's not based on pride, it's based on protection...
if they put my family in direct danger- then it's no longer just self-defense- but defense of my family...

if it were just my life that was threatened... do I let him kill me? how does that allow me to protect my family in the future? If he gets away with killing me, how many more would he kill after that?

if it were just property, It would depend on the circumstances... armed robbery, for example- puts people in danger.... if I were to let that person get away with it, they will most likely do it again- and what if somebody is killed the next time... would their blood be on my hands if It were in my means to stop him when he robbed me?

evil must be confronted & combated, or it will remain unchecked...

when I presented (to my pastor) the idea that "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as an act of defiance, he found it interesting- but would not fully disagree...
there are also cultural differences that make the specific wording more significant... such as striking the right cheek, offer him the other... to strike someone with your left (unclean in that time/culture) hand to strike the other cheek would bring dishonor on the striker... in the same passage, Jesus mentions "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." this is also a cultural reference- leaving yourself naked would bring shame upon those that viewed your nakedness... not upon the naked. There's also jewish law from the time that would prevent someone from taking "the shirt off your back" to pay a dept...

I believe that the overall message is one of not seeking vengance, not specifically letting someone beat the crap out of you...

Thank you for being honest.

As an atheist and an egoist, my first concern in such situations is myself and my own selfish values, such as my wife and (later, possibly) my child. I really don't care if a burglar might vandalize someone else's house in the future - my chief concern is the protection of myself and my values.

For a different perspective on things.

[DOC]

I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6. Besides my own trial would be a must see event.

[ryanek9freak]

Thank you for being honest.

As an atheist and an egoist, my first concern in such situations is myself and my own selfish values, such as my wife and (later, possibly) my child. I really don't care if a burglar might vandalize someone else's house in the future - my chief concern is the protection of myself and my values.

For a different perspective on things.

+1000

[sniper7]

Why would god need a gun when he has lightning bolts!

[RRD3]

Why would god need a gun when he has lightning bolts!


Global Warming

[Mtn.man]

If the Christians had guns during the Crusades I bet you by Golly things would be alot different...