Christians owning guns specifically for self defense? (Biblical references, insight?)

[razzelflabben]

Agree - kill women and children (live stock too) yes.
Disagree -"innocent" no.

lol that is why it was in quotes...love it...

Scripturally, No person naturally born is "innocent", and ALL shall die, so, eh, some sooner than others, still that way today, even when not in wars.



Yes.



Gosh, that's a tough one. I suppose one could have a quick interview with the intruder, see if they would like to yield. I am kind of leaning toward, they are aware they are taking a risk, and their decision was they were willing to take the risk of exchanging their life for a TV set or such...I think I might oblige them in their risk taking, wing 'em, then have them sue me, and subject myself to jurors (not of my peers), doubt it.

God Bless,
SBC

Just saying if they can be stopped non lethally I would prefer that...if they die in the process I don't think it is mine to be guilty from the standpoint of scripture.

 

[SBC]

Well, the Romans had conquered Israel by force and were extracting tribute, taxes, from Israel, without representation or benefits in return.....

And yet, about "taxes" to the invaders, foreigners....Christ said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's...."

Roman coins had Caesar's Image embossed on them. How would you give to Lincoln or Jefferson coins that were not minted during their lifetime? Or, WHO IS, walking Lady Liberty on minted half dollars?

Apostles reinforced this non violence in their epistles, saying in essence to submit to government.

Agree, and I have said the same.
However there is a Scripture about....

Acts 5 [29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Also in the founders papers, similar, is revealed concerning laws that are law that are not within the US Constitution are no laws at all.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

“It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution” (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)

So, in essence, man are to obey authorities, who themselves ARE acting within the law, and one should know enough about the law, to reason, if that IS or IS NOT the case.

(ever see the movie "wag the dog" or "shooter" ? Fiction, yes. But sorts of things that do occur, yes )

That wouldn't include doing non Christian acts like turning over Jews for genocide, etc., but in all matters not directly breaking God's commandments, we are instructed to submit to government.

Submit to their commands, to go peaceable with them? Sure that is not judgement. It's either an arrest, or request to come speak with them. (on their turf).

We can vote though....

Yes we can. But gerrymandering, does have it's ways of corrupting that process, as does, dividing the polling booths between parties, sometimes even in separate rooms.


God Bless,
SBC

 

[RaymondG]

Hi Brinny...

How many here know this passage?

Jesus said.....

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house,
his possessions are safe." Luke 11:21​

grace and peace!

Excellent and wise verse, thank you for sharing it!!!

Amen.

Very convenient to leave out the verse right after the one you two believe supports your right to bear arms in protection:

22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

You can trust in your own arms if you want.....but there will always be someone who have more than you who can overcome you.

But if you put your trust in God.....who can overcome Him? God for me is more than the world world against me.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

My guardian angel carries.

A sword.

Forgive me...

 

[RaymondG]

I am not against anyone owning a gun, if they are a responsible individual and have the gun in a safe location when not in use.

I think this may be a little different than the topic on the OP. This OP is about getting a Gun for protection....for self defense. If one is to do this....the gun should be in easy reach, loaded, or with the loaded clip nearby. It would not be a good defense mechanism if you would have to unlock a safe and then load the gun after an intruder enter.....assuming this happens at night while people are resting.

A responsible person who has a gun in a safe, more than likely, has it for hunting or range shooting....with defense and a secondary, added option.

 

[tulc]

My guardian angel carries.

A sword.

Forgive me...

I suspect mine carries a cup of coffee and looks...worn out.
tulc(should probably apologize to his angel when they meet)

 

[SBC]

the government (military) being required to report soldiers who are dishonorably discharged and deemed unfit to carry or use a weapon is not common sense? How? How is it common sense to hide those things from those who sell weapons to the public? and so a dishonorable discharge from the military do to being unstable is a one time deal? I have two children who went into the military, one was discharged early because of health issues that stem from an incident that happened in the military...got news for you, the process for determining whether or not to discharge was long, laborous and was much more than a one time depression incident...just fyi amen... yep Oh we agree on this but that being said, I don't think it is a violation at all to say, I know Joe is mentally unstable and giving him a gun would be a bad idea since he has talked about getting a gun and killing as many people as he can....I am often times reminded of how bad things went for Israel when they insisted on having a king like all the other nations...I pray we never fall prey to the same sin...

 

[razzelflabben]

The one- time deal was a theoretical example, I gave. It didn't restrict other long term examples. I used the less as an example, but yet the same type of restricting law would apply to either, the less or the long term.

Sure that is your opinion, you like the idea of restricting liberty of men, I don't particularly favor, (for many reasons and scenarios) what and how the government restricts the liberty of men.

I don't believe it is restricting the liberty of men by reporting unstable people to the gun dealers...remember we have the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The unstable person trying to buy a gun for the purpose of doing harm is restricting my liberty.

Our nation is already there.
We don't have Representatives we have LEADERS, just ask them.
We don't have men elected to government taking turns, we have Career Politicians who are "entitled" and glued to seats of honor.
We don't have men elected to government positions, compensated only for their job,
they use military planes, travel abroad, have credit cards with pseudo limits, spas, garden care for their homes, their salary is "supposed" to be dictated by the public's average salary.
They are supposed to serve Honorably,
be censured, pubically tongue wagged; or
be expelled, by vote of their peers. Ha, that has happened 20 times.
There has always been suspect of certain government officials who are communist.
Looks like the uber liberal state of California, is going to remove all doubt.
(The California State Assembly passed a bill Monday to allow state employees to be communists )
California May Allow Communists to Work Openly in State Government - Breitbart
The gov't is supposed to notify the people of their "spending" the peoples money.
Black ops', top secret, attacking private citizens with snipers and military tank.
Forcing military induction; ie draft. Call to arms? yes. Forcing? no. They same God warned against, and you pray won't happen.....
blah, blah, blah, at the people's expense.
Come on...
We have foreknowledge, history, and experience. Men cheat, sneak, lie, steal, etc. The profession doesn't separate the honorable from the dishonorable.
I am sorry your son, has repercussions from his military experience, but if he wanted to possess a firearm or use one, no law, or order, would prevent him.

God Bless,
SBC

lol...you so missed the point it hurts. In fact, I am sitting here trying to figure out where my communication went wrong and how to correct it and I don't even know where to start.

1. I think it is common sense to report people who are unstable to gun sellers so that we all maintain our liberties and rights, not just those who want to do harm. You see, like it or not we live in a society and in order for our liberties to be maintained it is unfortunately sometimes necessary to do what is uncomfortable. So I take it from your "interpretation" of what I said that you don't believe that we should have any laws at all because it would violate the rights of certain citizens to put them in jail for taking away the rights of other citizens...which I find interesting, mind boggling, and funny all at the same time.

2. This government is out of control. I told my cousin once that until we stop looking at criminal acts through the eyes of which party or candidate we like and start cleaning house we have no hope left of being a free nation. He fell silent strangely enough until he thought I was no longer around then he took up his politics again. Our government is corrupt but then again that was part of the point of my comment about "a king like the other nations"... Israel was more about righteousness but they are part of one another.

3. The part about the military testifies to the lack of reading for intent you gave to my post. The child I was referring to having been discharged early is our daughter. The whole point of bringing it up was to show you that it isn't an easy or simple or random or one time thing to be discharged from the army for a short bout of depression. I know from the personal experience of our daughter that that isn't how it works which means your accusation is false.

Those are the highlights I guess.

 

[SBC]

lol that is why it was in quotes...love it...

 

[razzelflabben]

Got me!



Sure, non-lethal would be acceptable - except that, you would also have to then hope you are not sued in a civil case, which is the usual outcome, for the criminal to proceed forward. Even if they lose the case, it still is a big expense to the one being sued.

God Bless,
SBC

What is being sued compared to a life lived in Christ? Especially from God's perspective as sighted in scripture? Early church leaders were persecuted for the opportunity to share the gospel wouldn't being sued fit that profile?

 

[Ken Rank]

well...two things: 1) you really don't know any "folks like me" and 2) ignoring isn't refuting.
tulc(is going to finish his coffee and head to bed)

That didn't even address what I said. I think we have wasted each others time enough. Be well.

 

[Ken Rank]

It is obvious that you are trying to make your own opinion have more value by incorrectly portraying me as one who is against guns and who try to force my opinion on others. I hope that works out for you. It is clear we cant reason together, and it is pointless to try.

That was kind of weak. You picked one line out of what I said and that out of context. But, if you don't want to continue that's fine. Be blessed.

 

[SBC]

I don't believe it is restricting the liberty of men by reporting unstable people to the gun dealers...remember we have the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So do they.

The unstable person trying to buy a gun for the purpose of doing harm is restricting my liberty.

No, but it is restricting the persons liberty to buy a gun.

There is no crime in stating an intent. Even mentally balanced people say stupid things.

lol...you so missed the point it hurts. In fact, I am sitting here trying to figure out where my communication went wrong and how to correct it and I don't even know where to start.

My comment wasn't included when I was responding, and I didn't scroll back.

1. I think it is common sense to report people who are unstable to gun sellers so that we all maintain our liberties and rights, not just those who want to do harm. You see, like it or not we live in a society and in order for our liberties to be maintained it is unfortunately sometimes necessary to do what is uncomfortable. So I take it from your "interpretation" of what I said that you don't believe that we should have any laws at all

I didn't say that, or even indicate that.

because it would violate the rights of certain citizens to put them in jail for taking away the rights of other citizens...which I find interesting, mind boggling, and funny all at the same time.

Rights being taken away are supposed to be for violation of infringing on another persons rights. You support taking away a persons rights, BEFORE they have infringed on another persons rights.

That is the difference between our beliefs. I find my belief as a protection, not at all funny. I find your belief, out of whack with protecting a persons liberty.

2. This government is out of control. I told my cousin once that until we stop looking at criminal acts through the eyes of which party or candidate we like and start cleaning house we have no hope left of being a free nation. He fell silent strangely enough until he thought I was no longer around then he took up his politics again. Our government is corrupt but then again that was part of the point of my comment about "a king like the other nations"... Israel was more about righteousness but they are part of one another.

We definitely agree on the corruption. As far as political party, No, I do not emblazon a letter to myself. But I do pay attention to - politics - ya have to...
poly = means many....tics = means blood sucking creature and I'm smart enough to know...tics are parasites...and the people are it's host; eh, my little tid bit for the day.

3. The part about the military testifies to the lack of reading for intent you gave to my post. The child I was referring to having been discharged early is our daughter. The whole point of bringing it up was to show you that it isn't an easy or simple or random or one time thing to be discharged from the army for a short bout of depression. I know from the personal experience of our daughter that that isn't how it works which means

'your accusation is false'

What accusation?

Did I say something contrary to military discharge being different that what you expressed?
Did I say depression or bouts of mental instability was ONLY limited to short term, one time?

What are you referring to that I did accuse, and who exactly was supposedly accused? that you claim is false?

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

What is being sued compared to a life lived in Christ?

I trust God. He knows who will choose Him and who will not.
I look at it like this.....A person who chooses to infringe on another, made his choice.
How the victim (in Christ) will react, I think has alot to do with what Christ already knows.
I have had situations, regarding an intrusion against me, in two separate incidents one left unharmed, the other is dead. I don't know either ones standing with or without Christ. Scripture warns, make your election, everyone's times is at hand. And at some point the door will be closed, by God Himself. So, do I feel bad, that Christ maybe missed out on a convert? No. No more so than when the door is shut, and He will miss out on converts, that He remembers no more.

Especially from God's perspective as sighted in scripture? Early church leaders were persecuted for the opportunity to share the gospel wouldn't being sued fit that profile?

I'm not an early church leader, nor do I know any details of their persecution, to even go off on a tangent of what law would or would not apply to them in their jurisdiction.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I would agree with you in regards to a non-retaliation principle in general. Yet this does not speak to the immediate situation. I would like to clarify, is it okay to attack someone in the defence of another? Or should we follow completely literally and as strictly as possible Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and let the person do their worst to us or others?

God is in control. We should trust and obey Him as best as we can. For without faith, it is impossible to please God. Sometimes our orders from the Lord do not make sense. But when you take a step back and look at the big picture it does make sense. The best analogy I can give is Joseph and his brothers. What his brothers intended for evil against Joseph, God intended it for good. For later in the story of Joseph, his brothers were able to come to a place of forgiveness with their brother.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Tip for the day:

Don't bring a sword to a gun fight.

 

[razzelflabben]

So do they.



No, but it is restricting the persons liberty to buy a gun.

There is no crime in stating an intent. Even mentally balanced people say stupid things.

as I said, I just don't get the argument that we can't make any law protecting citizens because doing so would infringe on the rights of the criminal...it just is something that doesn't make sense to me nor do I agree. Personally I think putting someone in jail for murder is a wise thing whether their "right" to freedom to do whatever they want is infringed upon or not. Likewise I personally think that letting gun sellers know who is and who is not unstable is wise and common sense from the standpoint of we live in a society. You don't have to agree that it is good but that is your business and I would dare say you are among a very small group of people who don't believe that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes.

My comment wasn't included when I was responding, and I didn't scroll back.



I didn't say that, or even indicate that.



Rights being taken away are supposed to be for violation of infringing on another persons rights. You support taking away a persons rights, BEFORE they have infringed on another persons rights.

not even close to what I said...but it doesn't matter does it? What I actually do say is irrelevant to you isn't it?

That is the difference between our beliefs. I find my belief as a protection, not at all funny. I find your belief, out of whack with protecting a persons liberty.

lol letting everyone do what they want without regard for who they hurt isn't protecting anyones liberty...but that is the point isn't it. If you can paint me as someone I am not then your position looks better?!

We definitely agree on the corruption. As far as political party, No, I do not emblazon a letter to myself. But I do pay attention to - politics - ya have to...
poly = means many....tics = means blood sucking creature and I'm smart enough to know...tics are parasites...and the people are it's host; eh, my little tid bit for the day.





What accusation?

Did I say something contrary to military discharge being different that what you expressed?
Did I say depression or bouts of mental instability was ONLY limited to short term, one time?

lol you first said my son not my daughter but the bigger issue is that you claimed that the report had to do with one bout of depression. I told you that was a not what we were talking about and presented what we were talking about with illustration that I experienced. The man in question was convicted by the military as being unstable and unfit not only for military service but for carrying and using a weapon. I see no reason given the amount of effort that goes into convicting someone in the military as such to not report it to gun sellers. I mean if I know that Fred has tried to use explosives to blow up buildings repeatedly and don't do something to restrict him from buying materials to make a bomb I think I am at least partially guilty of any deaths that result from him blowing up another building. That is apparently what you disagree with me about. You apparently think that we should close our eyes to everything in the name of liberty...I personally think that real liberty involves citizens that actively try to prevent tragedies like the most recent. It's been an interesting discussion but you will not change my mind. I believe we are responsible as citizens to not just stand back and watch people hurt each other but rather we need to take common sense measures to prevent such atrocities.

What are you referring to that I did accuse, and who exactly was supposedly accused? that you claim is false?

God Bless,
SBC

see the discussion...you said that a bout of depression was what I was referring to which I clearly was not and evidenced with a person experience.

 

[razzelflabben]

I trust God. He knows who will choose Him and who will not.
I look at it like this.....A person who chooses to infringe on another, made his choice.
How the victim (in Christ) will react, I think has alot to do with what Christ already knows.
I have had situations, regarding an intrusion against me, in two separate incidents one left unharmed, the other is dead. I don't know either ones standing with or without Christ. Scripture warns, make your election, everyone's times is at hand. And at some point the door will be closed, by God Himself. So, do I feel bad, that Christ maybe missed out on a convert? No. No more so than when the door is shut, and He will miss out on converts, that He remembers no more.



I'm not an early church leader, nor do I know any details of their persecution, to even go off on a tangent of what law would or would not apply to them in their jurisdiction.

God Bless,
SBC

I got no idea what you are going on about but let me tell you a story....

Some years ago I was in charge of taking kids to and from a youth group. One night it was just a young woman and myself on the way home we were talking about things of God. We sat in the drive and continued our talk after we got home. Well, there in the dark with the windows up the young woman (told me about it later I had no clue at the time) grew so angry she pulled a knife from her pocket and tried to stab me with it. A force that she described as that of a hand (no one in the car windows up) held her arm until she was ready to lay down the knife and talk to God.

Now...what I said and I was pretty clear is that I believe we need to trust God...aka above...but if such a time should occur that I am asked to defend myself or protect another I should do so with the hope that I could stop them not kill them so that they still have a chance to their way from sin to God. Aka see above. Likewise as I said, if the person dies in the process I have nothing to be guilty over because if we really are trusting God He knows from the moment sin enters the persons heart to the moment the incident is over.

Now I don't know what you have a problem with about that, but so be it...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God is in control. We should trust and obey Him as best as we can. For without faith, it is impossible to please God. Sometimes our orders from the Lord do not make sense. But when you take a step back and look at the big picture it does make sense. The best analogy I can give is Joseph and his brothers. What his brothers intended for evil against Joseph, God intended it for good. For later in the story of Joseph, his brothers were able to come to a place of forgiveness with their brother.

God being in control does not abrogate our responsibility to act in certain circumstances nor do I find this line of argumentation particularly convincing when we are talking about the direct application of self-defence with Guns or force in general. Let me ask you, is there no circumstance where the use of deadly force can be justified? I'm not saying it's good, but rather whether or not as an action it does not incur actual sin/guilt?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God being in control does not abrogate our responsibility to act in certain circumstances nor do I find this line of argumentation particularly convincing when we are talking about the direct application of self-defence with Guns or force in general. Let me ask you, is there no circumstance where the use of deadly force can be justified? I'm not saying it's good, but rather whether or not as an action it does not incur actual sin/guilt?

Again, if God gives you orders that tell you to turn the other cheek, and to return good for evil, and to do good towards your enemies, then you have a choice to make. You either rely on human reasoning or you believe God and His Word. It really is that simple. If God tells you to do something, and other people are harmed by your obeying God, that does not mean you are at fault. You were simply following your orders. Angels can stop and end violence but they don't because God has other orders for them. Are they in rebellion for not doing the right thing in every given situation? No. God has a greater plan for good that we all cannot see.