Should Christians Own Guns?

[Bon Voyage]

  Snargles is right. The 2nd ammandment does not provide a right to individuals to own hand guns. As written it is alll about militias, if this point was not true than any gun control legilsation would be unconsititional...but as we know from the Clinton adminstration certain weapons have been banned.

The question here seems basically absurd. Guns are tools of death and Christians should have no part of them. Anyone who disagrees answer this question: is it all right for a chrisitan to own condoms?

Absurd all right.  I could as easily just say that Christians shouldn't drink Pepsi because the body is a temple of the Lord, and Pepsi isn't profitable for the body of a Christian.

If you believe it is wrong to own a gun, don't.  I know it isn't wrong for me, I need one for protection.  And it isn't even protection from people, but from Mountain Lions, snakes, coyotes, etc.  And potentially for food, if my aim at long distances improves.

[anchorman]

Okay Charles- here is what I am thinking.

Guns are tools of violence and in some cases death. Now if you read some of the response here, from people like Garry, they seem to say "I only use them on animals and for protection...therefore since I don't use them to murder people there is nothing wrong with me owning one. I haven't committed a sin"

So- by comparison condoms are tools of lust and sex. My question is this; is it okay to own a condom if you never use to commit adultery? Is it okay to own porn if you never watch it? Is it okay to buy drugs if you never snort or smoke them?

Possesion is 9/10th of law- my point is how you use these items is irrelevant. The sin is committed at the point of purchase

[Bon Voyage]

Okay Charles- here is what I am thinking.

Guns are tools of violence and in some cases death. Now if you read some of the response here, from people like Garry, they seem to say "I only use them on animals and for protection...therefore since I don't use them to murder people there is nothing wrong with me owning one. I haven't committed a sin"

So- by comparison condoms are tools of lust and sex. My question is this; is it okay to own a condom if you never use to commit adultery? Is it okay to own porn if you never watch it? Is it okay to buy drugs if you never snort or smoke them?

Possesion is 9/10th of law- my point is how you use these items is irrelevant. The sin is committed at the point of purchase

Condoms are meant to prevent pregnancy.  Your entire argument is fallacious.  There seems to be no biblical basis for your argument.

[anchorman]

in today's world condems are meant for protection. Gee- why does that word sound so familar...oh, that's right because it's the same one you used Gary to describe why you have a gun.

Simple fact of the matter- and the supreme court has backed this up time and time again- there is no consitutional proection for the rightsd of indivdual to have guns

[Bon Voyage]

in today's world condems are meant for protection. Gee- why does that word sound so familar...oh, that's right because it's the same one you used Gary to describe why you have a gun.

Simple fact of the matter- and the supreme court has backed this up time and time again- there is no consitutional proection for the rightsd of indivdual to have guns

This isn't about what you believe the constitution says.  This is about whether Christians should own guns or not.  In my state, there is a constitutional right for individuals to have guns, and it was a condition of admittance into the union.

[Flying To]

God has a plan for our lives so what happens will be decided by him anyways.


So whether you live or not is not decided by the weapon you carry.

(as seen with David vs Goliath....God chose David to be the victor).

[anchorman]

  Well- that leads to an obvious question. In 1986 President Reagan signed a ban on machine guns. Ten years later the 3rd circuit court of appeals upheld the power of congress to limit ownership of certain type of weapons. So- praytell- why is Montana still a state? Are you guys all talk and no action?

Seriously- why our my taxes dollars going to your state- which according to you, because of gun control (some of it more than 20 years old), no longer has a desire to be part of this union.  As i am sure y ou now this country spent three million dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana....Gary I think you and fellow residents need to give the money back and the follow through and secede.

[Bon Voyage]

 Well- that leads to an obvious question. In 1986 President Reagan signed a ban on machine guns. Ten years later the 3rd circuit court of appeals upheld the power of congress to limit ownership of certain type of weapons. So- praytell- why is Montana still a state? Are you guys all talk and no action?

Seriously- why our my taxes dollars going to your state- which according to you, because of gun control (some of it more than 20 years old), no longer has a desire to be part of this union.  As i am sure y ou now this country spent three million dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana....Gary I think you and fellow residents need to give the money back and the follow through and secede.

And again, what does your argument have to do with whether Christians should have guns?  Where is your scriptural argument?

[anchorman]

I am just following your lead. If your read your post on this thread you will not find one comment by you  based on scripture...NOT ONE ! Instead you argue (on at least three posts) that ownership of guns is a culutral issue.

And that is where you are sadly mistaken.

My mission is refute the notion that guns have anything to do with american culture. There is no basis for your arguement...and if you doubt that- as I have pointed out here- just ask the 3rd circuit court of appeals, the supreme court and even president reagan

[jb728b]

Here's one for you.

the anti-gun cooks always scream out the statitics of violent crimes due to illegal hand guns. 
My question is how many violent crimes are commited with legally owned hand guns?

You can bet it's far less han illegal ones.

[Jimbob]

  Snargles is right. The 2nd ammandment does not provide a right to individuals to own hand guns. As written it is alll about militias, if this point was not true than any gun control legilsation would be unconsititional...but as we know from the Clinton adminstration certain weapons have been banned.

The question here seems basically absurd. Guns are tools of death and Christians should have no part of them. Anyone who disagrees answer this question: is it all right for a chrisitan to own condoms?

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you both.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

[sopranette]

Here's one for you.

the anti-gun cooks always scream out the statitics of violent crimes due to illegal hand guns. 
My question is how many violent crimes are commited with legally owned hand guns?

You can bet it's far less han illegal ones.

More importantly, how many crimes have been prevented by legal gun owners?  That rarely makes the news.

love,

Sopranette

[zoonance]

Should Christians own guns?

Only if they want to.

Some have argued that prayer should be our shield and allow God to protect us, with this I agree but, How does God protect you.

Hypothetical:
How many of you would pray for God's protection and safety then deliberately step out into oncoming traffic, jump off a 10 story building or jump head first into a barrel of broken glass and expect God to protect and save you?

God's protection, although supernatural in origin, is not always supernatural in method.

Also this idea of letting others sin so I can be safe is garbage.  If it were a sin for a Christian to carry a gun it is a sin for EVERYONE and that includes police, military and whoever.

Christians should not own guns for the same reason they should not take antibiotics or use a seat belt.

[Snargles]

  Snargles is right. The 2nd ammandment does not provide a right to individuals to own hand guns. As written it is alll about militias, if this point was not true than any gun control legilsation would be unconsititional...but as we know from the Clinton adminstration certain weapons have been banned.

The question here seems basically absurd. Guns are tools of death and Christians should have no part of them. Anyone who disagrees answer this question: is it all right for a chrisitan to own condoms?

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you both.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

Obviously I have a better understanding of history than does the Supreme Court. Maybe Barack should appoint me to the court.

I have no problem with owning guns to kill varmits or to put food on the table. Back a few pages I think the point of this thread was clarified to mean should we own guns to protect ourselves by killing allgeged threats.

[RAMS]

No, a sword in hand keeps another's in its scabbard.  Legal gun ownership keeps crimes from happening, otherwise only the criminals will be armed.  And if, for some very strange reason my husband were to go beserk and go after our children intending to kill them, I would definitely do everything in my power to stop him.  Maybe you live in the city, with lots of police ready to come at a moment's notice, but out here it can take quite a while.  And there are parts of the US were there is only maybe one cop for every 30 miles or so.

love,

Sopranette

Wow.  Wow.  Wow.

Hail to you maiden,

Wow.

Robert

[RAMS]

Chuck,

Here it is.  It is strictly my own self preservating  opinion and conviction that I will absolutely shoot and I will absolutely kill a physical transgressor against my person and being if there is no other way out of it.  And I have.

I truly operate by Live by the gun - Love by the cross.

If I can lead the intruder(s) violators to the Lord, like I do with the Marxist Banditos that wish to kill me for a 'toll' when I cross from Honduras into Nicaragua, that is the better plan and mission.

Hope that is more clear cut for you.

Robert

Thanks Robert, I appreciate you explaining your opinions and your reasoning behind it.

But Chuck is my father.

Hee, hee, Hail, your daddy then.

Charles,


I had to answer as you ask the direct question and it is best I could formulate for truth. I truly try in ernest to win over those guys down on the Honduran border, but I have failed on several times and depending on how much cocaine they have in their minds, depends on how the outcome is. 

If it decays where I cannot get out of it with the Bic-Lighter-Over- The-Gas-Cans deal on the back of VEX, then trouble ensues. Afterwards, I truly look upon the offal of despair and say to my self in thankful prayer, "let God sort it out, He will know his own...."

I wish to live another day and RAMS don't do 'tolls'.

Thank you for your response, Charles.

Robert

[RAMS]

 Well- that leads to an obvious question. In 1986 President Reagan signed a ban on machine guns. Ten years later the 3rd circuit court of appeals upheld the power of congress to limit ownership of certain type of weapons. So- praytell- why is Montana still a state? Are you guys all talk and no action?

Seriously- why our my taxes dollars going to your state- which according to you, because of gun control (some of it more than 20 years old), no longer has a desire to be part of this union.  As i am sure y ou now this country spent three million dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana....Gary I think you and fellow residents need to give the money back and the follow through and secede.

My home sate of origins in life, Montana,  and now New Mexico and Mexico the country, at many times, Montana and New Mexico wishes to recede from this union.

A good idea.

Robert

[anchorman]

   Gary asked for scripture against guns- obviously there is none of that is the bible predates guns, but there certainly is are passages about violence

' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That's seems drastically differenent then  "It is strictly my own self preservating  opinion and conviction that I will absolutely shoot and I will absolutely kill a physical transgressor against my person and being if there is no other way out of it.  And I have."

[RAMS]

in today's world condems are meant for protection. Gee- why does that word sound so familar...oh, that's right because it's the same one you used Gary to describe why you have a gun.

Simple fact of the matter- and the supreme court has backed this up time and time again- there is no consitutional proection for the rightsd of indivdual to have guns

The right of the individual to have and bear firearms - 2nd Amendment.

Robert

[spurly]

The question which began this thread isn't the right question.  The question is why would a Christian own a gun.  There are many reasons why they would own guns.  However, if the only reason they want to possess a firearm is to commit murder or to injure others, then of course they should cut off their right to own a gun.

[RAMS]

I am just following your lead. If your read your post on this thread you will not find one comment by you  based on scripture...NOT ONE ! Instead you argue (on at least three posts) that ownership of guns is a culutral issue.

And that is where you are sadly mistaken.

My mission is refute the notion that guns have anything to do with american culture. There is no basis for your arguement...and if you doubt that- as I have pointed out here- just ask the 3rd circuit court of appeals, the supreme court and even president reagan

Your bizarre revisionist history of fact defies logic, but is quite inherent in the nation now that stands for nothing, tolerates everything.

It is you that is grossly mistaken. Please consult the biblical data on defense, matasa, and then read the numerous accounts under law and under Grace whereby persona defense is a given.

Then, consult the fact you are free to pound that keyboard and you are not under duress of death for doing so, since you are free. Guns made it so.

Live by the gun, love by the Cross

Not subject to debate.

Robert

[RAMS]

Christians should not own guns for the same reason they should not take antibiotics or use a seat belt.

Awesome comeback.  Salute.

Or,  not having a firearm in one's possession is like not going deer hunting without your accordion - General Norman Swartzkopf, on why we did not bother asking the French to join in the coalition against Iraq.......

Robert

[RAMS]

   Gary asked for scripture against guns- obviously there is none of that is the bible predates guns, but there certainly is are passages about violence

' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That's seems drastically differenent then  "It is strictly my own self preservating  opinion and conviction that I will absolutely shoot and I will absolutely kill a physical transgressor against my person and being if there is no other way out of it.  And I have."

Incredible.

A little slap on the cheek, is far far different than a .375 British Nitro Express ground into your forehead by some whacko Marxist ripped on cocaine, demanding with death to pay a 'toll' on a public road, with the resulting "turn the other cheek crap"  if you do not comply, with your head a pink foamy mist in the  air.........

I don't do 'tolls', banditos, or otherwise and will kill to protect myself in life.

If some super toughy-roughy naughty boy with harsh language wants to  'slap my little cheek', Christ, have at it, if that is the worst he can do. Been beat up on worse anyway and lost teeth over it.

It is the way it is.  Write that in bold and deal with it.

Robert

[Flying To]

I'm glad I live in Canada.

[RAMS]

I'm glad I live in Canada.

Hey, Candians are proof Indians did mate with raccoons.

I'm so sorry, I saw that written on a restroom wall in Billings, MT and laughed so hard.  There was this Canadian trucker there also and I told him to look at it, and he read it and just howled.  He said, "You yanks are psychos....."  We both laughed hard and agreed.  I told him, "at least were not 'frostbacks", the slang for Canadians in Montana and the Dakotas.

Oh well.

However, still holds, as an aside, "live by the gun, love by the cross."

Robert

[Charles Sloan]

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
    —Matthew 26:52, King James Version

[RAMS]

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
    —Matthew 26:52, King James Version

Amen.  That is what I tell the Banditos that are pointing their weapons in my face on a public road:  "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."—Matthew 26:52, King James Version.

Gotcha.

Robert

[kensington]

So for those who believe that Christians should own guns, would Christians be justified using a gun to protect themselves or their family under certain circumstances such as a robbery?

And would killing someone in extreme cases be justifiable?

I've not read all of this, but I stopped here to answer... Yes.

Men from the old testament days on have protected their family.  Thou shall not kill is for "intended murder"... to go out and choose to take the life of someone else. 

Read in the Bible and you will see that when someone attacked or came to harm, they not only defended themselves, they went back out and hunted them down and took their lands and cattle and everything.

I do not advocate that, but if someone believes they are to be the protector of their home, then by all means, they should be.  It's no different than someone in the military being trained to defend the country or the post, or even the ship.  When my husband is the officer of the watch, he carries a loaded weapon, and he is expected to be the defense between someone boarding that ship to do harm and the safety of his men.

It's no different for your home.  I would suggest being trained with said weapon, having a license, and keeping your qualifacations up to date also. No wise man would get a weapon to keep without being able to use it and have someone take it from him and use it on him or his family. 

But, yes...  if someone is threatening the safety of your home, your family or you... you have a right to shoot them. 

The Bible says that "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house." Mark 3:37.  Why is that?  Because the man of the house will fight them, and stop them.  So be wise, be alert, and the one who stands between your families safety and their harm. Stand that line, by all means. God Bless.

Would I?  Yes, I know I would.  I'm from the hood.  I have stayed awake many a night knowing I was the last defense between the world outside and my children.  Its' been something I wrestled with time and time again... and then I knew.  I would.  The alternative would be to just "ALLOW" someone to come in, bind me, harm my kids or even kill them.  I could not. 

[jonah135588]

With that said, should Christians own guns?

Yes (IMO).

You didn't see Yahweh sending off the Israelites to war without swords, right?

[anchorman]

Rams- in the eyes of God there is no difference between a slap on the cheek and someone pointing a gun in your face. How does that passage start off; "do not resist an evil person." What does resist mean; fight back.

Christ is telling you: Do not fight back.

Now what is really amazing to me is that anyone on this board would use Mathew 26:52 as an arguement for guns...in fact it's a clear cut arguement against guns and specfically against using guns for protection.

The context- and try as you might you cannot take it out of context- is one of an invasion- not unlike someone breaking into your home. Here comes Judas with the army- which under 25:47 clearly says the army has its swords drawn. "47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs" Not unlike an armed robber.

So what does Peter do- he pulls out a sword- just like a homeowner running for his gun. And Christ publically rebukes him. Telling him not to fight back- that violence breads more violence; "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"

But don't stop there. On the next line of scripture- Jesus tells Peter where his faith should invested,---not in guns but in God. VS 53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

In the eyes of Christ you can only live by the cross- living by the gun is not an option- not a Christian option anyway. To even buy a gun is to not have faith in God's plan

[Jimmy]

Rams- in the eyes of God there is no difference between a slap on the cheek and someone pointing a gun in your face. How does that passage start off; "do not resist an evil person." What does resist mean; fight back.

Christ is telling you: Do not fight back.

Now what is really amazing to me is that anyone on this board would use Mathew 26:52 as an arguement for guns...in fact it's a clear cut arguement against guns and specfically against using guns for protection.

The context- and try as you might you cannot take it out of context- is one of an invasion- not unlike someone breaking into your home. Here comes Judas with the army- which under 25:47 clearly says the army has its swords drawn. "47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs" Not unlike an armed robber.

So what does Peter do- he pulls out a sword- just like a homeowner running for his gun. And Christ publically rebukes him. Telling him not to fight back- that violence breads more violence; "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"

But don't stop there. On the next line of scripture- Jesus tells Peter where his faith should invested,---not in guns but in God. VS 53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

In the eyes of Christ you can only live by the cross- living by the gun is not an option- not a Christian option anyway. To even buy a gun is to not have faith in God's plan

If what you say is true, then Jesus failed Peter by even permitting him to have a sword.  But of course that is not true and what you have said is not true either.  Your argument fails.

[anchorman]

   Jimmy it's not what I say- it's what the Bible says.

   Here is the real question if Jesus was alive today would he pull out a gun on anyone?  What he did in the 26th chapter of Mathew answers that question. Turn the other cheek is far different from "cap them."
 
Rams wrote-in his post at 5:10 yesterday afternoon: "with the resulting "turn the other cheek crap""

Crap? Really?

As for me- I don't anything Christ said is crap.  I'll invest my faith in him and in scripture. If you want to put your faith in smith and wesson- feel free

[jb728b]

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
    —Matthew 26:52, King James Version

 A little context please!

The context concerns those who would take up arms to FORCE religious views.  Notice WHY Peter drew his sword, it was to force others to accept Jesus on his (Peters) terms.  This text is simply a condemnation of "Holy Wars", crusades and other such nonsense.  Nothing to do with self defense or protection.  Also, did you notice,  the apostle Peter owned a sword.

[Jimmy]

   Jimmy it's not what I say- it's what the Bible says.

   Here is the real question if Jesus was alive today would he pull out a gun on anyone?  What he did in the 26th chapter of Mathew answers that question. Turn the other cheek is far different from "cap them."
 
Rams wrote-in his post at 5:10 yesterday afternoon: "with the resulting "turn the other cheek crap""

Crap? Really?

As for me- I don't anything Christ said is crap.  I'll invest my faith in him and in scripture. If you want to put your faith in smith and wesson- feel free

All of the examples that you give, including the "turn the other cheek" are not life threatening events.  They do not at all say anything about defense of yourself or a loved one.

Would you offer your daughter to the rapist once the rapist had finished with your wife (which you stood idly by and watched)?  I would hope not, and yet that is exactly the argument that you are making.

[RAMS]

Anchorman,

It always leaves me in wonder how people who have never seen anything remotely close to a weapon pointed at their face, any weapon held by those who are intent to kill you, or at least, do great harm, and then stand there and try and apply what you intone, as do so many others.

They really think they can, and somehow they think this is Godly..........., biblical or both.

In fact, the more isolated one is from any sort of harm, like you, here in the US or Canada or wherever, the more draconian that stance is to be so passive by boast,  and so wrong on the whole Biblical premise of self defense.

May I come there and point my 12 gauge sawed off shotgun at your cheek?  See how you do. Of course, in that scenario, like sometimes where and how I find myself, if I "slap" you with it, there is nothing but a pink, purple, and very bloody writhing, jerking, offal dripping stump left so there is no 'cheek' to turn, now is there.

Amazing revisionism.

Robert