Nothing fishy here, I am seriously asking a question. But I sincerely believe the Scriptural support provided here for shooting someone in self-defense is a stretch when you consider some of the other things right along side the same passages. Besides, wouldn't something from the New Testament be more fitting and seem less like a pretext for a proof text?

And if the wife had the permission to own a gun, she could have stopped this tragedy.  The news always talks about murders; that's the business they're in.  The news will constantly feed into people's fears. That's what sells. But you almost never hear of murders prevented when the would be victim is armed."A murder was prevented today when the would be assailant confronted an armed citizen".....yawn.

love,

Sopranette

She couldnt have stopped this as she was asleep at the time she was shot. Also would she have shot her husband? I wouldnt shoot my husband whatever the reason.
Gun crime breeds more gun crime. One of the reasons why we resist the police bing armed here is bacause everyone knows that  if they were there would be far more shootings and more criminals would arm themselves.

The answer to C Sloans question is found in the Gospels: A Big Yes, Christians can own weapons for self defense by example!


Jesus' disciples (future Apostles) carried short personal swords for protecting Jesus and themselves.  It was the common personal weapon of the time.  The military weapon was a longer sword (assault weapon!).  By the Word, we are authorized to carry personal protection by example.  I am no particular lover of the CENI hermeneutic but right here is a prime example of the "E" part of that hermeneutic.

Regarding the comment that was made about the Constitution and only the militia (meaning military) having weapons (the implication).  The 2nd Admendment is very clear about that.  However, the idea that this means a military is totally wrong.  The word militia means civilians who can be called on to fight on the home front to defend homes and country UNTIL a military can be raised.  The mis-interpretation of militia in our modern sense according to the anti-gun  groups is deliberate, false, misleading, and that should show the type of people they really are.  What keeps this nation free is the fact that we CAN and DO won weapons that can be used to fight against a government of tyranny!  The militia that the Constitution refers to is totally separate from the military.  One is unpaid, volunteers who use theior own equipment and the other is paid by the government and supplied by the government and underr the control of the government.

I am heading for the range in just 10 minutes.  I will qualify today for another year to work privatley in defense of a nuclear power plant against those who would try to turn the power plant into a weapon of mass destruction and terriorism by causing a release of radioactive contamination that could stretch more than 50 miles.  I carry a firearm with me 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week and have multiple firearms in strategic places for protection for my wife when I am not around.  We cannot count on the Law Enforcement to respond in a time frame that would allow them to handle the situation as most home break ins and shootings occur is a very short time frame of just a couple of minutes or less.  With the closest law enforcement normally over 10 minutes away if they responded within 10 seconds of a 911 call, figure out your survival chances if you do not own and know how to use a firearm.

Oh, one more brief comment.  Guns are not the most dangerous weapon of private owner ship in the world.  The single most deadly weapon in the world in history and the weapon of choice by the vast majority of people who have lived throughout history is:
   THE BLADE!

  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.

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

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.