The Founders primarily envisioned collective action of a militia under the Second Amendment. Generally, no call for vigilantism or for independent assassination plots exists, such as the one Israelite judge Ehud undertook against king Eglon—a wicked ruler that God had raised up to chastise His rebellious people (Judges 3:12-23). That is not to say that a Christian would necessarily sin by assassinating a wicked ruler like Nero, Domitian, Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, Pol Pot, Castro, or Idi Amin. Killing them would instill peace by delivering many people from misery and suffering—a suitable task for Christians (cf. Proverbs 24:11-12, Galatians 6:10). The Bible teaches that the overthrow and death of wicked rulers causes social “jubilation” and that their name “will rot” (Proverbs 11:10; 10:7). Indeed, why would slaying an evil ruler, when possible, differ from killing a serial killer, a common thug, or another criminal in self-defense?

Since the Bible teaches that people shout, rejoice, and have jubilee over the death of a wicked ruler, should Christians refrain from rejoicing along with their countrymen? Should they mourn when a Stalin is assassinated and rejoice only when such an evil ruler dies of natural causes? The Bible makes no such distinction. Surely, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and neither should we. However, this truth does not undermine the reality taught in Proverbs 11:10: people have a feeling of relief, excitement, and joy as a result of an evil ruler’s demise. (Just ask any older Ukrainian.)

Yet Christians cringe at the notion of assassination of an evil ruler. Why is assassination less shocking or repugnant to them when the military performs it? Why would private militias, mercenaries, or pastors like Dietrich Bonhoeffer be wrong for accomplishing such military operations? Some might worry that severe ramifications could ensue from the state’s reaction against Christians who espouse such a “radical” idea. Such a threat should not matter if we are promoting the truth, realizing the importance of developing a biblical theology of public policy, so long as Christians enjoy some measure of free speech and it is expedient to exercise that right. Are we not commanded to “buy the truth”, along with wisdom, instruction, and understanding, and to not sell it (Proverbs 23:23)?

The logic of a theology of public policy pertaining to assassination of evil rulers is fairly straightforward. Given that (1) there is a right of self defense, that (2) there is no amnesty afforded to any assailant on account of his office or profession, and (3) provided that one is the potential victim, an eyewitness of a crime, or a member of a group which has definite knowledge about the notorious nature of the crimes that have been and will be committed by a predator (the connection between an evil ruler and his crimes should be evident to all), then (4) the predator may be stopped by force—even lethal force. There is one further qualification: (5) those methods which expose innocent people to the least jeopardy (as is the case with assassination) must be preferred, since Christians highly respect human life as “the image of God” (Genesis 1:27; 9:6) and must not trammel it recklessly.

Accordingly, Bonhoeffer did not sin by participating in the plot to assassinate Hitler. How can Christians claim otherwise? (Whether his methods were prudent is a different question.) If Hitler had instead died while facing Bonhoeffer on the battlefield, no one would question the rightness Bonhoeffer’s actions. Christians are inconsistent if they approve of a military operation against Hitler’s headquarters but find fault with a stealth assassination attempt by Bonhoeffer at the same place.

Nevertheless, the fact that assassination could be the right action does not mean that Christians have to frequently practice it or even advocate it.(¹⁰⁾ Surely, it must be used as a last resort in our own country. To avoid problems of passion and vigilantism, assassination of evil rulers is best carried out by a collective force or a “well-regulated militia”. The Founding Fathers saw the prudence in patience: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” Such patience does not preclude assassination under the proper circumstances, especially when assassination is accomplished through a Second Amendment militia operation.

However, Christians should accredit the merits of assassination for foreign policy. How many American and Iraqi lives would have been saved if the United States military would have simply assassinated Saddam Hussein and his top cronies? Remember that Ehud, living prior to the establishment of the Old Testament theocracy, was an assassin. Yet he was evidently commended by God for his work. The godly general Stonewall Jackson was ready and willing to cross the Potomac River in order to hang Lincoln after the first battle of Manassas. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Would he have been wrong if he had done so? Was John Wilkes Booth wrong to do so after the war? What is ultimately the difference between Ehud, Jackson, and Booth—if anything?

Providence has often directed collective action (rather than assassinations) as the means to overthrow evil rulers, and the rationale of the Founders seems to follow this premise concerning domestic tyranny. It is difficult, apart from a miracle, for one man or even a small group to pull off a revolution. It is also unclear that attempting to do so will bring glory to God—which is the foremost goal of a Christian.

The Bible records the fatal failure of some who revolted against tyrants (see Acts 5:36-37).(¹¹⁾ Instead, the collective courage and stamina of principled men has prevailed at providential moments, including climactic events like Runnymede and Yorktown. Accordingly, the Founders realized that liberty would best be preserved by a collective force, which they termed “a well regulated militia”.

⁽¹⁰⁾ The whole matter of assassination must be considered deductively in order to derive the appropriate biblical principles regarding it, beginning with two parameters. First, it is important to note that setting the bounds for a public policy theology is not the same as advocating a particular action. For instance, a woman may have the right to divorce her husband if he commits adultery one time (even if he repents), but that right does not mean that she should do so. So it is with the matter of assassination. Just because assassination of an evil ruler is considered to be a righteous event does not mean that a Christian should necessarily become an assassin. While establishing the ultimate bounds of right Christian conduct is valuable, doing so does not produce an outcome with a prescriptive character. Second, if government agents are predators and criminals, they become exposed to violence just as other lawbreakers. Notwithstanding those who espouse a revitalized or reshaped divine right of kings view, modern rulers simply do not enjoy special immunity or amnesty card on account of their office that would preclude any defensive action by Christians against them. Likewise, the fact that American congressmen enjoy limited freedom from arrest and prosecution while on the job does not imply that they enjoy the same immunity in a private home. (The American Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 says: “They [congressmen] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”) If one may shoot a robber or a rapist caught in the act, one may also shoot a felonious government agent. It makes no difference that they are kings, senators, or bureaucrats. However, the fact that one may do so does not mean that he should do so. And a Christian exercising his right to resist authority does not necessarily mean that he will avoid the consequences of such action.

⁽¹¹⁾ Absalom was killed while trying to overthrow David (Samuel 18:14–19:10), but David is not normally regarded as being an “evil” ruler and Absalom was not righteous or godly in his motives or conduct. Furthermore, the uprightness of assassination was apparently curtailed under the theocracy since David would not kill Saul when he had him cornered in a cave (1 Samuel 24:3-8) and David condemned the soldier who killed “the Lord’s anointed” (2 Samuel 1:9-16). Of course, being divinely “ordained” or “appointed” (Romans 13:1-2) after the theocratic era has not made subsequent rulers “the Lord’s anointed”.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on July 6, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Ruler’s Demise

The establishment of the unusual system of governance in America changed the strict application of Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 for American Christians—even if application of the passages to Christians in other nations may differ. For us Americans, being “subject to the governing authorities” could rightly entail armed resistance against the tyrannical state. Since “the governing authorities” in America are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, a Christian could be obedient to them and still attack wayward rulers with the support of the Second Amendment.

Yet the tenor of the New Testament outlines the normal course of affairs for Christians as makers, propagators, pursuers of peace (Matthew 5:9; Romans 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; James 3:18; 1 Peter 3:11). The Christian’s priority must be to disseminate serenity, even though Christ said that He would bring division rather than peace on earth through the expansion of His kingdom (Luke 12:51, cf. John 16:33).

But Christians are not to pursue peace (or compromise) at any cost. When it comes to political activism, Christians need to be particularly careful to not align themselves with the wrong side. Recall that the Jews wickedly and maliciously called for Christ to be crucified, claiming that they had “no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). In so doing, they aligned themselves with an evil ruler—whether to Caesar, a king or Roman governor—rather than “the King of kings” (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16). Caesar’s dominion notwithstanding, Jesus Christ has authority over all earthly rulers.

The Jews ignored this fact and made their position clear with their mind-set: “We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14). They chose to submit to and obey wayward lower authorities and reject the Supreme Authority. In the same manner, American Christians displease the Lord by choosing to submit to wayward elected officials and bureaucrats instead of the supreme law of the land. They also disobey it by following the lead of rulers who promote partaking in redistributive public looting through welfare programs and adorning “big brother” policies that allow the state to overstep its bounds.

There is no doubt about it: Christians will have some interaction with the state. Jesus said, “You will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:18; cf. Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12). And rulers tend to be oppressors who “lord it over” their people (Ecclesiastes 5:8; Matthew 20:25). Normal Christian experience has been to stand trial before oppressors, just as the Apostles Peter and Paul did, and to testify of Christ (Acts 4:8-12; 5:29-33; 26:1-32). The interface of Christians with the state is frequently unpleasant, oppressive, or even fatal, as was the case when rulers attempted to “abuse and stone” the Apostle Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:5).

Just how do Christians who are pursuing peace become entangled with the state? Well, the Bible indicates that Satan himself, being “enraged” with Christians, will “make war” with them, casting some “into prison” by means of the state (Revelation 2:10; 12:17–13:1, 7). Thus, under the Providence of God, Christians are likely to become embroiled with the state. And so it has been since the first century (beginning with Christ and the Apostles). In America, however, the rules of engagement have changed and Satan’s successes have been mitigated. Christians enjoy the reality of the Second Amendment and are remiss when they do not join together and use it to refresh the tree of liberty from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants—as Jefferson said.

When do Christians know that it is the right time to resist? Answering this question takes some careful thought and consideration of many variables. Surely, the reason for resistance has existed since the 1860s, having been redoubled by events of the 1870s, the 1910s, and the 1930s. Given the principles of America’s founding, the South was right both in seceding and in defending its homeland against the northern aggressors. But the South was not prudent in its strategy on many political and economic fronts. Even with the two greatest generals in American history they were not able to overcome the invader. Southerners did not choose the right time or strategy to resist the tyrant.

A prudent and holistic plan must be put into place before any coordinated action against the state should be undertaken (cf. Luke 14:31). But until the fight begins, Christians should make use of peaceful means—the political process—even though there is little hope for real success. They should stay active, “do business” (Luke 19:13), engage their culture, and keep a good collection of arms handy with wicked rulers in their sights. (1)

(1) Of course, there are other kinds of Christian action that can help to debilitate a tyrannical state. Some examples include depriving the state of resources by avoiding taxes when possible (or by refusing to pay taxes not owed), refusing to serve in the military, or temporary emigration (exiles have proven to provide good support for a revolution).

Originally published in The Times Examiner on June 29, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Prudence in Resistance

The Second Amendment to the American Constitution is familiar to many of us: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with the other nine initial amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was ratified by ten of the original thirteen States on December 15, 1791. (1)

The words “well regulated” mean well-equipped in terms of uniform and armament. The militia’s armament should be fully manned, sighted-in and ready. According to the U.S. Code, the word “Militia” means what is now called the “unorganized militia”, i.e., “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age… who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” (2) During Virginia’s ratification convention in 1788, Founding Father George Mason said: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (3) Similar statements were made by Founders James Madison and Richard Henry Lee. Mason worried that someday only a privileged class of men would bear arms, resulting in tyranny. Mason also said: “the best and most effectual way to enslave” a nation is “to disarm the people.” (4)

The Second Amendment was intended to be the ultimate check against a tyrannical state. In a real sense, it is the right of revolution built into the Constitution—becoming the foremost guarantor of all other rights and the Constitution itself. Neither the legislature nor the executive may abridge its effect. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court has ruled: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (5) Thomas Jefferson highly prized an armed citizenry, (6) and wanted to instill a permanent spirit of resistance within the American people. In his letter to William S. Smith on November 13, 1787, Jefferson wrote: “What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s [sic] liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s [sic] natural manure.”

Tench Coxe, an active political figure before and after the American Revolution, was clear regarding the intentions of the Founders with respect to bearing arms. He wrote in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (7)

In his proposed Virginia constitution (June 1776), Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Samuel Adams and other Founders agreed. Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” (8) Alexander Hamilton agreed in The Federalist Papers (no. 29) that a well-trained and well-armed citizenry would provide a check against tyranny. “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

It is clear what the Founders had in mind by the Second Amendment. The question that remains for Christians is whether or not they can apply it to their activities and still be righteous. May a Christian join in resisting the state (1) generally or (2) particularly in America because the Second Amendment allows him to do so? I would answer both questions with the affirmative. One reason that the Apostles did not attack the Roman state was because they lacked the wherewithal to do so. Unlike the American Founders, they did not have the military strength to attempt such an overthrow. They also did not have a Second Amendment to back them up. I have previously argued that Christians may “rebel” against tyrannical states when it is wise, prudent, and feasible to do so. And this fact is further enhanced by the existence of the Second Amendment.

The Bible is the Christian’s final authority for faith and practice. It says that Christians must passively submit to “rulers”, “kings”, and “governors” (Romans 13:3; 1 Peter 2:13-14). However, what happens when lower rulers are traitors to the highest ruler and supreme authority of the land? Regardless of whether or not a strong case can be made for Christian resistance against tyrants without the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, surely a case can be made for Christian resistance with them.

The Second Amendment injects a form of built-in “rebellion” into the American system, which the Apostles did not enjoy while living under Roman rule. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have imbued all Americans (including Christians) with the hallowed right of revolution. If Christian obedience to the civil authority entails primary obedience to the American Constitution, then this fact ought to have far-reaching ramifications for the way believers interact with their culture.

(1) Pro forma ratification of the Bill of Rights was given by Vermont after it became a state in 1791 (about a year and a half after the proposed amendments were sent to the states for ratification), and by Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in 1939.

(2) 10 U.S.C. 311(2)

(3) 3 Elliot’s Debates 425

(4) 3 Elliot’s Debates 380

(5) Marbury vs. Madison , 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

(6) “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.” (Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776 [quoting from Cesare Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishment (1764)]).

(7) Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution” (writing under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian”), Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, page 2, col. 1. Coxe also said: “Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Pennsylvania Gazette , Feb. 20, 1788).

(8) Walter Bennett, ed. (1975), Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican , Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 21, 22, 124.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on June 22, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Second Amendment and Built-in Revolution

This week, Students for Liberty announced the nominees for their 2011 Awards, and the Libertarian Longhorns are on the list! Our “More Guns, Less Crime” event with John Lott held this past September is one of the finalists for the “Event of the Year” Award, which recognizes events that had major impacts on their campus and local community. You can vote for the Libertarian Longhorns by clicking here (you can vote once a day).

The “More Guns, Less Crime” Event received massive press coverage and had a huge impact in Austin, so we are very proud to be on this esteemed list. Many thanks to all those who made it possible (especially Jose Nino, the main organizer of the event), to the great John Lott, and of course to Students for Liberty as well.

Click here to see the original SFL blog post with all of the nominees.

Cross-posted at the Libertarian Longhorns Blog.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Libertarian Longhorns nominated for SFL Event of the Year Award

It was reported that the gunman, later identified as UT student Colton Tooley was armed and seen walking down 21^st street, shooting his weapon into the air and ground while yelling and screaming. He then entered into the Perry-Casteneda Library and proceeded up to the sixth floor where he ultimately took his own life. Fortunately, no one else was injured in the process, and it appears that the Tooley had no intention of hurting anyone but himself.

Coincidentally, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus had invited Dr. John Lott, famed writer of the book More Guns, Less Crime, to speak on campus that same day. The date had been set since early this past summer, but the campus shooting obviously put Dr. Lott’s talk in jeopardy. However, the organization’s student leaders decided that, out of respect for the speaker who had traveled all the way from Maryland and the importance of the issues at hand, the event should not be canceled.

The two student organizations quickly reorganized the event. Local bookstore Brave New Books generously agreed to host the talk and extended their normal business hours to accommodate. The Libertarian Party of Texas assisted students notifying media outlets and local groups that the event would continue at the new location.

The result was nothing short of phenomenal. At least 125 students and Austinites crammed into Brave New Books to hear John Lott speak about his research on the effects of gun control laws on violent crime. Television, radio, and newspaper outlets from Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas interviewed people and recorded footage of the event. Their response to the presentation was very positive.

UT students Jeff Shi, Kory Zipperer, Justo Montoya, Jose Nino, and Andy Fernandez were interviewed on Austin area news stations and quoted in newspapers across Texas. More news coverage will certainly be released in the coming days.

Despite the sensitive nature of the issue, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus acted in a professional manner and provided a solution in a difficult time for the UT campus and Austin community. Their actions are consistent with their firm belief that by educating the community these volatile situations may be reduced.

Media Coverage to date:

• The Austin-American Statesman
• KVUE Local ABC
• The Daily Texan
• KXAN Local NBC

Andy Fernandez is a leader of the Libertarian Longhorns at UT-Austin and an SFL Campus Coordinator. Originally posted on the Students for Liberty Blog.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

UT-Austin Shooting & the “More Guns, Less Crime” Event

It does appear that the House retains the option to take up the bill and vote on it themselves, but they must do so by next Tuesday. If they do not do so, I think that means the bill becomes law, period.

Texas Senate passes bill to allow students to carry weapons | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

UPDATE: It looks like it is a bit more complicated than I thought. Apparently, the bill must be read and passed in the house before becoming law and this must be done by next Tuesday. You can monitor the progress of the bill here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Texas Senate Passes Concealed Carry on Campus Bill

But to the contrary, this evidence does exist. Law-abiding citizens can and have used guns to prevent violence at schools in multiple instances.

The Pearl High School Shooting (1997)

Luke Woodham murdered two teenage girls and wounded many others at Mississippi’s Pearl High School in 1997. Quoting the Wikipedia article, “[Woodham] went on to wound 7 others before Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus.”

So, this responsible principal was able to stop the shooter as he was making his getaway. This begs the question: had the principal been allowed to carry his weapon on the school property – as he would have been able to in any other situation – could this tragedy been reduced or perhaps even prevented entirely?

The Appalachian School of Law Shooting (2002)

In January of 2002, Peter Odighizuwa was ticked off at his law school, and decided to take it out on his advisors. He brought a weapon into their offices and killed three people. As he exited the building, he was confronted and subdued by two students who had retrieved firearms from their cars. There are two versions of exactly how Peter was taken down, but clearly without the intervention of the students the likelihood of more violence was altogether certain.

And finally, for us Texans:

The University of Texas Tower Sniper (1966)

Quoting the Wikipedia Article:

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.

Clearly, the body of data suggests that guns on campus would reduce violence. I’m sure more instances of guns preventing campus violence could be cited, so if you know of any more incidents like the ones above please comment with a link below. I will add any stories that you can find to the list.

Many thanks to Scott for helping me compile the initial information for this article.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Would Allowing Firearms on Campus Protect Students?

The following is a pretty funny rendition of the reasons given why we shouldn’t have guns. A friend of mine sent this to me and I just had to post it… You know which reason I really despise? I’ll tell you in a minute, you should read the reasons first. Also, pay attention because there is a quiz at the end.

40 Reasons to Ban Guns

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Okay, you know which one of these I really find repulsive? #33, the banning of cheaper guns. This infuriates me. The government already has set up the system in such a way that poor people have a much harder time protecting themselves. And considering that their neighborhoods can frequently be worse than the middle-class, who have the money to own firearms and purchase their multi-hundred dollar concealed carry permit, I find this situation untenable.

– A message from Affordable Life Insurance – I don’t know anyone who can dodge a bullet like Neo from the Matrix. This means that your next best option is to get affordable whole life insurance. Life insurance can’t stop bullets, but it can look after your loved one’s financially after you’re gone.

But moreover, purchase a firearm for yourself. Become familiar with it. Train with it. It’s less complicated than operating a car, so familiarity will quell any fear you have. You never know when you’ll need to use it.

So here is your quiz question: Which of the 40 reasons do you despise the most, and why? Comment below!

UPDATE 3/17/09: Welcome to LCC, Stumblers! I hope you enjoy the site, check out the related posts (below the following picture) for more firearms items on LCC, or the Top Posts section for our more popular material. Please feel free to leave a comment as well!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

40 Reasons to Ban Guns

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Concealed Carry on Campus in Austin

Christians sometimes wonder how we are supposed to rectify self-defense with “turning the other cheek.” In my estimation, there is a significant difference between defending one’s life against aggression and what is explicated in Matthew 5. We should most certainly have a merciful streak within us – even for those who take advantage of us at times – but self-defense itself is not a prohibited action for a Christian. It does little good for the cause of Christ to allow a violent burglar to kill your children (or yourself) while you stand aside and wait for the cops to come so your cheek-turning conscience can be clear.

I am fairly confident that my exegesis of Matthew 5:38-42 can help us make sense of what it means to be a non-violent person, and yet still be willing to defend ourselves and others when it is appropriate. If this matter concerns you, I urge you to read this paper when you have a free 20 minutes. If you wish, comment with questions and I’ll do my best to answer them.

For now, here is the video of freedom-loving British people defending their right to bear arms. Let us hope that our situation in the United States does not fall this far. To that end, there is a big push going on right now encouraging people to purchase The Founders’ Second Amendment by Stephen Halbrook, published by one of my favorite groups, The Independent Institute.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Right to Bear Arms in England