Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

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

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)

Christian apologists for the state, its leaders (when they are Republicans), its military, its spy agencies, and especially its wars (and especially when they are started by Republicans) sometimes refer to the above passage from the Book of Romans as if it somehow justifies their blind nationalism, their cheerleading for the Republican Party, their childish devotion to the military, their acceptance of national-security state, and their support for perpetual war.

There is no greater abuse of this passage than when it is applied to national defense. I have come across two examples of this recently.

The first is from an exchange between a readers of my columns and his theologian friend. Earlier this year, when the United States had just begun its military adventure in Libya, a reader informed me of a conversation with a friend who happened to be a theologian and seminary professor. Said professor posted something on Facebook about Libya and how Obama the evil Democrat wouldn’t hesitate to use force on Americans if they tried to institute a new government like the Libyans. My reader agreed, but then added: “So would Bush. Statism knows no party.” The response of the theologian was simply: “Governments have a God-given right to defend themselves. Romans.”

Pointing out the similarities between Obama the Democrat and Bush the Republican is a cardinal sin according to some Christian conservatives. Although Bush expanded federal spending on and control over education, expanded Medicare to greater heights than LBJ ever dreamed, started two unnecessary wars, doubled the national debt, had bailout and stimulus programs, increased farm subsidies and foreign aid, increased government spending and regulations, gave us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit, instituted torture, violated civil liberties, and expanded the police state – none of this matters because he was a Christian and a Republican.

As for Bush’s ecumenical, inclusive, warped, and unorthodox Christianity, I have dealt with that in an article here. As for the failings (to put it mildly) of the Republican Party, I have written about them here and in many other articles.

And to say that Romans 13 has anything to do with a government defending itself is absolutely ludicrous. Being a warmonger and military apologist makes even some of the best Bible students loose their mind.

The second example of theological lunacy is from a column by Craig Parshall about the killing of Osama bin Laden (which he favored) in the magazine Israel My Glory. Parshall is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters.

In response to the question he raised of “Can Christians ethically support the U.S. government’s deliberate targeting of individuals for death?”, Parshall says:

Christians who urge pacifism by citing Jesus’ commandments about peace (i.e., Mt. 5:9) miss the point. They fail to recognize the theological distinctions between individual responsibility to seek peace with others (Rom. 12:18) and the corporate responsibility of government to use lethal force (the “sword,” Rom. 13:1-7) to protect citizens from “evildoers” (1 Pet. 2:13-14).

Opposing the extra-judicial assassination of Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with pacifism. Moreover, even Christians who oppose the death penalty might change their minds if bin Laden had been lawfully tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. And just because the “powers that be” bear the sword doesn’t mean that the state should execute people without trial. More importantly, however, to say that Romans 13 has anything to do with a government defending its citizens is ludicrous.

I can’t resist commenting on something Parshall says in the next paragraph of his article: “In all of the New Testament references to soldiers and Roman centurions, there is no suggestion that their work, which often involved using force and violence against others, was somehow sinful or inappropriate.” So, the soldiers who scourged, smote, and crucified the Son of God didn’t do anything sinful or inappropriate? I thought so.

I have been asked many times over the years to write something on Romans 13. Although this is something I have thought a great deal about and know that I must eventually do, this brief look at Romans 13 and national defense is not that article. Actually, a large monograph or small book is what is called for.

In the meantime, here is a collection of comments of mine on Romans 13 in my LRC articles.

From “Christian Killers” (December 2, 2004):

To justify their consent or silence, and to keep their congregations in line, Christian leaders repeat to their parishioners the mantra of “obey the powers that be,” a loose paraphrase of Romans 13:1, as if that somehow means that they should blindly follow whatever the president or the government says, and even worse, that it overturns the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), which is repeated in the New Testament (Matthew 19:18; Romans 13:9). The way some Christians repeat the “obey the powers that be” mantra, one would think that they would slit their own mothers’ throats if the state told them to do so.

From “The Warmonger’s Psalm” (June 2, 2005):

This love affair that many conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians have with the military is grounded in their blind obedience to the government, based on an unrestricted, absolute interpretation of Romans 13:1, from which they have derived the “obey the powers that be” mantra. Of course, this obedience to the state is very selective, which shows what hypocrites these people are. None of these Christians would kill their mother if the government told them to do so, but they would see nothing wrong with killing someone else’s mother if the state gave them a uniform and a gun.

From “The Hypocrisy of Christian Warmongers” (August 11, 2006):

Christian warmongers don’t really believe their own mantras. When they chant “obey the powers that be,” “obey magistrates,” and “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man,” it doesn’t actually mean anything. Since the war in Iraq began, Christian warmongers have turned these portions of Scripture into their mantras in order to justify the war. None of them actually believe that a Christian should always accept the latest government pronouncement, support the latest government program, or obey the government in every respect. It was all a ruse to justify an unjust war. If the government commands one of these Christians to shoot his neighbor and destroy his property, he will choose to disobey and suffer the consequences – just like if the government commands one of these Christians to shoot an Israeli and destroy his property.

So, if a Christian warmonger doesn’t really believe that Christians should always obey the state, then why does he lie and say that they should? Christian warmongers hide behind their mantras because they are trying to defend a president, a party, and a movement that are undefendable. Should a Christian have served in Hitler’s army? What about Stalin’s? Why not? Should a Christian have participated in the Holocaust or in one of the Russian czar’s pogroms? Why not? Christian warmongers are very selective about which governments they think Christians should obey. Despite their rhetoric, they really don’t think that everyone should blindly follow whatever the president or the government says. The bottom line is that the command for the New Testament Christian to “be subject unto the higher powers” (Romans 13:1) is not absolute.

From “Elijah vs. the State” (August 4, 2008):

Christians seeking to justify their support for, or the participation of their friends and relatives in, the U.S. government’s latest military adventure often recite the mantra, “Obey the powers that be,” a loose paraphrase of Romans 13:1, as if that somehow means that Christians should blindly follow whatever the government says. But because the state is, as Murray Rothbard described it, a “bandit gang writ large,” Christians should always remember the reply of the apostles when they were told to stop speaking in the name of Jesus: “We ought to obey God rather then men” (Acts 5:29).

From “Herod’s Henchmen” (December 25, 2008):

Christian, are you one of Herod’s henchmen? Would you commit infanticide if the government told you to do so? Then why did you vote for a man whose motto was “Country First”? Why do you incessantly recite your “obey the powers that be” (Romans 13:1) mantra?

From “Is Libertarianism Compatible With Religion?” (March 15, 2011):

Some Christians get hung up on Romans 13 and end up making apologies for the state and its wars. It’s too bad they skipped over Romans 12:

Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. (Romans 12:14)

Recompense to no man evil for evil. (Romans 12:17)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

Overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)

I have also quoted and/or discussed what three authors have written about Romans 13. “A Christian Against the State” is a review of Christian Theology of Public Policy: Highlighting the American Experience, by John Cobin. “The Doctrine of a Christian Warmonger” is a critique of a presentation by Pastor Tod Kennedy called “The Doctrine of God and War.” “Can a Christian Kill for His Government?” is a review of a book of the same name by Bennie Lee Fudge.

There are a lot of things that could be said about Romans 13, but that it has reference to national defense is not one of them.

Originally Posted on LewRockwell.com on October 13, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Romans 13 and National Defense

In his famous work The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer commended Christian suffering under tyranny and oppression as a means of demonstrating Christian faith and commitment. “It would be equally wrong to suppose that St Paul imagines that the fulfillment of our secular calling is itself the living of the Christian life. No, his real meaning is that to renounce rebellion and revolution is the most appropriate way of expressing our conviction that the Christian hope is not set on this world, but on Christ and his kingdom. And so—let the slave remain a slave! It is not reform that the world needs, for it is already ripe for destruction. And so—let the slave remain a slave! [Christ took on the form of a slave too (Philippians 2:7)]…The Christian must not be drawn to the bearers of high office: his calling is to stay below” (1995, Touchstone, p. 260). Is Bonhoeffer right? Should American Christians not run for “high office”? Should they be content with their “slavery” imposed upon them by a tyrannical state that confiscates more than half of their earnings in taxes, proactively regulates their behavior as a big brother would, and maintains a threat against their homes for nonpayment of property taxes?

If self-defense by Christians is biblical, why didn’t Christ and the Apostles defend themselves against the Roman state? Well, Christ had to die for the sake of His church. He said that He could have had “more than twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53) to defend Him, but He chose not to defend Himself out of love for His people. (Note too that He never said that defending Himself would have been wrong.) Earlier in His earthly ministry, Christ divinely avoided His persecutors since “His hour had not yet come” (John 7:30) and He warned Christians to “flee” coming persecutions and the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 10:23; 24:16; Luke 21:21). Fleeing is a form of self-preservation, which is a subset of self-defense.

Likewise, the Apostle Paul defended himself in court (Acts 22:1 [Jews]; 26:1 ff [Festus]) and Paul went so far as to hope that Alexander the Coppersmith would be temporally castigated by God (2 Timothy 4:14), perhaps to further his self-preservation. Paul also instructs that those who are enslaved should take the opportunity to become free if they can do so: “Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it” (1 Corinthians 7:21). Therefore, I believe Bonhoeffer, although well-intentioned, was mistaken. Christians should try to be free from slavery and tyranny whenever possible. If God opens the door, freedom might allow them to bring greater glory to God in their lives than would come from demonstrating their piety and service while living under oppression. It could be that the Apostles and early disciples were just being expedient in not taking up arms. Just because a Christian has a right to defend himself does not mean that he should always do so. The early Christians had little hope of overpowering the brutal Romans.

Let’s reason through when it is appropriate for Christians to forcibly resist tyrants and predators— even with deadly force. Consider: (1) an angry Christian brother attacking you with a knife; (2) an armed robber or other predator who enters your home in the middle of the night; (3) the local mafia organization that wants to shake you down for monthly contributions; (4) a criminal in public (e.g., as you pass by a small group of thugs who are gang raping a woman outside of a bar, they turn their attention towards you in a menacing way); (5) the invading army of another nation; (6) the invading army of a nation that your people just declared their independence from (but they refuse to acknowledge your independence from them, e.g. England in 1776); and (7) your own state which is extorting money from people “legally” and in other ways has become a predator—maybe even violating God’s law.

In my view, Christians may properly resist in any of the above cases. The logic is incontrovertible. The fact that the predator in case #7 was elected by the people makes no difference. It also makes no difference that representative government is producing tyranny. We would not condone abortion or slavery just because elected state leaders sanction it. If state leaders behave as criminals then they become exposed to being justly killed by those who choose to defend themselves. The Founders agreed with this premise and thus approved the Second Amendment to ensure that citizens could defend themselves against the state. Killing thugs, repulsing criminals, and resisting tyrants (and states) are potentially appropriate activities for a Christian—depending on the circumstances. Yes, the American “Revolution” was just.

Sadly, many Christians today have muddled thinking and have forsaken the ideals of the Founders and the premises of the New Testament. They wrongly support the predatory, proactive state. Instead, Christians should work against their enemy the state and its proactive policies. While many Christians think that self-defense against the state is always an unwelcome distraction from their primary mission, there are times when the purposes of Christians in the world can be served through self-defense. Therefore, I argue that Christians should defend themselves against the state, just as they would against any other criminal or crime organization. At the same time, Christians can and should support a limited government, established to protect them from predators and thus indirectly benefit the church and its primary mission.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on May 18, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

When should a Christian defend himself?

Do Christians have a right of self-defense? If so, under what circumstances may they defend themselves? May they only defend themselves against criminals or against civil authorities too? Are there any instances in which Christians must not defend themselves? These are tough questions that require more than just knee-jerk or cavalier responses. Indeed, a lot is riding on the doctrine of self-defense. For instance, if self-defense against other human beings were not justified under any circumstances, then women with tubal pregnancies would have to perish with their unborn children (on account of bleeding from a ruptured fallopian tube), criminals would have free course over the goods that believers have “stored up” (Proverbs 13:22; Ecclesiastes 11:1; Matthew 25:16-21), and revolution would always be wrong.

If self-defense is wrong then we ought all to be anarchists. I do not mean “anarchy” in the sense of chaos but rather in its scientific sense of a civilization without any central and organized civil government. The dictionary defines anarchy as: “Absence of any form of political authority.” The fundamental reason why government exists ultimately rests on the conviction that self-defense is right. Pure pacifists neither need nor want a government. They are apolitical and should be, logically, anarchists. Why then are Christians not anarchists? Only if the Bible supports the doctrine of self-defense would the principle of Christians using limited government for purposes of creating a common defense be justified. [Editor’s clarification: The official position of LCC is that Christianity and anarchy are not incompatible because anarchism does not immediately imply pacifism. Anarchism is the lack of a human ruler, not the lack of all means of self-defense. Nonetheless, Mr. Cobin’s original text has been preserved.]

In the same vein we may ask: “Why do Americans have (or even want) a political authority?” According to the doctrine of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are established among Men” to secure our rights of life, liberty, and property. The Constitution sets forth the role of civil government as well: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The third article of the (sadly) forgotten Articles of Confederation states: “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

In other words, in the most fundamental sense, the Founders wanted a government (but not a state) in order to protect them from predators. Politically, Americans covenanted together for a “common defense” because at some level self-defense is not practicable. Civil government becomes an extension of our right of self-defense and our desire for self-preservation. Nevertheless, regardless of what American political philosophy may have been, should those who adhere to biblical Christianity adopt it today?

Several New Testament passages can be used to support the doctrine of self-defense for a Christian. First, John the Baptist did not condemn soldiers for doing their job, part of which included killing people, but only warned against abusing their office. “Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, ‘And what shall we do?’ So he said to them, ‘Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages’” (Luke 3:14). Second, Christ directed that Christians take up arms useful in self-defense: “he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

Third, the Apostle Paul implies that Christian men ought to defend their families as part of their provision: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). Note that Moses was not condemned for killing an Egyptian while defending one of his brethren (Acts 7:24, 28). Finally, although we cannot generate any conclusive argument from silence, it is notable—taking the preceding passages into account—that Christ did not condemn prudent planning for (and use of) warfare as a proper function of a wise king (Luke 14:31). Moreover, there are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of God condoning warfare and men going to battle. And God does not change, even if the administration of His kingdom does.

Clearly there is a sense in which Christians are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), suffer, and show forth the glory of God in doing so rather than defending themselves. There is a time in which we must suffer and die (Matthew 5:11; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:3). Nevertheless, the New Testament does not indicate that Christians are called upon to be the world’s doormats. Thus, in the current administration of God’s kingdom, there seems to be room for Christians to pursue liberty and at times defend themselves against tyranny. In the final analysis, Christians can bring glory to God either by suffering or through promoting liberty.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on May 11, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Do Christians have the right to defend themselves? (Even from the state?)

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

Well, I have a special treat for you in today’s podcast. Gil Guillory is an engineer, independent scholar, and an entrepreneur who has been developing a business plan for providing security services as a startup company. He graciously agreed to explain his ideas in an interview with me a while back, and we finally were able to match our schedules and chat via Skype.

Now, this isn’t directly a theological topic, but pay attention when Gil talks about connecting charitable agencies, such as churches, with individuals who need help. There is a real, tangible benefit to private security because it is always more personal than typical police. And given just how corrupt many police have become, it is high time to seek out alternatives.

I have met some very decent police officers in the past, but even they have told me how awful things are becoming in law enforcement. I would encourage any truly good officers to seek out people like Gil and join him in this noble venture. Listen to what he has to say and think about it…

I hope you enjoy this fascinating talk. (It’s just under 20 minutes long, and sorry about the difference in volume between Gil and I…) Feel free to comment here with questions. If we get enough, perhaps Gil will agree to do a second talk where we address them!

Right click here to download the entire audio file. [20 minutes, mp3]

Visit Gil’s GooglePages Site.

Read Gil’s LRC Articles, especially Tax Funded Policing is Socialism.

UPDATE: Many thanks to Manuel from the LewRockwell.com blog for linking to this, welcome to LRC readers once again! Please keep sharing it, folks, the Stumbles, Diggs, and retweets are very much appreciated!

Also, I noticed that for some reason the “title” of the podcast when you play it is And Your Bird Can Sing. Oops! It is nice intro music, though, wouldn’t you say? Great guitar…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast on Private Security with Gil Guillory

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