Anti-gun Gun argument counter


PDA






Gouranga
March 24, 2010, 12:30 PM
I am hoping this does not skirt itself too far into religious territory but it is a comment I have heard a LOT.

Among the many arguments you will get from the anti's is this:

"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."

Their stance is they you should actually turn the other cheek to allow them to rob, beat, kill their way through you and your family. They will give as example the crucifixion and such that you should in fact

So my questions is this, using non inflammatory educated discussion, how would you counter this position?

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-gun Gun argument counter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
March 24, 2010, 12:38 PM
I'd have to say that they really don't know their Bible then do they.

easyg
March 24, 2010, 12:40 PM
Among the many arguments you will get from the anti's is this:

"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."

Their stance is they you should actually turn the other cheek to allow them to rob, beat, kill their way through you and your family. They will give as example the crucifixion and such that you should in fact.
Ask them how much they know about the Crusades for the Holy Land.
Historically, Christians have been the exact opposite of non-violent pacifists.

Zundfolge
March 24, 2010, 12:53 PM
Among the many arguments you will get from the anti's is this:

"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."

Luke 22:36 and 22:38
Matthew 26:51
John 18:10


Jesus and his disciples were armed (they lived in a dangerous world). Anyone who calls one of them a hypocrite ain't much of a Christian.

Zundfolge
March 24, 2010, 12:59 PM
On a side note, "turn the other cheek" doesn't mean "let them rape your wife and kill your children".

The act of striking someone on the cheek was simply an insult (and a challenge to duel), much like it was in the antebellum south. The point is that you aren't supposed to get into fights over your honor or "face".

Fighting to protect your (and other's) lives is not wrong, however dueling over matters of pride and honor is.

mcdonl
March 24, 2010, 01:09 PM
Or a knife, or a car, or sleeping pills, or a high ledge on a building, fists, etc...

Beelzy
March 24, 2010, 01:15 PM
People who argue like that are usually hypocrites themselves.

floods
March 24, 2010, 01:30 PM
I'd say that comparing the crucifixion of the Son of God in atonement for the sins and reconciliation of all creation with allowing harm to come to others because someone took a verse out of context just might be a wild running leap of logic.

Just maybe. ;)

CoRoMo's right, most people who quote a verse to elicit an emotional response have neither read their Bible, nor do they understand the context of the verse they're quoting. Jesus is speaking to the pharisees in Luke 6, men who thought that they were holy because of their adherence to the law. Read it with the context that He's poking holes in their paper boats. Hardly the words of a pacifist, no?

ShooterMcGavin
March 24, 2010, 01:42 PM
I spoke with a girl this last weekend. She was interested in sitting on my motorcycle. I told her she could have a ride, but she needs to wear a helmet. She asked if I was hot in my leather jacket. When I said "a bit" she asked "why not take it off?". I lifted my jacket to show my holstered handgun and said "I don't feel like walking around with this right now". She kinda exclaimed "Why do you need that? Jesus protects me!". I told her that "sometimes Jesus needs help, and God helps those who help themselves". She thought I was still crazy for carrying a gun. I asked her if she would ride the motorcycle without a helmet and she said "no!". I said, "I didn't think so, but why does Jesus stop protecting you when you are on a motorcycle?". No comment.

Zack
March 24, 2010, 01:46 PM
@shootermcgavin and his gun :)
+1
Jesus protects us, and we need to use common sense. Buy a gun that is why we live in a blessed country to allow carry.

DeepSouth
March 24, 2010, 01:53 PM
See Sig

\ l /
.\l/

rainbowbob
March 24, 2010, 02:02 PM
Have them read the following by Kathy Jackson, AKA Pax:

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/pacifism.aspx

kmcintosh78
March 24, 2010, 02:04 PM
Their stance is they you should actually turn the other cheek to allow them to rob, beat, kill their way through you and your family. They will give as example the crucifixion and such that you should in fact

Jesus was crucified to save us. I have never claimed to be Jesus or the savior.

DeepSouth
March 24, 2010, 02:06 PM
A few writings from Kathy Jackson that might be worth the read.


http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/pacifism.aspx

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/sin.aspx

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/trust.aspx

http://www.corneredcat.com/Ethics/deserve.aspx

Bubbles
March 24, 2010, 02:18 PM
Jeff Snyder says it more eloquently than I could:

A Nation of Cowards (http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html)

The Gift of Life

Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:

He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

Strahley
March 24, 2010, 02:24 PM
My counter would be easy. I don't believe one way or the other, so I couldn't possibly be a hypocrite

I live life with a good moral compass and wouldn't harm a fly unless it was trying to harm me first. I don't need to have a specific religion to live like that

hso
March 24, 2010, 02:24 PM
There have been plenty of discussions to counter this sort of argument. They're either based on the ignorance of the person offering the argument or they're dependent upon the ignorance of the person they're offering the argument to.

youngda9
March 24, 2010, 02:32 PM
A couple good articles that should help you out:

The Bible and Guns (http://gunowners.org/sk0801.htm)

The Bible and Self Defense (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25442)

Bartholomew Roberts
March 24, 2010, 02:43 PM
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Pope John Paul II, para. 2263: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. 'The act of self defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not.' [Thos. Aquinas]."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

Source (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

John A. Hardon, S.J., pp. 284,327: "Although it is generally wrong to kill another person, we may defend ourselves against aggressors and are not forbidden to kill in legitimate self defense."

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

"......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense."

He goes on to say:

"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Source (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1088)

You could also have them talk to Rev. Michael R. Duesterhaus of the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale, MD. He used a 9mm Beretta to defend himself and two other priests when an intruder attacked them in the church (Washington Post, July 15, 2000)

Fred Fuller
March 24, 2010, 06:35 PM
One of my favorites.

lpl
==============

http://www.charlvanwyk.info/books_shootingback.html

Shooting Back
The Right and Duty of Self-Defence
by Charl van Wyk

What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and started attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?

Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?

Would you be justified in doing so?

Is it time for church-goers to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?

There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.

His name is Charl van Wyk – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.

In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defence," Van Wyk makes a Biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.

"Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews - and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory - to pieces. We were being attacked!"

But Van Wyk was not defenceless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.

"Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding automatic assault rifles and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 53. But the fact that one man – Van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers drove the others away.

Those killed that day were:

Guy Cooper Javens
Richard Oliver O'Kill
Gerhard Dennis Harker
Wesley Alfonso Harker
Denise Gordon
Mirtle Joan Smith
Andrey Kayl
Karamjin Oleg
Varaksa Velentin
Pavel Valuet

The last four were Russian seamen attending the service as part of a church outreach program. Another Russian seaman, Dmitri Makogon, lost both legs and an arm in the attack.

Using his personal and high-profile story as a launch-pad, Van Wyk wrote "Shooting Back" – which instantly became a South African bestseller, as well as a bestseller for WND, which imported thousands of copies of the original book for sale online to audiences in the U.S. and around the world.

But it was always a challenge maintaining supplies to meet the demand.

This is the first time this book, previously published in South Africa, has been widely available in the U.S. and elsewhere.

"I am honoured to be a part of this historic undertaking – the republishing of this classic work in the United States," said Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books and editor and chief executive officer of WND. "We have been working on this for more than three years. Now everyone can read this amazing and important story, which has applications in terror-stricken America and for Christians and Jews throughout the world."

Far from being just a reliving of the tragedy of the St. James Church Massacre, "Shooting Back" is a thorough examination of the whole issue of armed self-defence from a Christian perspective.

It deals with burning questions that plague all conscience-driven people:

Should we carry arms?

When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families?

What can we do when our freedom to carry arms is legislated away from us?

Using the Bible as his guidepost, Van Wyk makes the case that Christians not only have the right but the duty to defend themselves and other innocents from such aggression.
What's the lesson?

“As Van Wyk’s experience illustrates, no place is totally safe — not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the foreword to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free, will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defence illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk’s book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere – need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenceless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."

But this amazing true story doesn't end there. It's also about redemption and reconciliation. Several of the church members who were injured or who lost family members in the attacks, as well as Van Wyk, later met with and forgave some of their repentant attackers.

JoeSlomo
March 24, 2010, 06:40 PM
"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."


Christians are banned from harvesting game for food or competing in firearms competition?!?

I didn't know that.

NinjaFeint
March 24, 2010, 06:42 PM
I should first off say that I am not a Christian or a follower of any religion but I know that is a silly argument. I am sometimes depressed by how little some people know of the religion they supposedly follow.

My counter would be that a belief system would have not been around as long as any of the major religions if it did not allow one to defend themselves and their principals.

That will allow you to avoid the specifics/history of Christianity the other person obviously is not aware of.

noob_shooter
March 24, 2010, 06:50 PM
if a christian said that to me, i'll gladly tell that person he/she is the hyprocrite.. i'm a christian myself, but will NEVER judge anyone like that.. i know a lot of christians who are complete hypocrites... idiots.

There are 3 type of christians in my own book.

Gouranga
March 24, 2010, 09:31 PM
Great responses guys and AWESOME links! Some great points of view in here.

N.Schafer
March 25, 2010, 08:27 AM
"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" Matthew 26:53

Ya, Jesus had a CCW.:cool:

j-easy
March 25, 2010, 08:53 AM
You can't really win, most of our pro gun arguments are logic based and based on facts used to combat the emotional and irrational anti gun arguments.

You can't counter that statement without either dismissing christianity or religion entirely or bringing in your own religious beliefs or interpretations. neither of which will be very effective imo.

Yo Mama
March 25, 2010, 09:37 AM
In Hebrew, the first commandment is Though shall not murder. Murder was changed to kill with translations of the bible, but it's well documented that the original word and intent was murder.

Just One Shot
March 25, 2010, 10:02 AM
Here's just one example of God's people preparing to defend themselves.

Nehemiah 4: 11And our adversaries said, "They shall not know, neither see, until we come in the midst among them and slay them and cause the work to cease."


12And it came to pass that when the Jews who dwelt by them came, they said unto us ten times, "From all places whence ye shall return unto us, they will be upon you."


13Therefore set I men in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places; I even set the people by families with their swords, their spears, and their bows.

14And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles and to the rulers and to the rest of the people, "Be not ye afraid of them; remember the Lord, who is great and fearsome, and fight for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses."

15And it came to pass, when our enemies heard that it was known unto us and God had brought their counsel to nought, that we returned all of us to the wall, every one unto his work.


16And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields and the bows and the jackets of mail; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.

17Those who built on the wall and those who bore burdens with those who loaded -- every one with one of his hands wrought in the work and with the other hand held a weapon.

18For the builders, every one, had his sword girded by his side, and so built. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.


19And I said unto the nobles and to the rulers and to the rest of the people, "The work is great and large, and we are separated upon the wall, one far from another.


20In what place therefore ye hear the sound of the trumpet, resort ye thither unto us. Our God shall fight for us."


21So we labored in the work; and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning until the stars appeared.

Just One Shot
March 25, 2010, 10:05 AM
Here's a pro gun christian web site some of you might enjoy.

http://www.christianzoneforum.com/forum/

Scroll down to Christian Gun Owners at The Christian Zone Forum and you will meet some like minded people.

SaxonPig
March 25, 2010, 11:18 AM
Anyone who wants to live the literal Bible needs to make human sacrifices and blood offerings on altars.

Nature (God) has endowed EVERY living creature the right to defend itself and that includes human beings. Anyone, any Church, any clergy who denies that right is not religious, but political.

I struggle to understand why 78% of Jewish voters supported a guy who is a Socialist and wants all power invested in the central government. You would think that their previous experience with an all powerful, Socialist central government might have taught them a lesson. Apparently not...

mack
March 25, 2010, 11:50 AM
Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Nehemiah 4:14 - And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.

I Timothy 5:8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Psalms 144:1 - Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.

I don't know, sounds like God expects us to be prepared, armed, and trained to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

As said before the injunction about turning the other cheek was meant to apply to insult and hurt pride and not life threatening assault.

Another quote that may be thrown in your face is: "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 - which is not about use of force to defend oneself but about living a life of violence - those who choose to live by violence will die by violence - i.e. Jesus was telling Peter he was to rely upon God first and not his sword first - which was Peters' initial reaction - and then he told Peter to sheath his sword, he did not tell him to discard it.

Lastly, you might get - Thou shalt not kill - Exodus 20:13 - which is the simplest to address as it is most accurately translated as Thou shalt not murder - it is a prohibition against murder and not the use of lethal force in self defense.

CoRoMo
March 25, 2010, 01:14 PM
Thou shalt not kill - Exodus 20:13 - which is the simplest to address as it is most accurately translated as Thou shalt not murder - it is a prohibition against murder and not the use of lethal force in self defense.

Exactly.

Ecclesiastes 3:1–3
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;...

gunsandreligion
March 25, 2010, 02:47 PM
"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."sounds kinda like the anti hunting/fishing pretending their christians,I'm sitting there fishing and they are argueing with me about it finally their like "What would Jesus do" my answer was 'in the bible it say's he cooked em over and open fire just like me. they quickly left after that. the defenition of hypocrite is:1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. thats like those anti's.

KBintheSLC
March 25, 2010, 03:16 PM
I don't think that it is hypocritical to be Christian and to own a gun. However, when people start making wrathful biblical quotes in attempt to justify their gun ownership to a non-gun-owner/non-Christian, it ends up sounding like religious fanaticism.

I think that it would be best for the proliferation of our gun rights if we kept our guns and our religions separately. IMO

Skillet
March 25, 2010, 04:56 PM
In the the book of Nehemiah, the people of Jerusalem had to rebuild the wall surrounding their badly damaged hometown. Foreign nations wanted to kill them all while they were building, but the Israelites took precautions to fight any would be attackers. it went like this-

Nehemiah 4:12-19 (New Living Translation)



12 The Jews who lived near the enemy came and told us again and again, “They will come from all directions and attack us!” 13 So I placed armed guards behind the lowest parts of the wall in the exposed areas. I stationed the people to stand guard by families, armed with swords, spears, and bows.

14 Then as I looked over the situation, I called together the nobles and the rest of the people and said to them, “Don’t be afraid of the enemy! Remember the Lord, who is great and glorious, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes!”

15 When our enemies heard that we knew of their plans and that God had frustrated them, we all returned to our work on the wall. 16 But from then on, only half my men worked while the other half stood guard with spears, shields, bows, and coats of mail. The leaders stationed themselves behind the people of Judah 17 who were building the wall. The laborers carried on their work with one hand supporting their load and one hand holding a weapon. 18 All the builders had a sword belted to their side. The trumpeter stayed with me to sound the alarm.

Officers'Wife
March 25, 2010, 05:08 PM
Their stance is they you should actually turn the other cheek to allow them to rob, beat, kill their way through you and your family. They will give as example the crucifixion and such that you should in fact

Jesus said that true, He also forgave Peter for cutting off the soldier's ear that arrested Him. Jesus said to love thy neighbor as well as not to judge others. Nowhere does He say you have to be a fool about it. The Holy Church teaches us the suicide in any form is a mortal sin. Going placidly into a deadly situation with no attempt to save yourself is a form a suicide. Keeping a firearm is preparing for such an event and therefore blessed by the Church.

CoRoMo
March 26, 2010, 09:32 AM
...it would be best for the proliferation of our gun rights if we kept our guns and our religions separately.

For me, that's impossible. It's a God-given right after all. My creator commands me to be armed and ready to defend life. How do I separate Him from what He has given me and to what He has commanded me? JMHO.

Fanatically religious rant over.:)

TexasRifleman
March 26, 2010, 09:35 AM
I think that it would be best for the proliferation of our gun rights if we kept our guns and our religions separately. IMO

The problem with that is when you try to decipher the meaning the Founders gave to the Second Amendment. They clearly had in mind that a right to protect one's own life and one's own country was a right given by God to Man and their Constitution simply recognized that right, it didn't grant that right.

It's hard to say they knew exactly what they were talking about if you remove half of the equation.

If you can't somehow get in the argument that these rights were pre-existing then you end up with a right that was given by a government and can therefore be taken away.

mack
March 26, 2010, 10:35 AM
KBintheSLC wrote:

"However, when people start making wrathful biblical quotes in attempt to justify their gun ownership to a non-gun-owner/non-Christian, it ends up sounding like religious fanaticism."

Respectfully would state that closer to the truth would be that when people discover that someone actually takes their faith seriously enough to consider it a guide to their life by revealing that they have considered and thought through the real life implications to their faith - people often respond by accusing them of being religious fanatics - as an attempt to demean them and their personal faith. The original post did not specify whether or not the anti-RKBA person was a person of faith or not - oddly, my assumption was that it was more likely to be a nominally Christian anti - who had not fully thought through their faith rather than someone of the agnostic or atheistic faiths. If they were not of a Christian persuasion - then on what basis would they be attempting to quote scripture as an authority - when to the non-Christian scripture would be just so much irrational junk. If that were the case then quoting and discussing scripture might be as you posit useless as the person was not intending in the first place to engage in a serious discussion but merely making a mockingly sarcastic statement. In that case then yes the most appropriate response might be, Uhuh or please don't mock my faith or I would be happy to discuss my faith with you and how it impacts my RKBA if you are serious or simply no response at all.

"I think that it would be best for the proliferation of our gun rights if we kept our guns and our religions separately. IMO"

Which is another way to say the religion and politics should not mix - and in a certain sense I would agree - in terms of religion as representative of a formal organization - however the OP was addressing a situation involving another individual questioning a point of that individual's personal faith or belief system and not religion.

I realize that discussions of guns and the RKBA on this board that intersect with questions of personal faith make many uncomfortable - but I feel that this was a legitimate question to address - and that it deserves a serious answer - as gun owners who personally identify with the Christian faith and who take their faith seriously, do represent a large number of gun owners in this country. Although gun owners who do not share that faith may feel embarrassed by those who identify with the Christian faith and might wish that they would just keep quiet as they perceive them as an embarrassment to the RKBA community, such that when they quote scripture they may be portrayed as kooks or fanatics in the main stream media and/or in the minds of those who do not share that faith. However, that seems to me to be more of an issue of toleration and acceptance of different views within the RKBA community just as it is in society as a whole. It is an issue similar to the one that comes up often in discussions of the NRA/JFPO/GOA/SAF/etc… as being too hard core or too soft on the RKBA or in discussions on NFA firearms and devices or felons and the RKBA.

If this were a discussion or topic characterized by proselytizing or attempts to demean individuals of different belief systems - such as if you don’t believe as I do then you are….. - then it would be inappropriate. However as it is, I feel that it is respectfully addressing a real issue - that judging from the responses in this thread - other individuals have found it necessary to address in their own lives and experience.

Shawn Dodson
March 26, 2010, 11:55 AM
Why I'd have them watch Moral Orel, "Turn the Other Cheek"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbe820j-oWU

LYRICS
you've got to
turn the other cheek
turn the other cheek
show the world how strong you are
by simply acting weak
inherit all the world someday
'cause you will be the meek
show them just how meek
when you turn the other cheek

Telumehtar
March 26, 2010, 05:36 PM
"I think that it would be best for the proliferation of our gun rights if we kept our guns and our religions separately. IMO"


Aside from several comments others have made, I also will state, that having separation between your religious/spiritual "you" and your secular "you" is in essence an affront to God(or in most other religions whatever entity you believe in), and more over a deceit towards your fellow man.

One cannot simply turn on and off faith like a light switch. It is a part of that person, as much so as their ability to reason, or emotionally feel, or perform math, or read/speak language perhaps even more so than those other abilities since our spirit is eternal.

Simply put, I cannot stop being Christian me, in order to be secular me. I am simply me.

One cannot sideline their faith and then claim to live a faithful life in a secular fashion. Either their actions are contained within a framework of faith or they are not.

It is generally why I find it laughable when politicians who claim to be believers in any faith, state that they will not allow their faith to interfere with their ability to govern. It would be just as laughable to hear them say "I will not allow my ability to feel emotion to interfere with my ability to govern.".

And without meaning to sound all Zen like, the trick is not to seperate or compartmentalize your life in order to make certain aspects of life convenient, but rather to find a wholistic approach to living in which all aspects are in balance and support each other and are contained within a framework of faith.

Ultimately how this pertains to self defense and gun ownership, if I have to defend myself, my loved ones, or an innocent with lethal force, I know that I will not be blemished in the eyes of the Lord for that action.

And when talking to fellow Christians about this topic, I find scriptures that plainly support that view to be comforting and instilling of my confidence to exercise my right to self defense and defense of innocents.

When talking to non-Christians about why I choose to defend myself, I have to honestly say that my religion plays a part in why I have my stance(it is the truth afterall), and that at times can open the door to witness to them as well.

Artiz
March 26, 2010, 05:42 PM
I'd just reply: Jesus carries an M16 on his shoulder, and a 1911 on his hip. God is operating the M2.

Va Shooter
March 26, 2010, 05:42 PM
Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Patriotme
March 26, 2010, 05:43 PM
Tell them that you are not as good of a Christian as you should be and you are prepared for people that are even worse.

General Geoff
March 26, 2010, 05:44 PM
http://www.shadowflareindustries.com/images/godak47.jpg

Sorry, I had to. :D

labhound
March 26, 2010, 05:56 PM
I am hoping this does not skirt itself too far into religious territory but it is a comment I have heard a LOT.

Among the many arguments you will get from the anti's is this:

"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."

Their stance is they you should actually turn the other cheek to allow them to rob, beat, kill their way through you and your family. They will give as example the crucifixion and such that you should in fact

So my questions is this, using non inflammatory educated discussion, how would you counter this position?
No intelligent person should lower themselves to the IQ level of a person who would make a statement like that! To try to counter this kind of statement is fruitless.

BHP FAN
March 26, 2010, 06:30 PM
Didn't He say something about if you don't have a sword,sell your garmet, and get you one? and wouldn't a sword be sorta the 1911 of it's day?

Lonestar49
March 26, 2010, 06:49 PM
Among the many arguments you will get from the anti's is this:

"Anyone who is a Christian, and owns a gun is a total hypocrite."



I just love (not :scrutiny:) these luke-warm, convenient-Christians.. As they should believe in His, own, written, Words..

"Judge not, least ye be judged"


Me, I'm just a Christian with guns to fight evil if it shows its face with bodily harm on its mind to me or my family, etc.


Ls

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-gun Gun argument counter" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!