Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Anti-gun Gun argument counter

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Gouranga, Mar 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gouranga

    Gouranga Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    928
    Location:
    Gaston County, NC
    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?
     
  2. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,949
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I'd have to say that they really don't know their Bible then do they.
     
  3. easyg

    easyg Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    off-line mostly.
    Ask them how much they know about the Crusades for the Holy Land.
    Historically, Christians have been the exact opposite of non-violent pacifists.
     
  4. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    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.
     
  5. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    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.
     
  6. mcdonl

    mcdonl Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,228
    Location:
    Southern Maine
    Or a knife, or a car, or sleeping pills, or a high ledge on a building, fists, etc...
     
  7. Beelzy

    Beelzy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Cen-Cal
    People who argue like that are usually hypocrites themselves.
     
  8. floods

    floods Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    TX
    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?
     
  9. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    630
    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.
     
  10. Zack

    Zack member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    577
    Location:
    USA
    @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.
     
  11. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,183
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    See Sig

    \ l /
    .\l/
     
  12. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
  13. kmcintosh78

    kmcintosh78 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    344
    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.
     
  14. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,183
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
  15. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Jeff Snyder says it more eloquently than I could:

    A Nation of Cowards

     
  16. Strahley

    Strahley Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    890
    Location:
    Kansas
    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
     
  17. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,567
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    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.
     
  18. youngda9

    youngda9 member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    Messages:
    877
  19. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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

    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

    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)
     
  20. Fred Fuller

    Fred Fuller Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    21,220
    Location:
    AL, NC
    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.
     
  21. JoeSlomo

    JoeSlomo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    803

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

    I didn't know that.
     
  22. NinjaFeint

    NinjaFeint Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    CT
    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.
     
  23. noob_shooter

    noob_shooter member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    348
    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.
     
  24. Gouranga

    Gouranga Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    928
    Location:
    Gaston County, NC
    Great responses guys and AWESOME links! Some great points of view in here.
     
  25. N.Schafer

    N.Schafer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    212
    Location:
    Waterville, MN
    "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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page