1. Nowhere in the Bible is personal ownership of weapons prohibited, and the Levitical laws do specify that homicide in self-defense is not to be punished.

   Good enough for me.

   1

   1. Although the Bill of Rights has bugger-all to do with God-given rights… and firearms were developed a millennia or so after the Christian Bible was codified, I can actually cite religious authority for the right to keep and bear arms in defense of one’s self and family. Read it and weep, Jean:

      “[T]he Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.” — Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth, folio 58a.

      This is the teaching found in the Babylonian Talmud based on Exodus (chapter and verse 22:1 in most Christian editions). For those of you not familiar with Jewish practice, the Babylonian Talmud was compiled between the 3rd to 5th centuries CE/AD. It is one of the central texts of Rabbinic Judaism, considered second only to the Torah (Bible) itself. Although self-defense is addressed multiple times in the Talmud, but no where in such a clear and concise — and dare I say, almost Jeff Cooper-esque — manner.

      It should also be noted, that our modern-day leading expert in Talmudic studies, Captain Malcolm Reynolds, offered similar advice: “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill ’em right back!”

      1. Well that would be great(and it is a sentiment I agree with), except according to BibleGateway, Exodus 22:1 says: “Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.”

         We do have absolution of someone who kills a house invader so long as it’s night time later in the chapter, though.

         1. I’ve got my chapter and verse wrong, I guess. But, yes, that part of Exodus which discusses killing a thief in the night is the basis for the teaching in the Talmud: check this link.

2. Joel 3:10

3. He (Jesus) 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.” Luke 22:6

   1. Its v. 36-38. Luke 22:6 deals with Judas iscariot’s plotting to betray Jesus…which is fairly similar to what the anti-crowd is trying to do. So, yeah, its appropriate!

4. Also, did the Bible say anything about rape whistles or “it duth betterith to poopith thy self than defend thy self”. #justsayin

5. Luke 22:36-38. Jesus Himself tells the disciples to sell a cloak (protection against the elements, which God controls) and buy a sword (protection against Man, who has free will) if they didn’t have one already. v.37 and 38, two disciples come up to him with their EDC blades, and ask if those were enough. I would imagine a long knife or Roman-style short-sword, most likely not a William-Wallace claymore or German landschnect. Jesus took one look and said “yup, those’ll do.”

   So tell me, if Jesus Himself says to start carryin, citing the defensive weapons commonly available at the time, why should anyone think they can deny me the right to carry a defensive weapon commonly available at this time (barring ammo, which may or may not be classified as “commonly available”. Darn 9mm…)? That is the height of arrogance and ego right there, to think that they have the power or right to deny something specifically granted by God.

6. For sure- Jesus told his followers to strap- you only turn your cheek to insults- if an innocent person is attacked when you could have stopped it, you gonna have some ‘splainin to do at the Bema Seat. If these poor souls think Jesus is some milquetoast hippie, they are in for a rude awakening when he returns…

   1. He’s gonna shit clay bricks when he sees all them damn crosses too.

7. Oh, and let’s not just limit ourselves to Judeo-Christian scripture either. Non-violence is one of the most important tenets of the three major Indian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism). This concept is known as ahimsa. Ahimsa is taken very seriously by all three, but Jainism is considered to be the most strict in their interpretation of how it works. But, well, they still regard self-defense as legit. The most non-violent religion on Earth has this to say:

   “Siva’s devotees faced with imminent danger may elect to injure or kill to protect their life or that of another, or to defend the community as a soldier or a law officer in the line of duty. This is ahimsa’s first exception.” -Sutra 62

   As for that other major religion from the Indian subcontinent — the Sikhs — well, those big honking knives are NOT decorative. The kirpān, techinically, isn’t even intended for SELF defense, byt defense of OTHERS.

   Taoism and Buddhism in China have ancient histories of badass martial artists, who invented all manner of ways to kick ass for self-defense. Catholicism and Christianity, of course, have a long history of martial artist organizations too… We called them knightly orders. Islam, well, nuff said.

8. I’ve got another fun one for you: https://twitter.com/the1amberdawn/status/340729480228265985 anti-gun nut wants her friends to “take out” people who are legally carrying concealed weapons.

   I kind of hope they try.

   1. You know… in most jurisdictions, an incitement to violence is kinda of a “no no.”

      1. Another one of her tweets is a threat that if she catches anyone (“And I mean anyone”) CCW, she’ll give them a hot-lead enema. Again, I invite her to try.

         Seriously, how is this woman not on a domestic terrorism watch list yet?

         1. AAAAAAAAAAAaand the link is dead, because that Twitter account is GONE, baby!

         2. Considering that Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, is presently claiming to have been acting as an agent of the Taliban as his defense in his court martial but our own government is still claiming he is NOT a terrorist… who the hell knows!?

   2. Because that link is now dead, here’s the Twitchy record: http://twitchy.com/2013/06/01/take-em-out-concealed-carry-opponent-wants-law-abiding-gun-owners-shot/#.UaqsPyLkZcY.twitter

9. Actually, in Luke 22:35 and subsequent passages, Jesus orders His disciples – and by extension His followers – buy a weapon. The Aramaic Bible is a little closer to the spirit of the original Greek text, so the exact words may not be familiar. Quoting:

   “And He said to them, “When I sent you without a money bag and without wallet and shoes, did you lack anything? And they were saying to him, “Nothing!”

   He said to them, “From this hour, whoever has a money bag should take it and thus also a wallet, and whoever lacks a sword, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword for himself.”

   Few of us have six to eight hours a week to practice with a sword. The gun is an effective substitute. The Wine Maker of Cana would obviously approve.

   Stranger

   1. He had some words to say about doing things for the least of his brothers, no? The elderly, the infirm, the poor, and all those other types of people whom we talk about when we joke that “God made Man, but Samuel Colt made them equal?”

      I don’t care what your belief system is, if you believe in a higher power(s) that wants mankind to live in peace, gave man the intellect to invent tools, and encourages them to defend the weak from the evil… Well, then gun rights are human rights.

10. Quoting exact scripture references is totally sufficient. Jesus did so with Satan while tempted.

    I also think that an approach for the more Bible-shy is to simply look at the precepts of the Bible to see that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood and has punished it. Clearly, self-defense is consistent with Biblical principles to prevent this.

    Are you a total pacifist and disagree? You would have to say we had no moral basis for opposing the Nazis, Imperial Japan, communism and every other evil through the use of force for good. Not an easy thing to morally defend. Likewise, on a personal level, I can and should oppose evil and use violence if necessary for self-defense. The principles apply on the micro and macro scales.

Comments are closed.