• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    June 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Democrat Crybabies Walk Out of Speech About Guns, Continue Childish Track Record

Note: This post is from March 2018, but was inadvertently placed in draft rather than being published.

Democrats got up and walked out rather than face facts and truth about gun control being presented by Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas. This is a pattern of behavior for democrats stretching back years. Rather than stand like adults and engage in civil debate, and then cast their votes, these cowards take their ball and go home if they can’t get their way. To their credit, they do fight like crazed animals for what their base wants, and to gain/maintain power, unlike the spineless GOP who can’t pass up an opportunity to fold like a cheap lawn chair. But HOW democrats fight starts out as childish and immature, then moves to illegal, unethical, unconstitutional, un-American, and downright despicable. That’s just who the democrats are. Marxist socialists who believe that the end justifies the means, no matter how out of bounds those means are, and how despicable the end they seek.

Remember 2003 in Texas? The Republicans were about to pass a redistricting plan, and the democrats couldn’t come close to stopping it with votes, so what did they do? They ran away. LITERALLY. They LEFT THE STATE, fleeing to Oklahoma to prevent the legislature, which requires 100 of the 150 representatives be present, from doing any business.

How about 2011 in Wisconsin? The Republicans had a sure victory on a budget measure, so rather than just stay and vote their conscience, what did the democrats do? Again, they ran away like the cowards they are. Just like in Texas, they ran and hid like little children to prevent the legislature from doing what it was elected to do.

At about the same time, democrats in Indiana fled the state rather than cast their votes on anti-union legislation. Again, like cowardly children.

Since November 2016, you are seeing this behavior by democrats increasing, getting worse, and more irrational. The non-collusion collusion scandal that even democrats are beginning to admit is a joke, shutting down the government to benefit ILLEGAL aliens while throwing American CITIZENS whom they are sworn to serve under the bus, and the irrational, screeching response to another tragic school shooting. Not only is their demand for more gun control irrational, they lie about what their true intentions are. Democrats said repeatedly that they had no intention of banning our guns, right up until they introduced a bill to ban basically all semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Make no mistake, they care nothing about the children in the Broward County, FL high school, or any other school for that matter. EVERY time one of these tragedies happens, the bodies are still warm as the democrats begin using the tragedy to advance their POLITICAL agenda. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? They want full on gun confiscation but know they can’t get it in one fell swoop. They won’t stop incrementally working towards that goal, because until the populace no longer has the means to resist, they can’t cement the power they are so desperate to achieve. How desperate? Just look at their track record of outlandish, childish, illegal behavior, and ask that question again.



WATCH: Speech on Guns by Virginia Senate Candidate Causes Democrat Walk-Out, Goes Massively Viral Online

A Speech by Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas, the liberty-minded conservative who is challenging Senator Tim Kaine, discussing the importance of the Second Amendment has been viewed over five million times in the past 24 hours.
Friday’s speech by Freitas before the Virginia House of Delegates lead to many Democrats actually walking out and demanding a recess so that they could calm down because they were so outraged.

The Washington Post reports that after Democrats settled down, Del. Joseph Lindsey (D-Norfolk) told the House that “today, I have been offended as I can never recall since being a part of this body. And I have seen many of my colleagues emotionally shaken and bothered by either a lack of concern for facts or just simply playing to the cameras, I don’t know which.”

In the speech, Freitas discussed societal issues that may have lead to an uptick in mass shootings.

“So, over the last several days, Mr. Speaker, there’s been a lot of discussion about an open and honest debate with respect to school shootings, gun violence, gun control, etc…and an open and honest debate as I understand it, is one that would rely on data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etcetera, etcetera… and I’m certainly willing to have that deate,” Freitas began. “I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like: Why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun free zones? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what they’re intended intent is?”

Freitas brought up the fact that most mass shooters come from broken homes — and pointed out some of the government policies that have encouraged the breakdown of traditional families.

“We would start to look at…most of the shooters come from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at Left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural change that happened in the 60’s to include the abortion industry,” Freitas said. “You can look at a more conservative-leaning organizations that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children.”

The senate candidate also discussed how areas like Chicago, New York and Washington, DC have strict gun laws, and yet, the gun violence hasn’t stopped.

Freitas also laid into the Democrats for claiming they only want to get rid of bump stocks and impose background checks.

“If you’re wanting the other reason why we can’t have an honest debate about this one is because, quite frankly, I don’t think any of us, on this side of the aisle, believe you when you say that’s all you want to do. It will be bump stocks, it will be background checks, it will be a different kind of background checks that register the guns… Then, after that, it will be ‘We need to ban assault weapons.’ ‘What’s an assault weapon?’ ‘Something that looks scary,’” Freitas asserted. “Then after that it will be semi-automatic rifles, then it will be semi-automatic hand guns. Then it will be revolvers, shotguns… because when the policies fail to produce the results you were promising your constituents, you will be back with more reasons for why we’ve got to infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

Freitas point was that the Democrats refuse to consider other options to end societal violence that do not consist of “tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment.”

Freitas served with the 82nd Airborne Division and 25th Light Infantry Division as an Infantryman. Following the terror attack on September 11 2001, Nick volunteered for US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and eventually served 2 tours in Iraq as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant and Special Forces Intelligence Sergeant.

After being honorably discharged in 2009, Freitas became the Director of Operations for a disabled veteran owned company that provides direct support to our service men and women conducting counter insurgency and counter IED operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’ve proven both on the battlefield overseas and on the battlefield of ideas, I am willing to stand by what I believe in and fight for it,” Freitas previously told the Gateway Pundit.

More information about Freitas’ campaign can be found on his website, Facebook and Twitter. He is constantly updating his social media with videos and information about where he stands on specific issues.

Link to article:  http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/watch-speech-guns-virginia-senate-candidate-causes-democrat-walk-goes-massively-viral-online/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=thegatewaypundit.com&utm_term=68810&utm_content=1
+
+

Advertisements

National “Buy a Gun Day”: How We Counter the Movement to Destroy the 2nd Amendment

Perhaps you’ve been watching the marches calling for gun control and confiscation, the leftist politicians calling for gun control and confiscation, and been watching the Republican politicians cowering in fear instead of standing up for our rights.  Many conservatives say that we should be countering the leftist protests with protests of our own.  Sadly, that will likely never happen, mostly because most conservative defenders of the 2nd Amendment have these things called “jobs,” and they must show up to work to pay the bills.

But I heard an idea that will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than ANY protest rally.

Think about how much it costs each protester to drive or fly to one of these protests.  Think about how much it costs in food and lodging for probably at least two nights and 3 days.  Add those amounts together, and how much do you think they spend?  Probably anywhere from $500 to $2,000.  Since we don’t have time to travel to these protests, I submit a more constructive way to spend that money.

BUY A GUN ON THE MONDAY BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

Whether you buy a shotgun, a small pistol, a bolt action rifle, or a high-end custom AR, BUY A GUN on the Monday before election day, Monday, November 5th

What kind of message do you think it will send to the linguine-spine politicians when MILLIONS of Americans literally crash the NICS system buying guns?  Do you think they will understand that we will not stand for them infringing on our rights?  I think it will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than anything a couple of Marxist teenagers can say.

Start saving up, and spread this to anyone you can.

“Scary” Guns vs. Abortion Tools

Rifles vs Abortion Tools

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.



I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/

+

 

Bret Stephens & Second Amendment – Fundamentally Wrong | National Review

Regardless of what the screeching progressive left tells you, you need to understand ONE thing about our 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment was NOT put in place because of hunting, and the argument that the founding fathers couldn’t foresee AR-15s and AK-47s and didn’t intend people to have military arms is a strawman because ALL weapons at the time were military weapons.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place primarily to serve as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Do I need to repeat that for you? Let it sink in for a moment.

The British kept trying to confiscate colonists’ weapons so they couldn’t resist the king. A defenseless populace could not resist the oppression of the government. After winning the war, the founders were determined NEVER to allow that to be the case in America again, which is why they codified their hard-earned knowledge in the 2nd Amendment.

So, as politicians begin talking about gun control again, limiting your rights to keep and bear arms, and as the democrats are now finally OPENLY discussing confiscating your weapons, you are seeing the 21st century manifestation of the King of England and the British Parliament here on American shores.

The only difference between the 1700s and now is that the oppressors are on THIS side of the ocean.



Bret Stephens is fundamentally wrong about gun rights …

Source: Bret Stephens & Second Amendment – Fundamentally Wrong | National Review

Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you need to roll over and let someone kill you.  You have a right, and a responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

“To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.”

+



Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because we’re good people doesn’t mean we won’t kill you – Rick Grimes

Right. So, maybe a Biblical defense for self-defense shouldn’t begin with quotation from the protagonist in a televised Zombie apocalypse set in the dystopian near-future. But, when I heard Rick say that, it was real. There’s no room for pretense when zombies are kicking down the doors to your rickety old barn.

We may not have zombies kicking down our barn doors, but like Rick Grimes, we live in a world where pretense will get you killed. Normalcy bias will get your killed. Pacifism will get you killed. Your pretty little philosophies and pontifications will get you killed. We live in a world of bad guys, albeit they’re not the walking dead. But, they are dangerous. And frankly, it’s time Christian leaders recognize that danger and stop being such metrosexual nancies without a modicum of moral clarity when dogmatizing our followers on the WWJD of martyrdom. In short, Christians leaders need to look less like Reverend Lovejoy and more like the Machine Gun Preacher. What you may not realize while locked away in your pastor’s study is that our world looks more like Rick Grimes’ than Homer Simpson’s. Sometimes, people need a good killing.

What I need you to do, if you’re to stomach the rest of this article, is take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Stop tasting the rainbow, put down the Rachel Held Evans book, and gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on the actual Christ, the one whose feet were caked with mud and muck and suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws and in need of protection (Luke 22:36). Yes, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in ancient divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a Bible-long systematic theology of martyrology and self-defense.

As much as Jesus Seminar liberals would like to limit the teachings of Christ to his three-year ministry chronicled in the Gospel accounts, the reality for orthodox Christians is that every word of the Bible should be colored in Red. Being Trinitarians, we believe in a Triune God consisting of three Persons making up the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, KJV). The Persons of the Trinity, consisting of and being in themselves God, are at perfect unity and harmony together (Isaiah 61:1-2). Each one performs and acts according to the same will (John 6:38). In short, the words of God the Father, who inspired the Sacred Texts through God the Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), is indeed the will and word of God the Son (John 1:1,14).

What this means is that to understand the teachings of God the Son, without juxtaposing his teaching with the teachings of God the Father, requires a systematic teaching on the subject of martyrology and self-defense throughout the entire canon of Scripture.

While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’d dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.

A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 82:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.

Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.

To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.

David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). The limp-wristed effiminazi Intelligentsia calling for the disarmament of Christians today are a far cry from the man who was after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.

Furthermore, we must understand that Christ’s martyrdom is wholly unlike our own. Christ’s death was a sacrifice, and offering it up bought the souls of men. Our life cannot be given in the same manner of Christ (for we neither lay it down nor pick it up of our own accord), and neither does it propitiate for any sins. Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.

That a martyr may resist, does not make him less of a martyr. That a man doesn’t resist when his family is in peril, does make him less of a man.

In light of the shooting at UCC, I call on all Christian leaders to stop the liberal pontificating on how guns caused this problem and call them to consider on why a lack of guns (along with a murderous, depraved heart as the root issue) caused this problem. Christ has called us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and if you are unprepared to defend your neighbor due to dainty sensibilities or the irrational fear of using a firearm, I’d suggest you do not love your neighbors as much as you ought.

jdsig-1024x284

+
Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/10/02/why-some-people-need-a-good-killing-a-biblical-defense-for-self-defense/


Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.

+



A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/
+


%d bloggers like this: