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/
+


Advertisements

DOJ internal memo confirms Obama plan for gun confiscation

Those of us who know who Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro really is are not surprised at all that he and his ilk of power-hungry tyrants ultimately want to confiscate our guns. He is repeating a historic pattern where tyrants come to power with sweet words and lofty promises, but quickly show their true colors by taking liberty, wealth, and hope from their subjects as quickly as circumstances allow. If Obama and the regressives could have taken our guns before now, make no mistake, they would have. They will not stop in their quest to take our guns, remove our liberty, and turn US into subjects unless and until we defeat them and eliminate that possibility.

Every American CITIZEN who understands what that word truly means has the DUTY to arm themselves, and be prepared to defend his or her Constitutional and God-given RIGHTS against those who seek to take them from us. It is my sincere hope that we never have to rise against our own government with force to preserve our own liberty, but our founding fathers knew that if we as citizens didn’t do our duty to keep our government in check, that we would indeed have to do so at some point. The best way to prevent that eventuality is to make sure that a power-hungry government knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we the people will indeed overthrow them should they stray from the Constitutional reservation that created said government. The problem is that we have allowed our government to grow to a size and level of power where they now doubt we will do anything about it.

We must arm ourselves while we still can. You must be prepared not only to defend yourself and your home, but your neighbors and their homes as well. Standing alone we offer no obstacle to a large, unrestrained government with designs on total power. We MUST stand united.
+



DOJ internal memo confirms Obama plan for gun confiscation

November 21, 2013

An internal memo within the Department of Justice (DOJ) has surfaced which confirms that the Obama administration had plans for gun registration and confiscation in the aftermath of the Newtown school shooting.

According to Bob Owens, the NRA obtained the memo in February. But apparently there were questions as to the veracity of the information. Owens says that the existence of the memo, and its outline of a plan for gun registration and confiscation, can now be confirmed.

The document, which can be viewed here, was not released to the public via the news media.

Owens cites an analysis of the memo, including direct quotes from the document, which exposes the Obama administration’s real agenda on guns:

The DOJ memo states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.

Thus, despite the many denials by Obama, by members of his administration, and by Congressional Democrats, once again it has become clear that the administration’s true agenda is very different from that which is presented to the public.

The goal is and always has been gun registration and confiscation.

The Examiner has often reported the Obama agenda on guns, which can be traced all the way back to his years in the Illinois legislature. He was considered among the most aggressive anti-gun advocates in Illinois.

Obama voted to criminalize any homeowner who used an illegal firearm to defend himself and/or his family in the event of a home invasion by dangerous criminals.

The philosophy that underlies such a point of view is clear. To Obama it is more important that a gun be “legal” than for human lives to be saved. This stance portrays a shocking disregard for the sanctity of human life.

Thus, many conservatives warned as far back as 2007 that an Obama candidacy for the presidency would be a very dangerous turn for America. Obama would never tell the public just how radical he is. To do so would end his political career.

This is why Obama denied repeatedly that he had been close friends with murderous homegrown terrorists such as Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. The couple bombed federal buildings, encouraged teenagers to murder their parents, and were arrested for the murder of a police officer but were released on a technicality.

It turns out that Ayers launched Obama’s political career in his living room — all confirmed as fact. Birds of a feather. And the Obama agenda reflects it.

But like so many other components of the Obama agenda, the public only finds out the real truth once the program is actually implemented. It is only then that it becomes clear that the emperor has no clothes. Only then it is too late.

Fortunately for the populace, enough conservatives, libertarians, and other freedom-loving citizens were on to the Obama gun ban agenda long before it became an issue. Nationally his agenda was thus thwarted. But astute citizens are certain that this is not the end of it.

The forces of tyranny never give up.

Link to article:  http://www.examiner.com/article/doj-internal-memo-confirms-obama-plan-for-gun-confiscation

+


Civil war battle lines being drawn as Magpul, Colt, Beretta and other gun manufacturers relocate to pro-Constitution states

Red states, SECEDE.  The only thing that will change the minds of the liberals in America is the pain of reality that comes from their poor decisions.  If we allow ourselves to continue to be forced to subsidize those poor decisions, they will never learn.  If forced to fend for themselves without conservatives to leech from, their ideology will collapse under its own weight.  The country is now so thoroughly and clearly ideologically divided, there is no saving it in it’s current form.  There will either be oppression, secession, or revolution.  We are too far gone for anything else.
+


gun

Civil war battle lines being drawn as Magpul, Colt, Beretta and other gun manufacturers relocate to pro-Constitution states

Saturday, April 13, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
+

(NaturalNews) A civil war looks likely to break out in America, and it will pit gun rights advocates (people who love liberty) against gun control zealots (people who hate freedom and love tyranny). The battle lines are being drawn right now as gun manufacturers are leaving anti-Constitution states like Connecticut and Colorado and relocating to pro-Constitution states like Texas and Arizona.

Why does this matter? Because in effect, the anti-Constitution states are disarming themselves by expatriating weapons manufacturers. Thus, they are eliminating their own weapons infrastructure and leaving themselves relatively defenseless should a civil war occur.

States like Texas and Wyoming, where gun manufacturers are increasingly moving and setting up shop, are simultaneously building up a massive arms infrastructure that may ultimately spell the difference between victory and defeat in a civil war.

This is the tragic truth of the current anti-America, anti-Constitution, criminal government takeover happening in multiple states across our Republic right now: those who hate liberty are disarming themselves.

Colt moving to Texas, others likely to follow

If the majority of people in states like New York, Connecticut and Colorado wish to be disarmed slaves living as subjects to a tyrannical government, then they are also going to see more gun owners leaving those states and seeking new lives in gun-friendly states like Texas, Montana, Arizona and Idaho. I can tell you firsthand that here in Texas, we shoot big, heavy firearms on the weekend (.50 BMG), and if the local sheriff shows up, it’s only because they want some trigger time, too! (You gotta pick the right county, though. Stay away from Travis County at all costs…)

Because Texas is a state that upholds the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, Texas is already attracting both gun manufacturers and gun-friendly citizens who are relocating there. For example, firearms maker Colt is leaving Connecticut and moving to Texas, bringing valuable skills, hardware, manufacturing equipment and jobs to Texas.

Magpul industries, makers of 30-round rifle magazines, also says it’s leaving Colorado and looking for a destination more aligned with the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Such moves are not only valuable for the Texas economy; it also means that once the Civil War is unleashed in America and the collectivist anti-American, anti-Constitution leftist gun grabbers try to force national disarmament at gunpoint, states like Texas will be cranking out Colt rifles and putting them into the hands of freedom fighters who will send as much lead down range as is necessary to reinforce the point that the Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

Texas also controls much of the national energy supply

If leftists living in treasonous states try to push their criminal agenda onto the entire nation, let ’em figure out how to live without energy, too. Texas not only has the guns, you see… it’s also got the energy. Over one-third of America’s oil and natural gas flows through Texas-based refineries and ports. Any attempt to mess with Texas means the rest of the country won’t get its energy needs met.

Texas can defend its resources with — guess what? — citizens armed with rifles made in Texas, loaded with high-capacity magazines made in Texas, shooting bullets loaded in Texas in full alignment with the Bill of Rights that’s defended in Texas.

That’s why every time another criminal state government (like that of Connecticut) passes another unconstitutional law stripping its own citizens of the right to own firearms, I cheer when the gun manufacturers in that state announce they’re moving out. If Boulder, Colorado wants to fulfill its socialist dreams of total government tyranny, then we all welcome MagPul exiting Boulder and setting up shop in a pro-Constitution zone where the company’s many talents will be fully appreciated.

Traitorous states are disarming themselves

I love the idea that all these companies are moving out of wannabe communist cities like Boulder, or traitorous anti-Constitution states like Connecticut. Because in truth, we want the anti-Constitution states to have no weapons manufacturing infrastructure. It will make them easier to defeat in a military campaign designed to free the enslaved citizens living in those states from tyranny rule.

This fact is multiplied even further by the fact that many U.S. gun and ammo manufacturers are REFUSING to sell equipment to anti-Constitution governments, including the state government of Connecticut. The full list is posted at The Police Loophole.

It’s a huge list of weapons manufacturers and retailers, including Barrett, Midway USA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Larue Tactical, Rock River Arms, Bravo Company USA and more.

What this means is that if the traitorous, criminal federal government attempts to overrun the People with the 2 billion rounds of ammo DHS has been stockpiling, they’re going to find themselves outgunned and out-supplied by the private gun and ammo manufacturing and distribution industry which will absolutely NOT sell any equipment to the federal government.

By the way, private individuals are buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo each week, vastly out-pacing DHS stockpiling. On top of that, there’s also the fact that brain-dead DHS employees are too stupid to know how to use firearms effectively in the first place. If DHS hands all their stockpiled guns to TSA agents, for example, they’re far more likely to shoot off their own toes than wage anything resembling a tactical war. They would be almost instantly out-maneuvered and out-gunned by veterans, hunters, sheriff’s deputies and privately-trained citizens.

It is important to bring all collaborators to justice

It’s going to be hilarious seeing all the governors and state representatives of the traitorous anti-gun states trying to defend themselves against armed arrest squads when they have no weapons.

I’m just curious how all these traitorous lawmakers think they’re going to defend themselves against real justice once the shooting begins. Are they so delusional that they think nobody is recording their names and votes? To be on the record voting to destroy the Second Amendment is nothing less than treason. To cast such a vote in a nation founded on armed resistance to tyranny is nothing less than suicide.

Because the anti-Constitution criminals have disarmed themselves, the pro-Constitution justice teams will be able to march right in, arrest these traitors for sedition and round them up for a mass trial where they can join their fellow traitors from Colorado, New York and California (among other states).

For the purposes of law and justice, it will be very important to make sure that all those who have actively violated the Bill of Rights be arrested, charged and brought to trial for their crimes. Historically, the typical punishment for those found guilty of acts of treason against their own nation has been the death penalty (i.e. firing squad). Even further, those who have actively conspired to destroy America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights are, by the government’s own definition, “enemy combatants,” meaning they may be held and imprisoned under the rules of war.

It’s time we all began to understand that lawmakers who vote for unconstitutional gun control measures in America are, by definition, “enemy combatants” who are engaged in actual warfare against America. They have moved the nation far past the era of polite debate. These traitors now have put guns to all our heads, demanding we comply or be arrested. In New York and elsewhere, many innocent citizens have already been thrown in jail for the “crime” of exercising their constitutional rights. The war against liberty has begun, and the battle lines are being drawn as gun and ammo manufacturers relocate to states that choose to side with the Constitution rather than outright tyranny.

You would be wise to make a similar choice. If you are a person who believe in anything resembling liberty — owning a gun, growing your own food, homeschooling your children — you will be arrested and imprisoned during the civil war if you stay in the criminal anti-Constitution states.

On the other hand, those very same activities will be openly welcomed in pro-Constitution states that actually abide by the law of the land. And it is those states that will have the hardware advantage once the fighting starts.

For your convenience, here’s a list of criminal, traitorous anti-Constitution states vs. relatively pro-Constitution states: (some states are not listed because they do not neatly fit into either category)

List of criminally run, anti-Constitution states

Get OUT of these states if you value liberty!

California
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maryland
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Michigan
Colorado
Hawaii
Alabama

List of (relatively) pro-Constitution states

MOVE to these states if you value liberty!

Texas
Wyoming
Montana
Utah
Idaho
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Indiana
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
South Carolina
Florida
West Virginia
Vermont
New Hampshire
+


The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

I really find it amusing, and at the same time frustrating, when liberals try to deny a liberal media bias. They ignore the overwhelming pro-liberal/anti-conservative reporting from the mainstream media outlets, while continually whining about the lone conservative “mainstream” media outlet, that being Fox News. They act as if there were a thousand Fox News type outlets, and that the liberal outlets were the minority. Don’t you just love Alinsky tactics?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

December 10, 2011 by Warner Todd Huston

Examples of Liberal Media Bias

Let’s face it, liberal media bias has been around since there have been liberals to do the “reporting” of the news. But this fact should surprise no one. After all, the news media has always been filled with bias of one type or another. In fact, there was a time when American customers of the news knew exactly which newspapers sported which point of view. It was taken for granted that one newspaper supported one side and another newspaper a different side.

But in the late 1950s and early 1960s that all changed. Suddenly the folks in the news media began to present themselves as unbiased pursuers of “the truth.” Gone was the out-in-front bias and instead the media cloaked itself in a new air of detachment, a new just-the-facts mien.

This new era in media conceit coincided with the advent of a liberal mindset that took on the weight of the world, a new era in which liberals felt that their ideals rose above God, tradition and country.

Suddenly a journalist’s work was divorced from the trade in local news and became a profession increasingly assuming a national and ideological agenda, one fueled by journalism schools and professors that began to disgorge university trained “journalists” with a left-wing agenda. These people then went forth to replace the grizzled local reporters that were wedded to their local political culture. This new wave of “journalists” did not want to report what was going on in their local news as much as they wanted to “save the world.”

In pursuit of that left-wing national agenda — if not a leftist world agenda — “reporters” began to spin all news stories, from the most mundane stories to the hottest national news, toward a left-wing agenda. These “journalists” slipped in bias in every way they could to push the leftist’s meme.

For decades this left-wing agenda drove the coverage of the news. Then in the 1980s talk radio came and conservative talkers began to point out this obvious bias. Even so the bias continued unabated.

Only one thing has begun to turn the tide — or at least succeed in educating news consumers — against liberal media bias. Since the advent of the New Media, Internet forums, blogs, podcasts, and on-line news sources, what I call the Old Media has had a much tougher time getting away with the bias that has plagued its work since the 1960s.

But that won’t stop them from trying!

Certainly any list will be somewhat subjective, and some may quibble with what is and is not on the list. But following is, if not the top 50 examples of media bias, 50 egregious and well-known examples of it.

So, without further ado, and in no particular order except a loose historical timeline, here are some of the top 50 examples of liberal media bias.

1) Better Red Than Informed: Probably the single worst example of liberal media bias is the media’s steadfast refusal to accurately report the monstrous evils of the Soviet Union — even still to this day. It didn’t matter how many millions of Soviet citizens that Joseph Stalin and his successors murdered, it didn’t matter how evil the Soviet Union was, the liberal media was not going to report about it. The media even awarded itself a Pulitzer Prize through the lies of one Walter Duranty a New York Times columnist that was a shill for the murderous Soviet Union.

2). Castro’s Cheerleaders: The Soviets weren’t the only communists that America’s liberal media establishment has for years worked to shore up. Cuba’s Fidel Castro was also a communist dear to the hearts of the Old Media establishment. Never an unkind word for dear leader.

Continue reading

Piers Morgan OWNED

Piers Morgan OWNED

The typical liberal idiot, Piers Morgan, gets schooled in the 2nd Amendment.

Follow the Ideology

What is the big difference between Nixon’s Watergate scandal, and the Obama/Holder Fast & Furious scandal?

Nobody DIED in the Watergate scandal.  At least to US Border Patrol agents, hundreds of Mexicans, and an unknown number of Americans are DEAD because of the actions of Eric Holder at the direction of Barack Hussein Obama.

Impeachment, removal from office, prosecution, jail time.  Our nation is no longer serious about upholding the Constitution and the law unless we go after criminals regardless of WHO they are, what political party they are in, or what office they hold.

By letting this go unpunished, we are sending a message that the law only applies to SOME people, and only SOME people enjoy Constitutional freedoms and protections.  Lawlessness and anarchy can’t be far away if we don’t stop this foolishness NOW.

Bring your guns to Church

Updated 4/4/2012, 10:17, to correct formatting
Many Christians have been brainwashed and browbeaten into believing that they should not defend themselves when attacked or threatened by a criminal or other person who wishes them ill.  Many have also fallen for the lie that we shouldn’t own or carry a gun for self defense.  This could not be further from the truth.

Our founding fathers were much more well versed in the Bible than most who we call “Biblical scholars” today.  They considered this matter while while hammering out our Constitution, and there are very good reasons that we have our 2nd Amendment as a result.

As you read through the article, I encourage you to look up the scriptural references the author lists. 


http://americanvision.org/2342/%E2%80%9Cbring-your-pieces-to-church%E2%80%9D-sunday/

“Bring Your Pieces to Church” Sunday

Filed under American History, Articles, Featured {86 comments}

Imagine the following scenario: At church this Sunday, while reviewing the list of announcements and upcoming events for your church, your pastor added, “Oh, and don’t forget: on Sundays we have our regular target practice. Make sure to bring your rifles. Make sure to bring your pieces to church.”

Absurd, right? Not so. It used to be the American way. For example, a 1631 law in Virginia required citizens to own firearms, to engage in practice with them, and to do so publicly on holy days. It demanded that the people “bring their pieces to the church.” Somewhere along the line we have lost this mindset. Today the ideas of church and arms are assumed to be at odds, as if loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the preservation and defense of life and property.

But the idea of Christian society and an armed, skilled populace actually have deep historical roots. Alfred the Great codified the laws of England in the 9th Century, often resorting to biblical law in order to do so (where he departed from biblical law, the integrity of his famous law code is quite poor). Alfred applied the Deuteronomic laws of kings that forbad a standing army (Deut. 17), and as a result developed a national defense based on militia:

By the Saxon laws, every freeman of an age capable of bearing arms, and not incapacitated by any bodily infirmity, was in case of a foreign invasion, internal insurrection, or other emergency, obliged to join the army.…[1]

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: