Should Christians Carry Weapons?

I’ve heard some say that for a Christian to carry a gun is unbiblical and that Jesus would condemn it.

“Turn the other cheek”, they say. The actual verse itself in Matthew says “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

If someone were to walk up to me and slap me, I would be tempted to slap them back…but if I did, I believe I would be in disobedience to God.

However, a slap to the face is entirely different than a loaded gun or other lethal weapon being brandished against me or someone defenseless. Jesus did not say,”… whosever shall stab you with a sword, turn to him the other side also.”

I also hear from these same people that Jesus reprimanded Peter for drawing his sword in the garden of Gethsemane.

“And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Matthew 26:51-54

Read it again. Peter was not reprimanded because of what he did. He was reprimanded because of WHEN he did it. Mark does not even record the reprimand. In Luke’s account in chapter 22, he mentions that several of Jesus’s followers were armed. “When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?”
Jesus's reply, after Peter hastily cut of the ear of one of the high priest’s servants, was “Suffer ye thus far,” and then He healed the man’s ear. In other words, “Now is not the time.”

Jesus was in command. He said if He desired, His heavenly Father would supply legions of angels to protect Him. But this was not the time and place for Peter to defend, because Jesus was on a mission…and that mission was the cross.

Peter carried a sword with him everywhere he went…including the time he spent with Jesus over a period of about 3 years. Never once does Scripture record Jesus reprimanding Peter for carrying the sword. The other followers carried as well…and again – no reprimand from Jesus, Who is God Himself.

Should Christians carry weapons?

That sword by Peter’s side in today’s world would most likely be a 9mm.

Reason and Logic Lacking in Anti-gunners' Remarks

There is a letter to the editor in our local paper today from a young woman who is protesting the University's refusal to recognize a Students for Concealed Carry group on campus. Her letter is excellent, and her points are valid. As usual, the mass hysteria from the liberals is reflected in the comments section online.

I followed the comments for a while, then posted my own comment. At present, my challenge has remained unheeded.

The newspaper does not keep their links alive for a long period of time, so I've copied her letter below and my thus-far two comments.

The lead statement in Robbie Evans' news story Tuesday, "Faculty and student organizations at the University of Louisiana at Monroe do not want concealed weapons on campus," mistakenly gives readers the impression that everybody on campus is against House Bill 27.


However, the comments section of the online version of the story paints a very different picture. Unfortunately, students on campus are not being allowed to hear alternate opinions on this issue from existing ULM students who disagree with these resolutions.

Why not? Because the university administration will not allow a student group to form that is in support of HB 27.

My name is Cassey Bennett and I am the president of the ULM Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC.

Excuse me, I said "ULM" mistakenly. Our application to become a recognized student organization, having been approved by the assistant dean of student life and leadership, has yet to be approved by the vice president for Student Life and Leadership, despite meeting all of the requirements set out in the ULM Student Policy Manual (www.ulm.edu/studentpolicy).

That the administration disagrees with our group's mission seems to be the only reason for the denial of recognized status and there is no appeal from this decision. This is a violation of my and other students' First Amendment rights, regardless of what anybody believes about the Second Amendment.

As a result, our group is not allowed to post any fliers on campus, hold any meetings on campus or spread our group's message or even recruit new members from ULM.

What is our mission? We want to call people's attention to HB 27 and engage in scholarly debate with other members of the university community, educate our fellow students about their rights, and make our elected officials in Baton Rouge aware of our interests. Why the ULM administration would deny us this opportunity, while allowing all other 142 recognized student groups who meet the policy requirements to do whatever their missions are, is beyond me.

LSU and McNeese State University allowed a group to form on their campuses, along with lots of other colleges, many of which also do not allow concealed weapons on campus.

At least these schools recognize the First Amendment rights of their students.

Why won't ULM?

Clearly, they have their opinions and we have ours. It is currently illegal to carry a weapon on this campus, concealed or in plain view. We know this and nobody in our group has any plans to violate this law.

But to not even be allowed to become a recognized student organization and attempt to change the law solely because the administration disagrees with us? Are they implying that they agree with the mission of every other student organization?

Surely on a college campus, people who disagree should feel free to express their opinions through reasoned debate. In fact, we would love the opportunity to debate the administration, faculty, and other students about H.B. 27 and our reasons why we believe it would be a good law. After all, it is impossible to get a good education when students are only being presented one half of the story.


Cassey Bennett, a senior toxicology major, leads the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at ULM.

Ms Green's first comment, at around 8:00 am this morning:

I invite someone to give instances where unlicensed criminals have used a weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. You won't be able to list them all here in the 2000 characters maximum posting.

I now invite someone to give instances where law-abiding citizens with a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon have used that weapon to harm or kill innocents on school campuses, in churches, and in the general public. I'll wait...

Still waiting...

Ms. Green's follow up comment, a little before 1:00 pm today:

Almost 5 hours later...

Still waiting...

I have a feeling it's going to be a long wait.

More Deception and Lies from the Media

I recently warned about the media's deception about the effectiveness of gun control laws.

Well, once again, the media is lying to us. This did NOT happen.

The media is saying that a convicted felon, with a history of violent assault with a deadly weapon, killed two police officers and wounded a third –with an “assault weapon”.


This story did not happen. It can't happen. It won't happen.

Don't believe the media! California, like Illinois, has some of the strictest gun laws in the US:

An application for sale or transfer must be made with a licensed California gun dealer before any firearm may be sold or transferred.

The purchaser must present the dealer with a valid California Driver's License or a California I.D. Card and supply their thumbprint.

The CA DOJ will conduct a background check on each buyer at a fee.

There is a 10-day waiting period before delivery of any firearm.

It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient, ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm.

People with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10 years of the conviction.

It is unlawful to carry a loaded rifle, shotgun, or handgun in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated area or an area where firing a firearm is prohibited.

Gun laws KEEP THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING!

This story did not happen. These police officers are still alive and no one was injured, because CALIFORNIA has TOUGH GUN LAWS, just as ILLIONOIS has TOUGH GUN LAWS.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

The News Media is Lying about Pastor Fred Winters

The media is lying to us. Fox news, My AT&T, and the rest of them - they're all lying.

They are all saying that a Pastor Fred Winters, of First Baptist Church of Maryville Illinois, was shot in front of his congregation during the first morning service and he later died of those gunshot wounds.

This story did not happen. It can't happen. It won't happen.

Don't believe the media! Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the US:

In Illinois, it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon.

In Illinois,a buyer is required to show his mandatory Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition.

In Illinois,it is unlawful for any person to possess any firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another.

In Illinois, it is against the law to possess a firearm if within the past five years you have been a patient in a mental hospital.

In Illinois, It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about the person, except on one's land or one's fixed place of business.

In Illinois, It is unlawful to carry or possess any firearm on any public street or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village, or incorporated town

Gun laws KEEP THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING!

This story did not happen. This man is still alive and no one was injured, because ILLINOIS has TOUGH GUN LAWS.

2nd Amendment Thoughts

Some who know me have been suprised to hear my views on gun ownership. I am a female, a Christian, a conservative, a wife, a mother, and a grandmother- pretty much in that order too. If one were to cross paths with me out in public it is unlikely that one would suspect that I am an NRA supporter who loves to hunt and shoot. I do love to hunt and shooting is a lot of fun as well.

These are not the main reasons that I support personal gun ownership. I believe in personal responsibility, and being responsible for oneself means being able to defend oneself. One need only read the headlines on a few of the major Internet news sites or the cover of a major newspaper to see that criminals abound in our society and they don't follow the rules (thus the "criminal" label). Police are not hired to protect the citizenry. They are hired to apprehend and arrest criminals and turn them over to be prosecuted. Their presence sometimes deters criminals, but they can't be everywhere at once. So we should be willing, able, and skilled enough to protect ourselves. You can't often fight a criminal who has a gun by hitting or kicking him. It's also hard to hide from a criminal who is pointing a gun at you. Criminals are going to have weapons. No law will change that.
NO LAW WILL CHANGE THAT.

Guns are equalizers. Especially for women. Given that most women are not physically able to ward off an attack even if they have an opportunity to do so, having a weapon gives them a fighting chance to stop an attack.

Though Hollywood loves to film scenes of women screaming uncontrollably and running away from their assailants in high heels and hands waving, I prefer a different scenario. How about this. A criminal approaches a woman, intent on physically subduing her and sexually assaulting her, and the woman suddenly pulls out her concealed sub-compact 9mm semi-automatic and tells the guy "not this time, punk" and empties her 10 or 16 round magazine until he is no longer a threat.

I'd much rather be a survivor than a victim.




I believe law abiding citizens should be able to own whatever weapons they choose - as many as they choose, and the Second Amendment backs me up on this. Just as one has to pass a test to get a driver's license, I also believe one should pass a gun safety and training course to own a weapon. Some disagree with me on this, but guns and vehicles are both capable of killing people - so there should be some accountability.

I said earlier: Criminals are going to have weapons.
No law will change that.
NO LAW WILL CHANGE THAT.

Guns laws are idiocy.
Gun laws do not stop crime.
Gun laws are designed to control honest, law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

This brings me to the number one reason I support private gun ownership.

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.

Necessary to the security of a free State...

Without the Second Amendment, there is nothing the people can do to protect their other Constitutional Rights from a tyrannical government. Without the Second Amendment, the "free State" can quickly disintegrate.

So before you start critizing those of us who support and encourage private gun ownership, ask yourself this question. If the government comes after something that is yours or wants to force you to do something unconstitutional, or tell you how to raise your children, or where you can or cannot worship, or take your money and possessions and give them to someone else, what are you going to do without weapons? Will you be a survivor or a victim?

Wonder what criminals did today for Valentine’s day? Well, if they live in South Carolina, you can be absolutely sure that they participated in this.

Full story here.

I can hear the remarks now.

Dude, whatchya doin’? Don’t you remember we were planning on robbing the corner liquor store this evening? How are we gonna do it without a gun?

I know Bro, but it’s Valentine’s day, and if I turn in this 38, I’ll be able to get my baby mama a hundred dollar Best Buy card and a rose. Besides, you know its stolen – remember my cousin gave it to me. I still got my AK – they didn’t ask for those.

No kiddin’ dude.. Hey, I think I’ll turn in my brother’s 45 semi-automatic. I could use some new electronics man. Let’s go. It’s getting’ late and I don’t want to miss out on this.

The brilliant sheriff who set all this up was quoted as saying “"Bring that gun in, get that gift card, get that rose, but also know that you may be saving someone's life."

Can anyone say "alternate universe"?

The Second Amendment

I've seen this video before, but it's been years. Everyone who thinks gun control is a good idea needs to watch this. My thanks to Ex-preacher man for sending this to me - I'd forgotten about it.



The most important thing she said (and I'm paraphrasing) was that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting or recreational shooting. It's about protecting ourselves not only from criminals, but from a tyrannical government.

One Reason Terrorists chose Mubai India

Want to know one reason why terrorists chose Mumbai?

Here’s one reason: India’s extremist gun laws.

In order to own a gun you have prove a direct threat on your life. You then have to surrender it as soon as the threat is gone. You have to go to the police station once a month and offer your gun for inspection to the police. You have to show the bullets you have, and in case if you have fired any of them you have to show the casings and tell the police where you used them.
This is not just civilians. Even police officers who use their weapons have to collect their casings and include them in their report of where and why they fired their weapons.

In other words, India is an example of a society which has completely disarmed itself. Now its people are like sheep for the slaughter. The terrorists proved that.

And our President-elect wants more gun control.

Reference: Why India?

Sheriff Doesn't Think Citizens Should be able to Protect Themselves

Who wants to take a guess at whether we will see more or less of this in the next four years, as liberals become more confident and feel more empowered in pushing their personal agendas. I predict that the Constitution will become even more disdained and ridiculed as outdated and a “dead letter”, just as the Bible has been accused of being outdated and a “dead letter”.

For those who don’t want to read the whole article, here is Ms. Green’s synopsis.

In Orange County California, they have a new sheriff. Sandra Hutchens evidently doesn’t think private citizens should be able to defend themselves. There are 1100 citizens in Orange County who have passed all written and shooting requirements etc. to obtain a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon. These permits were issued by the previous sheriff of Orange County. Many of these citizens have recently received a letter from Hutchins stating that they must now justify keeping the permit they have or face having it revoked. There is the potential for dozens, or even hundreds of permit holders losing their permits for no good reason.

Not surprisingly, Hutchins is getting a lot of angry feedback. She was quoted as saying “There’s so much important stuff going on with the department, I didn’t expect there to be so much feedback on this.”

Important stuff? Having a way of defending oneself and one’s family from harm is not important? It’s ok for you to have that right, but not Mr. or Mrs. Average citizen?

What’s even more alarming is Hutchens’ new policy requiring applicants to prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.

Legitimate threat to their safety? Read the news lately? It’s pretty dangerous out there these days.

Statistics continue to prove that there is a direct correlation between the issuing of concealed carry permits and the reduction of violent crime.

I think it has been proven that liberals don’t act and react upon logic, but instead, upon emotion. There is nothing logical in Hutchins’ actions.

Thanks to my friend Herm for this one.

Obama and the 2nd Amendment

Want to know where Obama stands on the 2nd Amendment? Ask someone who has, in his own words, gone “nose to nose” with him.

Rich Pearson wrote this on October 14, 2008.

Rich has served in Illinois for the past 15 years as chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I need add nothing to this one. Rich says what needs to be said, and says it with authority.

Churches - Are They Safe from Violence?

I have a CCP (concealed carry permit). That means that I am legally certified to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection. I have taken multiple firearms and self protection courses throughout my life, have been an avid hunter and supporter of the 2nd Amendment. In my state, and in 30 other states, I can legally carry. There are exceptions. There are some places I am not allowed to carry. The local courthouse and areas around public schools are also off limits. However, there is also a clause that says I cannot carry in or around a church or church grounds.

I have been lobbying my State representatives to introduce legislation to change this. You see, I work for a ministry of a church, and although I don’t actually work in the church, I work on the church grounds in another building. During most days, there are only women present on the grounds. Some of these women are middle aged or older. The grounds keeper and janitorial staff are men, but are not always there. I can tell you that in my many years here, I’ve seen some pretty threatening people come through. Panhandlers looking for a handout, drugged out kids snooping around looking for trouble, others just seeing what is sitting around that could be ripped off easily.

In light of the last few years’ news around the country of people coming into churches and opening fire on people, or kidnapping or assaulting individuals on church grounds, I feel I am being discriminated against by the State because I cannot exercise the same right to carry during my day at work as I am allowed to exercise everywhere else I go. I think I’ve convinced one of my representatives that I have a legitimate concern, and she is looking into the subject in order to introduce legislation to change this exemption.

Why would protecting myself or others from harm be less important on church grounds than in the rest of the world I live in? Do lawmakers in my state think I’m safer in church than elsewhere?

6 Shot at New Life Church

Church, Police Probe 7 Murders

Police Seek Leads in Shooting at Church

Shooting Raises Church Security Questions

Mass Shooting at Church in Knoxville Tennessee


One Person Killed after Shooting outside Church


Fort Worth, Texas Gunman Linked to Fascist Group


Gunman Kills 7 and himself at Baptist Church


Faith Under Fire – Church shootings on rise in U.S.

The Church Office – A Security Threat

I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this.

Protect Yourself. Nobody Else Will.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day. He's a retired State Trooper and a gun dealer/trainer. He told me a young man in his twenties was riding through the downtown area of the city I live in recently and three bullets came through his vehicle, one lodging in his cheek. The bullets were 22 cal. and he's gonna be ok. But the city police basically said "what do you want us to do about it?".

One of the many reasons I have a CCP. You can't depend on law enforcement to help you out. If you want to be protected, you'd better learn to protect yourself. Most of the criminals on the street have already spent time and are back on the street to prey on the innocent once again. For one thing, in my city at least, the police don't get paid enough to risk their lives. Secondly, it's not really their job to protect the public. Their job is to arrest bad guys when they do bad things.

Flash ahead a few years...

What will happen if BHO does what most gun owners believe he will do - and that is start grabbing weapons from law-abiding citizens? Think that we'll be more safe than we are now? Think the bad guys will give up their guns? Think the police will be more willing to protect us?

Think again.

Guns Vilified

Now that Obama is going to be in power for a while, and the libs will have free reign, we’ll be seeing more and more vilification of guns.

I heard this ad on the radio today.




This ad is not about reducing crime. Notice that the focus is not on the crimes, but on the GUNS.

We’re going to be seeing and hearing more of this propaganda. The crime is not as important as the WEAPON. Honest law-abiding citizens will be seen as potential criminals – people to be afraid of.

As cliché as it sounds: Guns don’t kill people. Guns don’t commit crimes. Guns don’t commit suicide. Guns don’t rape, steal, or trespass.

First they take your guns. Then they take your rights.


Ad Council's Campaign Against Guns (er...crime)

Project Safe Neighborhoods

Risky Behavior

They call universities and colleges places of “higher learning”. Too bad that so many universities and colleges don’t know this.

Our local university has a student newspaper that I try very hard to avoid reading, but my nursing student son loves to plop it down at my place at the table, knowing I won’t be able to resist reading it, knowing that the lack of substance, the poor grammar and spelling, and warped ideology among its pages will raise my otherwise low blood pressure. He gets a kick of seeing mom turn red.

This month’s edition didn’t let him down.

Louisiana legislators are considering allowing individuals with concealed carry permits on campus. Up until now, even if one has a legal license to carry, it is illegal to carry on campus. Legislators have decided after the numerous shootings at universities around the country that maybe students would have a fighting chance of surviving a Seung-Hui Cho , a Peter Odighizuwa or a Robert Flores type attack if they were allowed the right to arm themselves.

So the local rag…er…newspaper sends out their “man on the street” to interview students and ask them what they think about the possibility of allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus. Of all the students interviewed, surprisingly they could only find one person who saw the logic in it. The rest had comments so naïve as to be laughable. I really did not make these up.

“Even the most level headed person can have a day when nothing goes right, and well…if they had a gun, that could turn out to be a bad thing.” [Yeah, every time I have a bad day, I want to kill somebody.]

“Let campus security handle it.” [Ha! This was the funniest remark]

“Guns are dangerous, and will give people excuses to kill people, and nobody should have that right.” [No kidding, somebody really said this.]

“Guns will just bring more violence toward the campus.” [My question was, where is the violence now and how will CCLs move it towards the campus?]

After shaking my head and lamenting the next generation’s surrender to liberal ideology, I skipped over a few pages to find an article entitled “Trojan Evolution Tour Hits Campus”. Seems the makers of Trojan condoms were on campus this past week promoting their products under the guise of a “Safe Sex” campaign. They had booths set up around campus displaying their products, had “condom relay races”, “put the condom on the banana” contests, free Trojan t-shirts, etc. A full page of the paper was devoted to the fun and festivities in honor of the wonders of latex. Students who were interviewed all gushed with glee and felt this was a needed event on the campus since everybody is having sex.

Now, I ask you this. Which is the more risky behavior?

1. Allow an adult age 21 or older, who has been thoroughly screened, had background checks done on them, been required to pass both written and hands-on testing on gun safety ,handling, and firing, to responsibly carry a weapon on his or her person for the express purpose of self defense.

Or

2. Encourage students as young as 17 to go ahead and experiment with their sexuality in a town and on a campus rampant with STDs and tell them it’s ok if you use a condom.

I’d like to see someone compare the ratio of condom failure to the ratio of people with CCLs who use their guns illegally or in an improper way. I can tell you there is no question as to which of the two behaviors listed above is the more risky and irresponsible. Is this so hard to see?