Self-defense, the Bible, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

In our Bill of Rights, the Constitution definitely says that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms not only to defend our state and our nation, but for self-defense and other legal uses such as securing food and for sport.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld these rights.  But what about the Bible?  Should Christians be keeping and bearing arms?  According to Albin Sadar at the American Thinker in an article entitled Do the Bible and Our Constitution Agree That We Have a "Right to Bear Arms"?, the answer is: Yes.

Sadar is writing about a new book by John Zmirak entitled No Second Amendment, No First. As Sadar notes:

Like clockwork, every time there is a shooting, the cry rises up from the left that we need gun control. This demand occurs whether it’s a tragic school shooting or a couple of failed assassination attempts on their least favorite presidential person in the whole wide world.

The logic of a gun-free zone from coast to coast seems to suggest that without any firearms, school shootings and feisty ex-presidents would never be targets. Apparently, it is the very existence of the weapon itself that lures a person to wield it for nefarious purposes.

I grew up hearing the Right’s counterpoint to this logic, summed up in one particular mantra:

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

However, when I used this gun-grab argument twenty years ago on a liberal relative of mine, he flipped the logic on me. He said, “Well, yes, of course. That means anyone possessing a firearm would then be considered a criminal—whether they are an actual criminal or just an ordinary citizen—both would be equally guilty.”

My relative was right. He was also ahead of his time.

There is a lot to unpack in these first few paragraphs. The first thing is that the gun-grabbers raise the cry because they think that emotions will win the day. They do not care about the daily occurrences of shootings in the neighborhoods of Chicago, or the barrios of Los Angeles. These killings and shootings occur regularly in every major city in the United States, yet do not disturb our gun-grabbing friends in the least. The goal is not to stop the killing, the goal is to get the guns of the law abiding.

I would note that the God of creation is also the author of the natural law.  It therefore should surprise no one that self-defense is a natural right.  As for Christians who think it is somehow Unchristian to bear arms, please remember that Jesus was true man and true God.  He said in John 8:58 "before Abraham was I AM.  What Christ is telling them, and us, is that He is the same God as the one in the burning bush.  The same as the God of creation.

The second point is that the Left is intent of repealing the natural law of self-defense. Already, in England, it is de facto illegal to defend yourself. People are treated like little children where the criminal attacker and the one defending himself get equally punished. The Left would like to bring that here, and apparently some Left-wing prosecutors are trying to do so. The solution to such is for juries to nullify such prosecutions. For if they succeed in repealing the natural right of self-defense, they can make you do anything.

Sadar's relative was confusing "mala in se" and "mala prohibita." Mala in se are crimes that are evil on their face. Murder for instance is a mala in se crime. Mala prohibita are crimes because they say they are. Banning an inanimate object because it can be used to murder people would fit the definition of mala prohibita. On that basis, even rocks CAN be used as murder weapons, so should they be banned?  Keep in mind that there are multiple legitimate uses for guns besides murder. But as you can see above, the Left is already chipping away at one of those legitimate reasons: self-defense.

Self-preservation is inherent in life itself, within every living creature, but foremost in human beings. In chapter after chapter, Zmirak points out how this simple fact of life—and of preserving life itself—eventually morphed from a proper, Biblical worldview to an anti-life, Progressive “hive mind.”

On a larger scale, Zmirak covers the historical patterns of how entire nations were able to enslave and control their populations, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Cuba to Cambodia to China to North Korea to many, many other countries. The pattern always began by disarming the citizens. Once the government had the guns, what they ordered was obeyed. Opposing speech would be censored—and lethally, when necessary.

...snip...

In one chapter, Zmirak sees the “Harmony of the Old Testament and the New” with this issue of proper defense. Within that “harmony Zmirak shows how many “progressive Christians” have accepted antithetical reasoning, including championing “[c]onfiscating citizens’ guns, rendering them completely dependent on Caesar for protection against violent crime and defenseless against any mob violence and possible future tyranny.”

My backlog of reading material is getting rather long. But I think I need to prioritize this one as sooner than some of the others on the list. Meanwhile, may I urge gentle readers to read Sadar's article at the American Thinker.

The Great Bush Betrayal

 A must-read at the American Thinker today is J. B. Shurk's article Dick Cheney Loves KamaLOL. I urge gentle readers to read the entire article. Those who love snark will find it aplenty. But it is the concluding paragraphs that have moved me to comment. These tell the real story.

So many patriotic Republicans went to war because George Bush and Dick Cheney told them that they were fighting evil and preserving freedom. They left their families to spend years in Afghanistan and Iraq. They sacrificed everything. Then battle turned into occupation. A Global War on Terrorism became an amorphous struggle against undefined “extremism.” At home, we got the TSA, DHS, the PATRIOT Act, and mass surveillance. By the time Barack Obama and Eric Holder retooled all of these unconstitutional abrogations of Americans’ rights into weapons for persecuting ordinary Americans for their beliefs, it was clear that a new kind of evil was destroying freedom. As Sundance over at The Conservative Treehouse once said, we should have never agreed to take off our shoes at the airport. It was all downhill from there.

Remarkably, the very patriots who reacted to 9/11 by volunteering to defend their country have become the principal targets of today’s national security surveillance state. And while the Deep State censors, harasses, and demonizes those who have given so much for their nation, George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen to remain silent. They have turned their backs on those who had theirs. A quarter of a century after the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor, our former Republican leaders endorse outright communists.

This kind of repugnant betrayal is why so many Americans adamantly support President Trump and why MAGA will never, ever go away.

I think all too many Republicans feel betrayed by the Bushes. Yes, Dubya seemed to be better than Al Gore, and better than John Kerry, but really, was he? The betrayal of all conservative principles by W was just too much. If the Never-Trump people want to know from whence the MAGA movement came, it came about because the Republican party repudiated the Reagan movement and joined forces with the Democrats. Today, the Democrats (read Communists and Fascists) are desperately trying to steal the Republic while the MAGA movement desparately tries to pull the Republic from dropping off a cliff.

All Religions Are a Pathway to God

 I mentioned several days ago that with the latest off the cuff pontification from Pope Francis, I wondered whether he even believed in Christ.  Today at the American Thinker Eric Utter brings up the same incident in a post entitled Pope Francis implies all religions are equivalent.

The preposterously progressive pontiff said, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God. There are different languages to arrive at God, but God is God for all. And how is God God for all? We are all sons and daughters of God. But my god is more important than your god, is that true?” He added, “There is only one God and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, they are different paths.” Huh?

Is the Hindu god Brahma the same as Sikhism’s Waheguru, and Islam’s Allah? What about Buddhism, which doesn’t really have a God? Are all these gods, and the non-god truly somehow the same? Is Christianity really no better than frisbeetarianism? Are Rastafarians truly on par with Jewish people? Should we take the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as seriously as we take, say, Islam? Is Raelism simply a “different path” to the same God? The Church of Maradona worships soccer star Diego Maradona as if he were a god. This is obviously a different path to a different god. Should it be held in precisely the same regard and esteem as the mainline religions? Is a religion promising men the reward of 72 servile virgins in paradise for "martyring" themselves against innocent people no different than one that does not?

While our illustrious pope is galivanting all over the world promoting religions other than the one he supposedly leads, bishops and priests of the Roman church are still bitter that Martin Luther left the church and created a schism. Except Martin Luther didn't leave; he was excommunicated. He was kicked out of the church because the then pope didn't want to give up unbiblical practices such as granting indulgences for money. Rome created the schism, and Rome has yet to heal it.

One wonders, does the pope think being Lutheran is a pathway to God?

We Are Not in a Cultural War but a Spiritual War

 I have thought for some time that we, on the Constitutional side, has been in a spiritual war, but a spiritual war usually involves fighting the devil.  It involves casting out demons.  But Anthony J. DeBlasi has an article today at the American Thinker entitled The War With No Name that paints a picture of our current fight to stop the fascist far left in this country as a spiritual war. Thinking about it, I have to agree.

I have said on several occasions here that one cannot be a Christian and also be a Marxist which also means fascist, Communist, Progressive, socialist or any of their foot soldiers such as BLM or ANTIFA. These people are aggressive in imposing their views on everyone.  They are intolerant while requiring it of us.  They have slowly turned several generations of children from God and towards their atheistic secular worldview.

But in truth, nobody is an atheist. Either you worship the LORD, or you worship some idol. Those seeking wealth and power are worshipping the Baals, while those shouting their abortions and sexual perversions are worshipping Ashtaroth and Molock.  These are all the deliberately offended we call "woke."

DeBlasi's money quote is here:

I’ll continue by asking, what is it that could make a U.S. government official regard Christians as a threat to America? The idea occurs to me that anyone who thinks that way is behaving as though he/she has been drugged somehow. A silly a notion?

...snip...

Returning to the importance of Christianity in America, it is now beyond guessing that this country’s domestic enemies have made Christianity a target of annihilation. They don’t regard Christianity as just another dismissible “cult” but as an intolerable block to the transformation of America into an authoritarian state, which it cannot be as constituted.

...snip...

Karl Marx famously claimed that religion is “the opium of the people.” Was he perhaps overlooking an “opiate” of his own to win the hearts and minds of the people? I’m pointing to the promise of equal shares of the products of labor for everyone. That this total equity is unattainable is proved by the fact that it has never worked where implemented – worked for the people, I mean. Their end of the bargain turns out to be subsistence at best, more likely some form of misery. In practice, the carrot dangled in front of the people for accepting total equity is a sugar-coated lie, effective as any drug.

Moving to a bottom line, the bad news is that dictatorship in America has been steadily advancing and accelerating since Barack Obama took office. Who hasn’t noticed? The woke, most likely. The good news is that the complicit leftist media has gotten its comeuppance since Trump took office, and fewer and fewer people are buying its lies.

I think I’ve said enough to validate the growing belief that we are in a global war without troops, physical weapons, locations, and political strategies – a fight for hearts and minds that can rightly be called a spiritual war.

DeBlasi has put his finger on what we are really facing here. St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Gentle readers should go to DeBlasi's article and meditate on it.

Harris Wants to Send Law Enforcement To Your Door

 Harris has been saying that she too is a gun owner, just like you.  Except, if she is, she has some pretty odd ways of proving it.  For example, according to Olivia Murray at the American Thinker Old footage reveals that Kamala Harris intends to barge into our homes to see how we store our firearms.

Kamala Harris brings a whole new energy to the nanny state, further evidenced by a damning new video making the rounds on social media which shows a younger Harris standing next to Gavin Newsom, announcing that even if someone is in “legal” possession of a firearm (and yes, she used air quotes around “legal”) in the “sanctity” of their own locked home, it doesn’t mean Big Brother’s evil next-of-kin Momala won’t be showing up unannounced to conduct surprise warrantless searches (and maybe some seizures!) if she finds that we’re not being “responsible” or “safe” in the way we exercise our right to self defense in the context of keeping and bearing arms.

And Murray has the receipts. You can watch Harris say exactly that at the embedded post. Further, this is not just a 2nd Amendment issue, as Murray lists a series of other rights that can be violated similarly. The idea being proposed is dangerous to all our rights. We already have a surveilance state, and this dials the surveilance up to 11.

Just because you “legally” possess the deed to your home, doesn’t mean we won’t be barging in to make sure you’re not using a gas stove or an incandescent light bulb—that would be irresponsible.

Just because you “legally” have the title to your car, doesn’t mean we won’t be making sure it’s an E.V. and not a combustion engine—the $cience is settled and everyone knows “fossil fuels” are not a “responsible” source of energy.

Just because you “legally” have a right to practice your Christian faith, doesn’t mean we won’t be paying y’all a visit in church to make sure you’re not engaging in “hate speech” or encouraging racist values like traditional marriage, a hierarchy between the sexes, personal responsibility, God’s government is the only legitimate one with real authority, and being fruitful and having lots of babies—this is very threatening to the progressive LGBTQers, and doesn’t make them feel very “safe.”

Just because that’s “legally” your money in the bank, doesn’t mean we won’t be surveilling you to make sure you’re not purchasing anything you shouldn’t be like ammunition, too much red meat, homeschool materials—again, irresponsible. (Of course this is debatable since these Federal Reserve notes do in fact belong to the Federal Reserve private bank, but you get the point.)

Please read Murray's post. You won't find this in the mainstream press. You're welcome!

Update: At Townhall.com Katie Pavlich has a piece on the same topice entitled Kamala's Latest Stomach Churning Fakery, in which she casts doubt that Harris is a gun owner.

Merrick Garland's Brand of (In)Justice Must Go

John Nantz at Townhall.com has an insightful piece entitled Selective Justice and the Trump Assassination Attempt: Garland's DOJ in Crisis. Nantz's central point is that either Merrick Garland is an arrogant liar, or he is incompetently and unbelievably naive. In either case, the man at the top of the Department of (in)Justice has no business being there.

Last Thursday Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland delivered an address to the workforce titled “An Independent Justice Department.” The speech drew howls of derision from the right, and for good reason.

In a completely unaware manner, Garland stated emphatically that his Department of Justice (DOJ) operates based on norms that “treat like cases alike.” He pronounced “there is not one rule for friends and another for foes…one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans…” All of red state America waited for the laugh track to queue, but it never did. Garland made these shocking statements with complete conviction. The degree of self-deception or outright arrogance is breathtaking in this bureaucratic screed.

Nantz reminds us, as if we need reminding, of the many examples of the DOJ's many instances of unbalanced law enforcement and lawfare. They would essentially excuse one favored defendant while throwing the book at another disfavored one. The FBI targeted individuals and groups based upon their political leanings, with conservatives and Christians getting the lion's share of FBI scrutiny.

Nor will anyone forget the events that developed on Capitol Hill during the grey afternoon of January 6, 2021 (J6th). Certainly, no one can forget how Democrats have caterwauled about the protest gone awry. J6th has been compared to the Civil War by Kamala Harris, and as the greatest threat to liberty since Adolph Hitler’s march into Paris. While still on stage in front of the White House, Trump urged his constituents to move peaceably to the Capitol to peacefully protest the results of what many considered a stolen election. The vast majority of the people there that day did just that.

...snip...

Garland’s perverse brand of justice, with its partisan prosecutorial priorities, has led us to the brink of disaster as Trump narrowly escaped a second assassination attempt on Sunday. The law and order vacuum represented by Garland’s DOJ has emboldened the dangerous rhetoric which places Trump’s life in danger. By allowing reckless politicians to continue to incite violence without bringing the DOJ’s prosecutorial resources to bear on a clear violation of federal law, Garland provides tacit approval, and shares in the responsibility for enabling criminally disturbed individuals to carry out their murderous plans.

The DOJ and FBI are broken institutions. However, as Attorney General Harlan Stone proved in the 1920’s, both institutions can be reformed by powerful leaders with mandates to root out the multitudinous elements of corruption which have come to plague once great bulwarks of civil liberty. It can be done. It must be done. And, Trump is the man for the job.

I urge gentle readers to again read the whole article and consider just who you want running the nation at this time.

Does Pope Francis Even Believe in Christ?

 Before I begin, let me note for those new here that I am not Roman Catholic.  I am actually a confessing Lutheran, though Luther actually wanted churches not to be called by his name, but to call them Evangelical Catholic.  I also want to distance myself from those in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because these days one doesn't know which god one may encounter there.  Also, I should note that if anyone reading this is stuck in an ELCA church because they think they can change it from inside, realize that your synod has been hijacked by Lucifer.  You cannot change it at this point.  All you can do is run to your nearest Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) for your salvation and sanity.

So, the current occupant of the see of Rome, Pope Francis, in a recent trip to Singapore, declared that all religions are paths to God.  This directly contradicts Jesus, who said in John 14, verse 6:

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Jesus here makes an exclusive claim that no one can join with others in heaven unless in this life they are baptized and believe. The Christian church has proclaimed this fundamental teaching for 2100 years.  Many Catholic news sources and podcasters immediately broadcast the news and the outrage.  It hasn't made much of a dent in the mainstream media, though that may be because of the presidential election issues.  

 I have asked on many occasions since Pope Francis was elected to be Bishop of Rome, "Is the pope Catholic?" Now I have to also ask, "Is the pope even Christian?" Or is he leading Roman Catholics into what has often been predicted as a One World Religion to go along with the One World Government?"  Does the Pope believe the teachings of the Church or not?  If not, shouldn't he resign?

I clearly have no special insight into the heart of Pope Francis, nor any special knowledge of the inner workings of the Vatican. But to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I suggest you consider running to the nearest LCMS church near you to receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.