does GOD believe in the 2nd amendment?

[45calibre]

how would god look at us for carrying weapons? in the event that we have to use them to protect our own lives and we must take another how would that look in his eyes?

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Commandment has been mistranslated. It was "Thou shalt not murder." Killing in self defense or in defense of family is not murder. I think He gave the criminals free will and they chose badly. If it kills them, that was the risk they took.

YMMV

Blessings,
B

 

[repair]

The Commandment has been mistranslated. It was "Thou shalt not murder." Killing in self defense or in defense of family is not murder. I think He gave the criminals free will and they chose badly. If it kills them, that was the risk they took.

YMMV

Blessings,
B

My thoughts exactly

 

[45calibre]

this question has bothered me some, but i never really ventured for an explanation.

and whats YMMV mean?

 

[96harley]

I tried to find the passage where Christ told someone who had two cloaks to sell one and buy a sword but couldn't locate it. It's in one of the four gospels.

Peter carried a sword, in the presence of Christ and when the Jewish religious leaders came after Jesus in the garden Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the high priest's guards.

The sword was the M16 of it's day much like the brown bess was the M16 of our founding father's arsenal.

 

[Scutter01]

and whats YMMV mean?

"Your Mileage May Vary"

 

[NateIU10]

It is our inalienable, God given right to protect ourselves.

 

[jeremy]

AMEN, Brother Nate of the Brass and Copper cathedral!

 

[Pami]

I tried to find the passage where Christ told someone who had two cloaks to sell one and buy a sword but couldn't locate it. It's in one of the four gospels.

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword?

That whole page is actually rather interesting and addresses this question specifically. It reads very anti-violence, but sums up with the idea that violence in self-defense is sometimes necessary.

 

[ChrisK]

My pastor answered this question with one word --- YES ---

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, it was meant as a act of defiance. The romans could slap you across the cheek so Jesus basically said let them slap the other one too. It was not meant to say be a pacifist and not defend yourself.

 

[indyjoe]

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Two swords. So apparently you want a primary and a backup.

 

[Benny]

The Commandment has been mistranslated. It was "Thou shalt not murder." Killing in self defense or in defense of family is not murder. I think He gave the criminals free will and they chose badly. If it kills them, that was the risk they took.

YMMV

Blessings,
B

This.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I tried to find the passage where Christ told someone who had two cloaks to sell one and buy a sword but couldn't locate it.

When I first read this I thought it said "two glocks to sell one ".
Maybe I spend too much time here.
I agree with Bill of Rights

 

[Joe Williams]

When Jesus sent his disciples forth to minister, He ordered his disciples to sell their cloaks to buy swords if they didn't already have one. The purpose being to defend themselves against thieves and highwaymen.

Jesus was, and is, incapable of ordering an immoral action. If he felt self defense was a right for his disciples then, I cannot see why it would be immoral, or less of a right, for us today.

Edit: All of which I see others have already addressed.

 

[Dogman]

Two swords. So apparently you want a primary and a backup.

Well maybe not two swords, 1 sword and 1 smaller dagger as a backup.

 

[AFA1CY]

Nehemiah and the Israelites rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem:

Nehemiah 4:17 (King James Version)
They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.

 

[melensdad]

Peter carried a sword, in the presence of Christ and when the Jewish religious leaders came after Jesus in the garden Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the high priest's guards.

It should also be noted that Jesus admonished Peter for his actions.

Using this Bible passage as justification for lawful carrying a gun is not appropriate and too easy to debunk because of the context of the entire passage. I believe many people make the mistake of taking 1 sentence out of the Bible and holding it up as justification while the sentence is embedded in a larger story context that does not support the individual sentence.

As gun owners we cannot misquote the Bible.

Now if you want to follow the lead of the Catholic theory, the Catechism of the Catholic Church writes (and I will provide the entire content, some of which may not be directly relevant but it does provide context):

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54 You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history


2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."58

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59 The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.


2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.


2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Legitimate defense


2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65


2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.


2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.



When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67


2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.


If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.


Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Intentional homicide


2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69


Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.


2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person's death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.


The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so.

​

 

[ylwfever69]

I believe the answer is yes I believe it is our god given right to bear arms and defend ourselves.

 

[NateIU10]

Talmud:

"If someone comes to kill you, kill him first."

Maimonides:

"Every Jew is commanded to save a person being pursued for his life, even it if means killing the pursuer, and [even if] the pursuer is a minor."

Exodus 22:1-

If a thief is seized while tunneling his way [into a house in the night time] and is smitten so that he die, there is no bloodguilt.

 

[indyjoe]

All should understand that the best translation from the original Hebrew is Thou Shall Not Murder. There are two words in Hebrew for Kill. The one used is referring to Murder.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, it was meant as a act of defiance. The romans could slap you across the cheek so Jesus basically said let them slap the other one too. It was not meant to say be a pacifist and not defend yourself.

And turn the other cheek was also to force them to use their other hand to slap. Back in a word without toilet paper, the left hand was considered unclean. To get slapped by it was an insult. Now when you turn your cheek and force them to slap you with their clean hand, you show defiance in forcing them to defile their clean hand with your cheek.