The right to bear arms is a direct extension of the right to life. You cannot claim to have a right to your life if you do not have the ability to defend it.
Funny, it seems like all the people in Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand are doing fine after having giving up their right to defend their lives with guns. And btw, you’ve traveled via airplane before….did you give up your right to life when you entered the airport security checkpoint without any guns and waited peacefully for your flight?
@@Adam-mj5hl Lets say assualt weapons, meaning fully automatic weapons, are banned and not used in this scenerio. When you stand in line at the security checkpoint you are giving up your right to defend yourself with a firearm, so, what if someone comes and shoots up that line? What can you do? Not much right? You cant fight back. Maybe encourage everyone to rush towards the active shooter? Or how about stop all the bullets yourself, like a sacrifice? Or maybe you could if you had a firearm? But you've left those at home or entrusted them to someone else to be able to go on this trip thats been on your mind for the past couple of days. You could shoot at the attacker and end the situation as quickly as possible, but there is still a uncertain chance that you may be unsuccessful. Now one important distinction is that some people, wanting to be able to protect themself and those around them by having a capable method to via a firearm while others want to ban guns completely to eliminate the threat of it ever happening. WE both want to reduce the loss of life. Another important distinction is that a criminal is a criminal we dont care how he got his weapon or where he got it in that moment, we just want to have an equal chance at fighting him, with or whitout a firearm. In an airport, past the security checkpoints, it is assumed that all the people are non threats and all they are thinking about is getting to their next destination. Though that maybe not always be the case, you are talking specifically about being localized in an airplane. You chose to board this airplane because you believed that it will successfully make its journey to its destination. You chose to give up your firearms because you believed that the airport would handle the security properly. You chose to board the airplane because you believed that none of the passengers boarded planning malicious intentions. Thus you conclude that your right to life is protected and insured. Of course, this does not apply if the plane crashes due to technical problems because nothing could be done in that moment unless someone had the knowledge on fixing the issue right there and then. (but we are talking about self defense and the right to bear arms) Now another countries laws maybe different but still if we get the chance we would still want to be able to protect ourselves from that danger. But as OldMovie said earlier the right to bear arms is just one of the many extensions of the right to life. If you have no way of keeping it, you done all you can do within God's commands, and you've tried to find another way, you might as well accept that he is calling you home.
@@bio.s2903 You pretty much accurately summed up my airport security scenario point. There’s a situation where everyone’s security from being harmed from gun violence has been guaranteed because everyone’s right to bear arms has been taken away. As to my point in bringing up other countries, why is that most every other civilized developed countries in the world have been able to come to enact gun control when the US has remained the strict outlier? We continue to live in this old west romantic “good guy with a gun” mentality of believing that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves, when research has shown that victims of contact crimes use guns in self-defense less than 1% of the time. Research also shows that guns in the home are used far more often to intimidate and in the escalation of domestic disputes, rather to thwart crime. Citizens of countries with gun control never have to participate in active shooter drills in school or ever have to worry about whether they might be a victim of a mass shooting event in a movie theater or grocery store.
I don't think that's an inaccurate statement, but I also think that it can also be true that the Second Amendment also stems from the right of self defense. The way I look at that right is that while the specifications which are outlined in the Second Amendment are indeed more corporately/communally oriented, there is no corporate/communal self defense if there is no individual self defense which is actualized by the private ownership of weapons. Thus, the corporate/communal self defense of securing a free state is actually the most extreme form or extension of self defense. As I think about "self defense" more, the thought occurred to me that perhaps this corporate/communal "self defense" should not use "self" because it is too individualistic. However, as far as I can tell as a native English speaker for 18 years, self is also capable of being plural, so there is therefore no problem with terminology as far as I can tell.
@@jtraptor7776 Even if the 4A can be interpreted as an individual right to self defense, nowhere else in the Constitution does it grant an unfettered right, without reasonable limitations. The 1A guarantees the right to free speech - yet the right is not unlimited. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. I’m sure the founding fathers did not envision Americans being able to arm themselves with assault rifles with high capacity magazines.
Andrew Wilson makes some terrible arguments in this "debate". Saying that Peter trying to stop Jesus from being crucified is equivalent to saving people from a gunman is foolish.
The statement (paraphrasing) "the reduction of guns would reduce the taking of innocent lives", is not accurate as many of those shot were shot in self-defense, meaning they were not innocent. Taking guns from people who use them to defend others or themselves is tragic. People who have guns and use them to commit crimes will not care if there are any bans or restrictions, they will find a way to get one and will have no resistance if we take away guns from those who would use them to defend against them.
The saddest thing about American Christians is that we are having a discussion about what type of guns Christians can have rather than what strategy we will use to minister to those who are actively trying to take our lives. Jesus CLEARLY did not start an armed crusade during his ministry. American Christians are terrified of earthly death yet are the least persecuted Christians in human history. That's concerning. In fact you'll find that the most persecuted Christians usually have the most peaceful and self sacrificial theological responses to violence. And the safest and wealthiest Christians tend to have the most hawkish theology when it comes to violence. 😂 Why? Well I think it's obvious. When you are sheltered from TRUE war and violence, we tend to romantisize the idea of violent heroize in a naive way. When you actually live in a war zone, you see violence for what it is.... Which is a senseless aimless cycle of human depravity and trauma and gut spilling horror.... Christians that live in perpetual violence tend to rightly hold a non-violence theology. Christians that live comfortable peaceful lives, like suburban American Christians, tend to warp the broader cultural violent heroism trends of our time into scripture to justify being armed and being ready for a war or fight that never really comes. I garentee you that if you are a born again temple of Christ, the moment you experience humans blowing each others brains out of their skulls, you will instantly drop whatever just war theory you previously held.
Long guns of any description are vastly outpaced in terms of homicide by simply no weapons hands/fists/feet. What they are used for are overwhelmingly shooting animal flesh, paper and steel.
Using Australia as an example for gun control is foolish. Do we want our government to do what the Australian government did over the last year.? The US government must instead deal biblically with murderers, rapists, etc. by implementing stronger death penalty usage.
Q. What did the Australian Gov do over the last year? Something obviously that perhaps by your reasoning should require Christians to threaten and intimidate the Gov with weapons? Doesn't sound very Christ-like. Doesn't sound very Rom 13, or 1/2 Peter... PS. I am no fan of the Australian Gov even though I am thankful to live here. Threatening and intimidating them with violence/weapons however is not the answer - I suspect you would agree with the conclusion I here but maybe haven't seen the implications of your argument? God bless you my friend, though we may disagree
The TRUTH of the matter of the 2nd Amendment of 1791 A.D. was that it has a 2-part CLAUSES, namely the PREFATORY CLAUSE, separated by a comma (,), then followed by the OPERATIVE CLAUSE... the Operative Clause can not stand alone without answering a reasonable reason/purpose that correlates with the Prefatory Clause... Let us analyze the 2nd Amendment Clauses... Prefatory Clause:... "A well-regulated MILITIA (Civilian Military) being necessary to the SECURITY of a Free State" (,) Operative Clause:... "The right of the people to carry and bear arms (weaponry) shall not be infringed (removed/banned)." Analysis:... The operative clause can not stand alone clearly without answering reasonably which correlates with the Prefatory Clause on why the people need the right to carry and bear Arms?... There must be a reason/s that only the Prefatory Clause could clearly answer and justify... Now, if the purpose/reason is all about "SELF-DEFENSE"... protection for themselves and their families... Then, the Prefatory Clause should correlate and say like this... "A well-regulated SELF-DEFENSE ARMS, being necessary for the LIFE'S PRESERVATION of a Free State" (,) ... then, the Operative Clause is clearly justified. But unfortunately, that was not what the Prefatory Clause was written by the FOREFATHERS of this Nation... Facts and Truth, Historically and Rhetorically Speaking...
Let's say the MAIN Purpose/reason of the PREFATORY CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment that was created and ratified in 1791 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS, was written this way... "A well-regulated FIREARMS (Weaponry) being necessary for the SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State (,) the Right of the People to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." q?... (Prefatory Clause)... Why does the Free State need FIREARMS?...answer... for the "SELF-DEFENSE" of the Free State... (can stand alone as a statement) q?... (Operative Clause)... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... answer must come from the Prefatory Clause... For "SELF-DEFENSE" by using well-regulated FIREARMS. If this is how the 2nd Amendment was written (main purpose and reason), we do not have argument and conflict in today's issue, most especially during PEACETIME In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment was NOT created and ratified in 1891 A.D. for the purpose of "SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State," but for "the SECURITY of a well-regulated MILITIA" (Military-Civilian) based on IMMINENT War Conflict with Britain that caused the 1812 A.D. Maritime War... Facts and truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... SOLUTION... The Senate must Amend the 2nd Amendment of 1781 A.D. by replacing/changing the PREFATORY CLAUSE only thru/by People's Vote (Referendum/Plebiscite)...
I wonder if the anti gun presenter knows what homicides are? Homicides are also legal uses of firearms as a justified shooting and as a result the attacker dies.
The debate is not about guns, it is about who controls them. “170,000,000 people have been murdered by governments from 1914 to 1990.” - RJ Rummel in Death by Government Choose wisely.
You're not going to stop a military with your itty bitty guns. If the government wants to kill you, they would kill you, regardless of any firearms you own. So, that's not a valid argument on owning guns.
Since governments existed - more people have ALWAYS been killed by their own governments than in wars and murders combined. Our founding fathers were good historians. THIS is why they put in the 2A (not because they just finished fighting a war)
Neither man fully understands the details of the gun debate in America. Bob Thune has a better grasp of the theological, but he still hasn't done his homework fully of the details of American gun culture. The terms Andrew Wilson uses (conflating assault rifles, machine guns, and AR15s) are muddled, at best. Bob doesn't notice this and, therefore, cannot make a really well-reasoned rebuttal. The vast majority of gun violence in America has to do more with drugs and the moral breakdown of Judeo-Christian foundations of this culture rather than the existence of semi-auto weapons. Neither man seems to grasp this truth, and the debate was disappointing as a result.
There are plenty of countries other than U.S. that doesn’t have gun massacres at the level of U.S. without having “judeo Christian” foundations in place. Like Asia and Europe perhaps? I think it’s pretty clear America believes God loves guns.
@@JoeTchify, you are correct about other countries. The problem here is that our foundation has been ripped away. That leaves an instability. Our foundational documents create a government for people who will for the most part self-govern. Without our foundation, we are a people that must be ruled. Our Constitution was never designed for that. Either we get back to our foundations, or we move to a different form of government.
@@alanmuxlow7093 The Constitution was formed by Unitarians and by Ben Franklin, who lived an immoral life and James Madison who was a wealthy slave owner who drafted it. But yeah I guess you’re right God is in the very fabric of America… Did I forget to mention the Native Americans who were slaughtered before the Christians colonized as well? But yeah anyways you’re absolutely right, it’s about the “foundation”.
@@georgegoltz8813, those numbers may be true, but they are misleading. The majority of our gun violence is gang/drug related. This drastically skews the numbers. Also suicides in American are often by gun rather than other means, this also skews the numbers. Legal concealed-carry license holders commit nearly no crimes (gun or otherwise). The gun-control would target the gun owners who both do not commit crime and often discourage crime, but do nothing to stop gang violence or disturbed people looking to do harm. Remember, late last year, in Waukesha, WI, a disturbed man used a SUV to kill and injure dozens.
I appreciated the discussion, but I am convinced Wilson and the pacifist interpretation in general rests on a faulty covenant theology. He applies the standard of personal conduct for the church to scenarios it does not address, and ignores the passages that do. The Noahic Covenant still applies, the government must still wield the sword, and the right to self defense is still in effect.
Such a relief, an actual debate ! Except ... it is pretty mute over all, because an AR is not a military rifle. It is the brand name of said rifle like a Winchester. Also, the people were the militia early in our history and the debate is whether or not we still should be. Our Founders knew Governments get all cocky and heady.
The militia is not the same thing as the military. The people are still the militia, and we should be. Prior to 1781, more people were killed by their own governments than in wars or murders. After 1781 this has still been the case. THIS is why we have the 2A, and it is just as valid a reason today.
I always thought the right the keep and bear "arms" meant small arms -- that is, rifles and handguns. Then I learned that at the time civilians could own cannons and warships. Now I'm not so sure.
I have heard historians say that there was a difference recognized in the colonies between "arms" and "munitions". The regulation of a militia required all people to have arms- the panoply of equipment carried by the individual soldier (rifle, bayonet, pack, boots, socks, rations, ammunition, perhaps a horse and so on). The Army was responsible for munitions- like cannons, mortars, and the connected equipment. Though you're right that it is true that civilians and companies could have cannons, and that government even published letters of mark- allowing non-military armed entities to act as the military against certain enemies- like Barbary pirate slave traders.
Remember, before 1934 there was no federal regulation on small arms, and it didnt come about because of “school shootings”. Its a travesty that christians especially care so little about even knowing about civil laws and rights, but here we are.
@@nagibson1 Semantics galore. So do you want the mentally ill classmate of your children or future children or relative’s children to purchase an AR-15 at the local Wal-Mart with a side of Snickers and Skittles 🙄 yet need a prescription for Hydrocortisone cream? The majority of Christians don’t live in the US. They are around the world and they are nauseated at the site of the bloodshed we welcome in the name of our ludicrous idolatry and navel gazing. True and undefiled religion means protecting widows and orphans. NOT making widows and orphans. But welcome to modern day godless America and the so called Christians who foster it. We have become a train wreck video game.
The word "arms" in the 2A does not in the least, refer to the arms available at the time of the writing of the amendment. It refers to the arms available at the time of the reading of it.
The heart of God isn’t that justice be done only as long as someone committed to evil doesn’t come along - at which point we must ensure that that person or group has free reign. The heart of God is for justice period. The purpose of Jesus’ teaching in respect of those who do evil is to ensure that his kingdom both not be ESTABLISHED by violence - nor DEFENDED by violence when not resisting evil will not amount to the way of evil - injustice - being established beyond our individual circumstances. Someone might at this point be tempted to say that it isn't our job to establish justice outside of the community of God's people - however this idea rests on a wrong understanding of God's kingdom plans - he is seeking to build a kingdom within a kingdom by REDEEMING the first kingdom - not by creating a holy ghetto within it. The need for Christians AS INDIVIDUALS not to resist evil doesn't extend to offering one's life. We know this because in Matt 5:39 - after saying that we should not resist evil - it says: ESV “...turn to them the other cheek also...” - something which it is difficult to do if one is dead. If the Bible intended for us never to kill someone it would tell us not to kill anyone. But the command in the ten commandments is not that we should not kill - it is that we should not murder (we should not kill in a way which is inconsistent with the heart of God). To understand the way of Jesus in respect of physical force I believe that the biblical approach to slavery is helpful. The bible doesn’t have any command against slavery - instead its teaching when applied will lead to the end of slavery. One reason why this is so brilliant is because it means that when the slave becomes a Christian he isn’t bound by God to instantly assert himself against his master - his conversion doesn’t lead to his having to demand equal status with his master. Instead he can share the gospel with his master - he is free to win his master through the way of submission instead of the way of power. Yet this sits alongside the fact that the gospel intends to see a kingdom established in which all people are of equal status before God. I haven't examined the arguments of the first speaker enough yet to establish whether there is a right to self defence in respect of one’s life - I am only at this stage convinced that there is no biblical teaching which contradicts our having such a right. However the problem with many who hold this view is that they hold it as if it does not need to be weighed against other biblical principles - in a way that suggests there is a need to act in a way that will not result in harm being caused to others. Obedience never requires us to choose a path which will bring harm to people as part of doing right. I thought that the way in which the second speaker pointed out that all kinds of objects are a potential weapon and that weapons extend from baseball bats to nuclear bombs - and that virtually all people to SOME extent compare the potential benefit of owning them with the potential harm which might come from doing so was very helpful. However that principle only comes into play when people are convinced that there is a co-existent principle - the need to act in a way that doesn't result in harm to others (it may only currently exist subconsciously). In believing in no right to self-defence (in my view without foundation) the second speaker vacated the theological space - he wasn't in a position to THEOLOGICALLY question the bounds of any theological right to self-defence.
To Bob's point at 26:40, that if all Christians were committed to non-violence after the example of Jesus and the early church, the Christians of Ukraine would not be willing to use deadly force to repel Russian deadly force. His point appears to be that the higher the population percentage of non-violent Christians, the more defenseless the nation. Well, this point needs to be considered from the opposite perspective as well. If all Christians were committed to non-violence, the enormous Christian population of Russia would not be complicit in sending their children to another country to become killers, and to be killed. If the Russian Orthodox church were truly committed to Jesus, rather than nationalism, this war would never have begun, or at least there would be massive, organized, visible opposition by the church. The same can be said for countless other nations with overwhelmingly Christian populations (Nazi Germany, for instance), the atrocities of these countries are ENABLED by complicit Christians who ignore the commands of Jesus.
What about Christians violently resisting the NAZI govt., not for the building of the Kingdom (because no violence can be done for Heaven), but simply out of love of neighbor and other Biblical principles of freedom like life and duty to protect it?
This was interesting to watch as a former college debater (with some solid success) and a former college debate coach. This was really really well done and I hope and am praying that this will be a helpful model. I think I would have liked a brief introduction of the speakers, the opening speech coming right after the music was a bit confusing. I could also want another set of speeches for rebuttal, to let the speakers really respond directly to the arguments being made. For example, I would have liked to hear the second speaker say, "He said that we have an obligation to defend the lives of our neighors, so if the statistics show that favoring restraints saves lives, by his logic we should favor gun control." And other applications and clash like that. Of course, maybe that would have made the videos too long or edged out some of the really really excellent discussion that went on. And the discussion was so good that I would hate to have lost any of it.
Great debate, but Bob Thune dropped the ball on the Exodus quote (22:2). It's not permitting killing for self-defense in any situation but only if done in the night. In verse 3 its says the defender is guilty of bloodshed if they kill the intruder after sunrise.
Exodus 22:2-3 ESV [2] If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, [3a] but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. I would not interpret that passage to mean killing in self-defense is only justified at night. Rather, in order to be justified, a thief would have to be killed in an act of self-defense at the time when the victim’s life is threatened. The victim would be guilty of murder if they sustained an act of violence, let the thief depart, and then went out and killed the thief in vengeance the next day (after sunrise). The sun can only rise once in a day and is not implying daytime vs. nighttime, it is talking about the next day.
@@davispjd That's an interesting take on the meaning of sunrise. I'll have to look into that. In any case, I would still argue this law is not permitting killing in self-defense but rather killing a thief in the night for stealing whether they attempt to take the owner's life or not. Hence, it can't legitimately be used to argue the Bible permits killing in self-defense. There aren't any laws that explicitly permit that. People infer that from this passage.
Scriptural references are completely moot and indulgent in this context! The right to bear arms is not even what’s in question in America. It’s the slightest regulation of ANY kind period. We think it’s cute to just have anyone walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 alongside a bag of peanut M&M’s at the cash register. You want to quote scripture? How about, *”The love of money is the root of all evil.” * Politicians beholden to NRA and Gun Manufacturer MONEY do not care about YOUR right to bear arms. They care about their personal and campaign bank accounts.
Should CHRISTIANS own and carry guns (firearms)?... it DEPENDS on WHAT and WHEN... HOW?... on "WHAT" kind of Christian, practicing or not, by birth or by name only?... and... on "WHEN" to own and carry guns (firearms), whether PEACETIME or WARTIME?... During PEACETIME, true civilians practicing Christianity (not Law Enforcers/Soldiers) do not need to carry and own guns (firearms/weaponry) for their personal and family protection... why?... to show to God and prove to themselves that they FULLY TRUSTED (100%) their Lives in the Hand of God... Aside from that, It is the duty of the government to protect the citizens of the country. During WARTIME, true civilians practicing Christianity, need and must carry and own guns (firearms/weaponry) for it is their Duty to Protect a "HIGHER/GREATER CAUSE (Purpose/Reason)." The Bible also supported this time of bearing weaponry of the civilian Jews/Israel... It is not about saving/protecting yourself, or your own family, but protecting from ANNIHILATION of their country's IDEOLOGY (Belief) such as FAITH in God (Religion), Democracy without Slavery, Basic Human Rights, and God-given Freedoms...
Back then, when the USA was still young and they had just gotten their Independence from the British Empire, they have not established yet "LAW ENFORCERS (Police) or PEACEKEEPERS". what they had at that time was a MILITIA, a civilian authority who carry weaponry due to the imminence of war... so, in those days, the "MILITIA" served as both civilian peacekeepers and as military forces as 2 in 1 at the same time due to imminent war... Now, in the modern world, we have already established the creation of LAW ENFORCERS (Police, FBI, CIA, etc.) during PEACETIME, civilians do not need to carry guns (firearms) for the Duty and Responsibility of the Law Enforcers solely to protect the civilians of the country... If any civilian has proof of death threats for his life and his family, the government will provide them extra protection paid by the government, or they can HIRE security personnel as additional protection for themselves... Civilians are now paying the Law Enforcers thru the People's Taxes to protect them... so, why carry? Unless we go back to the old ways of MILITIA (Civilian Authority), where all civilians have their own guns and let the Republic remove the LAW ENFORCERS/PEACEKEEPERS... in that way, the Civilian People need not pay the Law Enforcers/Peacekeepers to protect them... logically speaking... but there are more DISADVANTAGES than ADVANTAGES if we do that...
Why does the anti gun guy mention machine guns with AR-15s. It seems he is clueless that AR-15s are semi automatic only and are entirely ignorant of American gun law in this regard.
I agree. It is difficult to take a debate argument seriously when the debater can't or won't get definitions correct. In truth, we can't really know what he is proposing since he is loose with definitions.
It is an interesting move leaving the comment section open on these videos. Because any conversation that happens here is going to be far from a "good faith debate."
Any argument that starts with gun deaths in the US vs UK/Australia or "look at what we accomplished with gun control elsewhere" MUST address the difference in gun deaths between the US and UK/Australia BEFORE they instituted gun control. Why was there such a stark difference and how would you address that violence?
I don't think Australia is "finished" in finding out their "results". We should compare gun deaths in USA compared to those in Venezuela, after gun control. Or after Mexico. USA - 350 million people - 2A - 38,000 gun deaths Mex - 135 million people - no 2A - 200,000 gun deaths.
Comparing the US and Australia (or really any other country, honestly) makes no sense for demographic, socioeconomic and political reasons even if they are culturally similar. But for the sake of argument, let's compare the advancement of tyranny, government overreach and totalitarianism in the last two years: Australia is a police state and most of America still isn't. The difference? I think a good case can be made that it's the right to bear arms. Guns. Not carving knives or other ridiculous weapons the second speaker proposes when it comes to defend against a dangerous government (who will definitely have guns even as they take them away from the people, if all of history is any indication), which is the explicit point of the 2nd Amendment.. Why should Christians care about the advancement of totalitarianism (that goes way beyond martyring Christians for their faith)? 1) Jesus died for our freedom. 2) I haven't run the numbers yet, but I'm pretty sure totalitarianism has killed far more people than individuals with firearms.
One of the biggest disservices so many gun control activist do is give statistics without context. So many of those stats are MUCH more complex then what’s put on. Like accidental discharges, suicides, self defense , etc . Another point I remember is a quote that’s kinda says , IF you knew a person was coming to kill (on purpose) would you rather have a better weapon or worse one then that attacker???
The least used weapon in criminal activity is the semi auto rifle. The best weapon for home defense is the semi auto rifle with adjustable stock (so any member of the family is comfortable with it) The best weapon remaining for stopping tyranny is the semi auto rifle with standard (30 round) magazine. THE first weapon the government wants to ban, .....
What is the duty of a Christian policeman? Does “Turning your face to the enemy” include refusing to fulfill your duty as a policeman to protect an armless civilian from life threatening danger?
Great question. Why do liberal Christians trust godless police officers and soldiers with weapons over their own Spirit filled brethren? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. It shows that government is actually their god.
@@BleedingFool and yet then tells Peter to put away that sword just moment later… almost like Jesus knew what was coming and would prove his power greater than created weapons.
This is long so I apologize in advance- I ask the question...what policy changes do you think will work? Not which ones do you think are noble... 1. Greater restrictions for buying/selling guns. I think most gun owners (myself included) are fine with more laws and hoops that need to be jumped through on this. Law abiding citizens who are purchasing guns aren’t afraid of deeper background checks, longer waiting times and even mental health screenings. So I hope this may be a common ground place where gun advocates and anti-gun advocates can possibly find some common ground. 2. Banning of “Assault style weaponry”. (Semi-automatic rifles, pistols etc). This is a common misconception among people who don’t know much about guns. Every gun is an “assault weapon”. Sure some carry more ammunition than others, some are harder to reload than others. No weapon sold today to the public is fully automatic like the military uses. Every one requires a single pull of the trigger to fire the round. From the 6 shooters of the westerns to the AR-15, they are all the same in this respect. “AR” in the AR-15 stands for “Armalite Rifle” not “Assault Rifle”…that’s an invention of the media. So to think that banning these weapons will stop school shootings is an uninformed position, the shotgun you can buy at Walmart with no waiting period actually can cause even more damage close up than an AR. People will say “there is no reason for a private citizen to own a military style weapon.” Again, that’s an uninformed position. No private person can purchase a fully automatic gun, that law is already on the books. 3. Banning high capacity magazines. I agree that having a 30 round magazine is a lot of rounds that can be fired. However…it is a very simple skill to swap out a magazine in a second or 2, and if you can own as many magazines as you want…then? So again, the person hellbent on a massacre walking in with a 30 round magazine or 3x10 round magazines will most likely cause the same amount of damage. (see below as well…americans have purchased 30 round magazines in bulk…so banning them, while stopping the sale of them won’t get them out of the hands of criminals altogether) This is an issue that I think we can find some common ground on. If it can be shown that eliminating these high capacity magazines would have an effect on reducing gun violence. 4. Banning guns in certain areas or “Gun Free Zones/Cities”. As sweet as this sounds, it’s a bit like saying “Hey there are no guns here, so criminals and crazies come do as you wish.” Criminals don’t obey these laws. The city of Chicago which has banned guns has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation. I fear “gun free” zones/places may make people feel better but in reality do nothing for actual safety. 5. Banning guns, the way Australia has done. This would mean no private individuals being permitted to own a handgun or rifle/shotgun. This would involve obviously the stoppage of sales of guns, the buying back and or turning in of guns to the government and some type of punitive legislation for any who refused. I hear this one kicked around a lot but Australia isn’t the USA. Unfortunately, the USA has had a proliferation of guns and I will fully admit that in the past gun sales were not regulated enough and loopholes got more guns out into the USA than should ever be there. Be that as it may, we can’t go back in time and stop that. Pandora’s box as far as that is concerned is open and it’s too little too late. The naivety of thinking that we will get the guns off the streets by doing this is grotesque. People who are intent on breaking the law, people who are sadists and frankly evil will not comply, because that’s what they do. Law breakers break the law. So in order to stop gun violence you would take the guns out of the hands and homes of law abiding citizens leaving only the criminals with them? Believing that criminals and sadists will turn over their weapons is a pipe dream that needs to be abandoned. This is different from outlawing a practice or a behavior. This is outlawing an object and the ownership of it. It’s already in existence in the hands of someone. And the objects in question are often small and very easy to hide. 6. Giving out platitudes that Christians ought to lead the way in giving up their guns is idealistic but with no foot in reality. Christians are the main ones who won’t be committing gun violence…and asking “what would Jesus do” with guns makes as much sense as what would Jesus do with space shuttles…neither existed in His time and He never talked about banning the sword or spear, nor did He forbid anyone to own them. He told His people to not live by/through their power. The gun at its core is simply an object and its use is derived from the heart of the person in possession of it. So I ask, what policies and change are we talking about here?
I think the only solution is better security. And apparently, better adherence to security measures that are already in place. The only problem I have with your 6 points is the first one. It turns a right into a privilege. It gives too much power to someone else in choosing whether you should or should not be allowed the best tool for your defense.
@@garyrolen8764 I agree, it's certainly putting a lot of hope into a government system that continually shows itself inept. I will say however that If we could agree to stricter background checks/waiting periods ETC it wouldn't effect law abiding citizen purchases and would make the anti-gun people "feel heard". But I agree with your sentiment.
@@paulcummings287 I'm for less restrictions, but raising the age to 21. If it were me I would avoid setting any precedent around gun restrictions by simply raising the recognized age of adulthood to 21. Other age reliant purchases will get swept up in solving the problem, but I think ok with that.
We have to change peoples minds and make marksmanship a civic need and duty. Then do away with the NFA. Christians knowing some history would help. TGC makes me look like a professional historian, SMH.
Your post shows that a lot of thought went into it..... about stopping criminal use of firearms. Before taking down or altering any fence, no matter how unsightly or "in the way" it may seem to be, you have to ask yourself "Why did someone think to build that fence, and has that reason changed over the years?" The 2A is just such a fence. People are looking at all sorts of ways to change or tear it down or go around it - without recognizing WHY we have it. So I ask you a few questions: - Why do you think we have the 2A? - Does the reasoning for putting it up still exist today? - Have we maintained it, allowed it to deteriorate or damaged this fence?
in my research Andrew Wilson is factually wrong on the violence gains that result from gun control. In the Usa, as guns have proliferated in concealed carry states crime declined, and did so faster than in non-carry states (homicide rates up to 46% higher in restrictive states). Estimates on violence prevented by defensive gun use fall between 800,000 acts of self defense and 2.2 million annually, and in 88% of these encounters the defended does not fire his weapon. In the UK, the gun ban was in 1998. the crime rate flattened for a few years. This however coincided with a 16% increase in law enforcement spending. Further, crime rates rose through about 2005 before starting to decline, but peaked 25% higher than 1998- even with the 16% increase in law enforcement spending. Plus virtually all violent crime rates are higher in the UK, as much as 436% higher. It's true that in the UK you are less likely to be the victim of a gun crime, and MUCH more likely to be the victim of virtually all other forms of crime. This must also be compared to proportions. there are relatively few murders compared to these other crimes. Most people would not trade a slim rate of being less likely to suffer gun violence for a multifold higher chance of being raped, brutalized, stabbed, and so on. The strength of Andrew's argument must be in the words of Jesus alone, and the purported power of pacifism and the testimony of a martyr's spirit. That may be right. But I think his pragmatic argument is wrong.
Excellent points. If we look at gun ownership compared to crimes committed with guns outside metropolitan areas over 200,000 people, America has the lowest gun crime rate in the world by far. Why are the cities the issue? Why won’t they talk about the data? Propose a ban on carrying handguns (allowing defense of the home) in every city over a population 200,000 and institute death penalties for ANY violent crime committed using a hand gun. Watch all gun crime disappear. They won’t do this because they want to ban weapons that were guaranteed as a right to resist tyranny.
Also, before the national firearms act of 1934, you could by an automatic weapon at any store that wanted to sell them, and all you had to do was have enough money. They weren’t outlawed because of mass shootings of kids, thats for sure. The case that pretty much decided the fate of the NFA we have today, US Vs MILLER was pretty sketchy in and of itself (read: probably unconstitutional). The right, both theologically and civically here, is grounded in civic duty. This should be obvious to christians, but unfortunately its not, not even to the “scholarly” TGC. Side note, you can buy functional tanks, plans and machine guns still.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with weapons: It protects the right of the people to keep bear arms, after having hunted down a bear. This was a big improvement over British law, according to which one had to deliver bear arms to the local nobleman, as bear arms were considered a delicacy. More importantly that obligation was a remnant of the much hated feudal privilege of hunting, which was prevalent in old Europe. Hence protecting the "right to bear arms" by extension meant protecting the right to hunt. Clearly that right implies the right to keep and use weapons for HUNTING. At this occasion George Mason, Benjamin Franklin and others hotly debated the right of the people to carry weapons for upholding law and order. They reasoned that having a "well regulated militia" made such a right superfluous. Hence they left individual weapon carriage to be regulated by the RULES OF THE MILITIA(S). As everyone is entitled to self-defense by NATURAL LAW, codifying it was deemed to be superfluous. Clearly the hunter, the militia member could use their weapon for self defense, just as a lumberjack could use his ax. Yet to preemptively arm everyone with firearms amounts to believing that your republic is basically unable to uphold law and order, that it is a permanent ANARCHY. So the Second Amendment protects the right to hunt and keep weapons for that purpose, plus envisions an (armed) militia for upholding law and order. While self defense is a natural right, weaponizing citizens amounts to envisaging anarchy.
The Bible said, "Fear NOT Men who can kill only the Body/flesh but Fear GOD who can kill both Body and Soul."... Owning and carrying guns (firearms) can not guarantee us living a longer life... A person with or without guns (firearms/weaponry) could still die by just sleeping in their bed or couch even if no bad guys with big guns invade their home/house... How can Christians (believers of Christ/God) show to God and prove to themselves that they put their FULL TRUST in their lives to God, if they carry and own guns (firearms) during PEACETIME?... The Bible also said, "Do not TRUST the intelligence of MAN but rather TRUST the wisdom of God... "For Man's ways are not God's Ways"... and what seems to be intelligence to Mankind, is foolishness to God." God does not like a "LUKEWARM" Person when it comes to our FAITH... It is either YES or NO only, HOT or COLD with nothing in-between... It is either you TRUST God 100% only... and not 50/50%... By Trusting both God and Guns with your life and the lives of others... God will vomit/puke/spit out from HIS mouth those who do that... it is either you are 100% IN/FOR God... OR ... 100% OUT/AGAINST God... as simple as that, Biblically and logically speaking... According to the Book of Genesis, in the beginning, ALL that God created are GOOD, both living and non-living things, visible and invisible... but most of the Man-made creations were "Destructive in Nature" like the creation of weaponry by forging metals, to make SWORDS, SPEARS, BOWS, and ARROWS, and as time goes by, Men's technology took over to create MASS-Destructiive Weaponry of Nuclear Bombs, etc...
...... are you saying that unless you trust in God ONLY for your safety, then you aren't really trusting God? So..... no guns, locks, seatbelsts, airbags, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, or checking out babysitters before hiring them?
@@TeranRealtor YES, during Peacetime of the Nation... How?... True (100%) LOVE and FAITH mean you have Full (100%) TRUST... and not Partial TRUST... LAW OF CHRIST... 1st, "LOVE God with all your HEART, with all your SOUL, with all your MIND and STRENGTH"... and the... 2nd, "LOVE thy Neighbors (foes alike) just as you love yourself." Therefore, if you are a true CHRISTIAN (believer practicing your Faith) and not Christian "by Name or by Birth" only... We must put our TRUST (100%) in the hands of God/Christ most especially in UNCERTAINTY (unforeseen) events that do not cause harm to others (neighbors/foes alike)... We can use other precautionary measures that were designed primarily to protect oneself without causing danger to others, like for example SEAT BELTS, LIFE VESTS, SAFETY HELMETS & SHOES, etc... You will argue, how about the protection of my family?... If you are the Head of your Family being a True Christian believer, it is your duty to see to it that your family members believe also in God and had taught them to put their FULL (100%) TRUST in God... If not, you Failed as the HEAD Christian of the Family... Remember, No FIREARMS can protect your family, and yourself 24/7... Death is just around the corner... We may DIE just sleeping in a bed or couch without any Bad Guys with Big Guns invading our household... We ENTERED into this world ONE WAY naked thru BIRTH Only, ... but we EXITED this world 1001 WAYS naked thru DEATH... (accident, illness, disease/virus, old age, etc.) FIREARMS (Weaponry), were created by mankind whose main purpose (meant to be) is to harm, kill, and destroy the Flesh/Body of Living creatures (Men and Beasts)... There are tools that are not meant to kill or destroy the flesh/body (Men/Beast) like TASERS, PEPPER SPRAY, RUBBER BULLET (pellets) GUN, or DART GUN (Tranquilizer) are some of the tools to temporarily stop/prevent both men/beasts from attacking us... God allowed as the last resort for the True Christians and Jews to carry FIREARMS during GLOBAL WARS (War of the Nations) for a "GREATER CAUSE," and not just SELF-DEFENCE of themselves or for their families but for the PREVENTION of "TOTAL ANNIHILATION" of the Nation and their Existing Democracy into slavery, dictatorship, and communism... You can read them in the O.T. Bible... After the War, the Jews must surrender all their Battle Weaponry such as Long Spears, Bows and Arrows, and long Swords, but they are allowed to keep kitchen knives not longer than 12 inches and agriculture/carpentry tools for work...Why?... for the Jews have Peacekeepers (Standby Military and Police) under Joshua's leadership during PEACETIME... Today, almost all Nation around the world had their own PEACEKEEPERS during PEACETIME, like the Police, FBI, CIA, Drugs, Food/Medicine and Immigration Enforcers, etc... aside from their own Standby ARMFORCES... Perhaps, the USA is the only NATION in the whole world wherein Civilian People have the RIGHT to own and carry FIREARMS during PEACETIME... Which was unfortunately NOT the ""Primary Reason" why the SECOND AMMENDMENT was created and ratified in 1891 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS of this great Nation, the USA... Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking...
@@TeranRealtor Let us analyze the creation and ratification of the SECOND AMENDMENT of 1791 A.D. by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS... The 2nd Amendment has 2 Clauses, namely PREFATORY CLAUSE that can stand alone, and OPERATIVE CLAUSE that can not stand alone without the PREFATORY Clause. The Prefatory Clause is separated by the punctuation mark of a COMMA (,)... followed by the Operative Clause... "A well-regulated MILITIA (Military-Civilian) being necessary for the SECURITY of the Free State (,) the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." PREFATORY Clause:... "A well-regulated MILITIA being necessary for the SECURITY of the Free State (,)" Q?... Can the Prefatory Clause stand alone as a statement?... YES. Q?... HOW?... If you asked a question... Why does the Free-State need a well-regulated MILITIA?... answer... for the "SECURITY" of the Free State... (make sense) OPERATIVE Clause... "(,) the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." Q?... Can the Operative Clause stand alone as a statement?... NO Q?... HOW?... If you asked the same question... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... does not say any reason why... so, it needs the Prefatory Clause to answer the reason why there is a need for the People the Right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed... which was for the SECURITY of the Free State by using the well-regulated MILITIA... Let's say the MAIN Purpose/reason of the PREFATORY CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment that was created and ratified in 1791 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS, was written this way... "A well-regulated FIREARMS (Weaponry) being necessary for the SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State (,) the Right of the People to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed." q?... (Prefatory Clause)... Why does the Free State need FIREARMS?...answer... for the "SELF-DEFENSE" of the Free State... (can stand alone as a statement) q?... (Operative Clause)... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... answer must come from the Prefatory Clause... For "SELF-DEFENSE" by using well-regulated FIREARMS. If this is how the 2nd Amendment was written (main purpose and reason), we do not have argument and conflict in today's issue, most especially during PEACETIME In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment was NOT created and ratified in 1891 A.D. for the purpose of "SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State," but for "the SECURITY of a well-regulated MILITIA" (Military-Civilian) based on IMMINENT War Conflict with Britain that caused the 1812 A.D. Maritime War... Facts and truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... SOLUTION... The Senate must Amend the 2nd Amendment of 1781 A.D. by replacing/changing the PREFATORY CLAUSE only thru/by People's Vote (Referendum/Plebiscite)...
@@jvlp2046 I would respond to what you wrote - but it seems like either you are a bot, or someone who simply copies and pastes the same thing, again and again, with no thought process. .... and it's incorrect the way you wrote it (or whoever you copied it from)
@@TeranRealtor There are tools created and meant for the purpose of PREVENTION and not HARMING/KILING/DAMAGING other People regardless of their intentions... For Example, does the main purpose of the Seat Belts, to hurt/harm/kill/damage others (2nd party), other than the one using it (1st party)?... nope... but as PREVENTION of the 1st party without the power of harming/damaging any of the 2nd or 3rd parties... Most of the Preventive Tools are used for the 1st Party's benefit only... for example, safety Helmets, Safety Shoes, or Safety Gear (gas/virus masks, clothes), etc FIREARMS are not meant as PREVENTIVES TOOLS, but as SELF-DEFENSE tools, that have the power to harm, damage, and worse to kill by accident or intensionally themselves (1st party/suicide) ... by the perpetrator/attacker (2nd Party)... and by non-intentional accidental harm/kill of the bystander (3rd Party)... FIREARMS (Guns, riffles, bombs, etc.) were created and meant to harm/damage/kill (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Parties) any living creatures (Humans and Beasts)... If we argue for SPORTS events or HUNTING Events, then you do not need to keep (owned) and bear arms... The Committee of Sports, Recreation (hunting), and Leisure will allow/grant us a temporary single short weaponry (non-automatic) during the allotted time of Sports Events, Recreation, and Leisure... afterward, we need to surrender everything (firearms) to the firearm committee... why?... because we do not DO Sports, Recreation, and Leisure 24/7 all year thru... THERE IS ONLY A SEASON FOR HUNTING ALLOWED by the Law of the Land...
Thank you for discussing this topic from a Christian perspective. Christians need to be able to think "Christianly" about everything. A lot of commenters are not seeing the value in this discussion. Of course it is not a Gospel issue, but it is an issue that people care about. If we are to reach people with the Gospel we need to understand cultural situations and be able to explain a Christian perspective. This also perfectly showed how a civil conversation on a tough topic should go.
Thinking “Christianly” is not the same as thinking “Americanly” - Christians around the world think Americans are nuts for thinking AR-15’s should be as easy to get as a chocolate bar at the corner store.
I will state my opinion to the British man, here in the USA if someone puts gun control infact the only thing it will accomplish is it will stop the gun sailing in the stores but it will open doors that people will wished that they didn't open because it will not stop gunrunners sailing on the streets
I think it’s interesting that Andrew seems to make the argument that he wouldn’t use violence to defend himself or others because Jesus didn’t but would defend himself against things like false accusations… Is that because Jesus defended himself against false accusations?
No the issue isn't about defending yourself. The issue is about hurting other people to defend yourself. The verbal version would be like verbally assaulting someone else to get revenge. I feel compelled as a follower of Christ to always place my perpitrator and enemy's well being before my own. My destiny is ceiled in prosperity. My enemy's destiny is in the balance. Its not my job to be judge jury and executioner of my enemy. It's my job to love them self sacrificially just as Christ loved his enemies self sacrificially. I can't think of any other theology that correlates with the raw text of scripture
@@leonscott543 Someday, if you get married and have children - you will feel differently about being capable of, and willing to use, force - as a means of defending against a perpetrator. But as long as you are single, and not responsible for anyone else in the world, you can allow a perpetrator to kill you rather than risk taking his life by shooting (or other forms of force) him. At the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus told Peter to put away his sword - because it was not time to use force to defend Jesus. ........ but Peter DID carry a sword, and Jesus DID allow for that. Jesus was not saying to not have weapons with which to defend yourself or others.
I'm taking Bob's side of the argument here. But the real issue is the degradation of morality enabled by political leaders who will pander to or enable any deviant behavior or say anything for a vote. I've heard stories of people on drugs such as angel dust that have broken through chain link fences, smashed down doors and having been shot 6 times finally staggered into the street and died. When I grew up you could buy a rifle or shotgun in a gas station. My Dad on a Sunday ride would pull off to the side of the highway, pull a rifle out of the trunk and pop a crow with others driving by. As a teen I could walk out the door with my shotgun through the neighborhood a couple blocks and go rabbit hunting and no one cared. We saw our neighbors in Church. I truly miss those days. Fix morality, put CHRIST first and there won't be any need for a debate over gun control.
This guy just said we shouldn’t have killed hitler. Also, I think I’m hearing him right cause he also denies that Christians should ever be in support of capitol punishment…
Yet he probably thinks our firebombing of civilians in Dresden in WW2 was justifiable because it might have saved some Jews from the death camps by ending the war sooner….their conscience is seared
I’m really surprised that neither of them addressed the passage where Jesus tells the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword, which in the context seemed to be for the purpose of defending themselves on missionary journeys that He was sending them out to. That’s one of the easiest places to see Christ’s support for self-defense weaponry.
Interesting that Andrew states, "Jesus said you have heard it was said, but I'm saying this..." Jesus was going above and beyond the law to show how the hearts and minds of people are at the root of sin. It is the state of a person's heart and mind that brings about murder. The tool is incidental. We don't have to go far into Genesis to see this.
Laws exist so that sinful man has limits to his wickedness. That’s what red flag laws are for. That’s what gun restrictions are for. Ask any Christian outside America what they think of Americans’ obsessive gun idolatry. They are utterly baffled. We look like little kids in a train wreck video game. But with actual bloodshed to show for. Sickening how loose our laws are. It’s easier to purchase an actual military grade weapon here than the latest video game in some cases. Wow.
Do any of the detractors of the right of self defense here, who (especially after the last two years) would pound the table talking anout Romans 13, disagree that the US government has the right to bear the sword, and set up laws expect its citizens to defense of community and country??? Well, look no further than the laws of our country that we have had for 100’s of years. A valid question could be posed: are you being a good christian, and secondarily a citizen, if you deny people the ability to protect themselves with common weapons (US VS MILLER)? A much better case could be made for a NO answer than a YES answer
Pro2a arguments are going to fail if you Bible thump. No offense! I'm not saying the argument is invalid, but .....A secular argument would be better. Then you could further back it up with biblical texts.
I’m actually impressed that TGC brought Bob Thune in on this and that they’ve left comments open…. Surprised is probably a better word. I find it curious that they brought a Christian pacifist in as the backstop on this debate. Had they brought in most any of the squishy BigEva guys, they’d not have been able to just settle back against the position the same way. Maybe a John Piper could, since he wouldn’t even defend his own wife from assault, but there’s really not any other way that I see there to be a respectable defense to Bob’s position. I do think that Andrew is wrong, but I at least can appreciate his consistency in his worldview. I did think the use of the example of Paul in the garden could have really wounded him in a moderated debate under cross examination though; given that there was a particular reason for which Paul was in error and the tension placed up against Jesus’ command that they arm themselves, even at the cost of their own cloak. Unlike some of the other ‘goodfaith’ debates, I thought this was actually beneficial to the people and edification of the Church. 👍
This is a silly debate. There is no scriptural prohibition on owning a weapon, so why have the debate? It's a political issue, not a Christian issue. Peter carried a sword and all Jesus told him was to put it away. Plus, everybody has some sort of weapon in their home, why single out guns? Is it okay to kill someone with a knife? This debate is a waste of time. PS the Brits stats are bunko.
Well done, guys. It would be interesting to redo this debate with a non-pacifist arguing for stricter gun control. The pacifism element may tempt some to be dismissive of the gun control case being made here. Thanks for doing these!
That could be better. Honestly though, he was pretty close to what most proponents of stricter gun control advocate, to a “T” almost. And he didn’t do it any better. Pretty surface level arguments. But i like the idea
the problem is that he thinks pretty much the same as everyone else that argue for gun control. he just at least has the courage to say his views in plain english(letting hitler take power and control the world while purposely doing nothing). most people argue points that directly insinuates the same views, but wont openly admit it.
Great discussion. I personally would love much more actual debate. Direct back and forth between the two rather than the constant moderation. Think it loses a lot of steam because of that and assumes the two handpicked debaters (who are obviously Godly and gentle men), can’t just have a 30 minute actual discussion with far less moderation. But: still grateful for TGC in putting this series of topics debates online
To be fair, debating is an actual event with standards of conduct. Think of it more as a court case rather than an argument in which the two presenters are trying to persuade a judge, not their opponent.
I like how the brit makes the argument “i dont want to ban carving knives”, but his countrymen have regularly thrown around banning even being able to carry around knives for protection
I will grant the arguments of the opposition for unrestricted gun ownership if he applies the same logic to cars and alcohol, which kill far more than firearms. I will be waiting.
Only in America this would get an audience. In most other places where Christianity has sprouted, it's crystal clear that Jesus calls his followers to turn the other cheek, to pay evil with good, to go the extra mile. "“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." But in America, one's is a Republican before a Christian...
Or is it "only in Europe"? I'd really like to find out how Christian in sub-Saharan Africa and South America view this. But the standard evangelical response to the "turn the other cheek" argument is that Christ was talking about insult, not assault.
@@cbrooks97 I'm from Latinamerica, and I personally know people from 20+ Hispanic countries. The concensus in evangelical Christianity is that weapons are not something you cherish. You don't participate in any violent demonstration. Arms are associated with gangs and drug cartels.
"For all who take the sword will perish by the sword". Christ commended the faith of the centurion with no reprimand on his occupation. I'll take up arms in self-defence, it's a reasonable thing to do and I'm not American. "Let your moderation be known to all men, for the Lord is at hand."
How about doing a “through” topic on the Ukraine War since you opened up with it? Really dig down into the past and bring it full circle; give all the facts. Oh, sorry, you’d probably want to retract what you said and publicly repent, right?
I can't get behind Andrew's total pacifism, but do think he's basically right about gun control. I don't see how you can reasonably leap from the right to self-defence to the right to bear arms. It's perfectly possible to operate a liberal democracy (and one much freer and safer than America) without the need for your citizens to be armed.
Yes it is possible for other democracy’s to exist but that is only do to the American experiment. The first modern democratic-republic. Every unarmed populace is eventually ravaged by its government.
@@tanneryirka7935 As for your first point, sure. Everyone is standing on another's shoulders. But that doesn't mean we keep the conditions which got us to where we are. Much of modern civilisation was built on war and slavery, for example, but most people agree it is desirable to eliminate these as much as possible. As for your second point... well, you'll have to substantiate that argument a bit more. Most of Europe seems to be getting on basically okay, and has much stricter firearms control and/or lower ownership rates. Certainly there's nothing I can think of that would be best redressed by an armed populace. Probably the main thing to stop a government from ravaging its people is separation of powers with appropriate checks and balances, and the ability of the people to fairly elect their leaders on a regular basis (an area the USA could definitely do better in).
Watched this as an Australian Christian trying to understand the US gun context (which to most Aussies is quite weird). Was pleasantly surprised to see we got quite a mention!
God says to obey your leaders. America was founded on the principal of individual liberty and political engagement.. therefore, Americans are commanded to engage with their nation’s politics, including the topic of gun ownership.
Unless the leaders were causing us to sin. When it comes down to it, the government is full of greedy, power hungry people who want control what we do. The second amendment allows us to have a regulated militia to keep the government in check. The government works for us, not the other way around. Obeying those in charge only go so far.
Thinking Americanly and thinking Christianly are two separate things. Most Christians around the world find America’s obsessive idolatry of guns disturbing.
If every Christian has a responsibility to love their neighbor and encourage them to defend their rights then there should be no debate on whether or not abortion or LGBTQ rights are deemed legally acceptable either. It's asinine.
@@cractrick9225 Actually according to the Bible God gave us free will and dominion over our bodies so it is a right. Marriage is also not a right solely given to Christians or straight couples. Marriage is a ceremony with many different names across many different cultures and religions so no one has the right to try and restrict others from deciding who they want to commit to and how they do it. If people who claimed to be Christians focused on spending even half as much time worrying about their own individual shortcomings versus the everyday trials of others the world would be a better place. But then again the Bible says the road is narrow so 🤷
@@doubleiidivapsn1335 not a Christian btw just pointing out that scripture doesn’t condone gay marriage and if you do want a gay wedding a paster will rewrite scripture so yeh I can see why some Christian’s would be pissed off. Btw Evan from a religious standpoint about abortion the idea is that the soul is there before birth when exactly most Christian would say conception. So my point in saying my first message Christians are following scripture and not just new age hippie Christians that don’t care about scripture or sin just acceptance.
Jesus made sure that the disciples had swords on the night of Jesus arrest. Peter used one on a guard but Jesus rebuked him and healed the man. The swords were only there tp prove they could resist but chose not to - they chose healing over self-defense. If you can't use a sword to save Jesus, you can't use a sword. That's the gospel message.
So your theory is that Jesus instructed his disciples to buy a sword so he could teach them a lesson about how using swords is wrong? Jesus had a mission to accomplish. Peter starting a rebellion would not have accomplished that mission. How do you get from a rebuke in that specific situation to the conclusion that there's never an appropriate situation to use violence?
@@Dylaniated That is a /very/ narrow definition of "defensive". So a "defensive war" wouldn't even be possible, you can only build a giant shield and hope they don't go around. Vengeance is STILL not the same as self-defense.
@@cbrooks97 yep I think the kingdom isn't what we would expect. Yes for sure vengeance isn't self-defense. And self-defense doesn't necessitate using guns. This is assuming self defense is a Christian behavior ("And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.")
@@Dylaniated I ask, are you married and have children? As a single man, I would have said "Ok, I will take a bullet to make the Gospel Statement" As a father and husband I have a mega-shift in my worldview. I would fight tooth and nail til my last breath using whatever means necessary to protect my family.
GOOD Faith Posted Property No Tresspasion Means Keep Out Or No Traping Hunting or Fishing Or Traping or Droins Night Vision Like To Watch My Little Girl Play Dress up 5 x5 Gal Buckets Got Shot Down 1 Night 8
@@Dylaniated True, but is that an actual role distinction? in the final judgement, I believe it is Jesus who sends people to hell. It's hypothetical of course, but we can't really say it would be outside Jesus' character, could we? Depends on our Trinitarian Theology I guess.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
The Gospel Coalition (and this pastor) lose credibility with this. This is far beyond the biblical scope we are called to be representatives of for Christ. As a comment earlier stated, we are mixing up the kingdom of God and the kingdom of earth with this
You completely missed the point. First of all, this is an exercise in showing how Christians ought to debate - without acrimony but with good faith and gentleness. Secondly, worldly matters are less significant, but are still important in Christian life. We engage them from the perspective of the Gospel. You don't just put your head in the sand after becoming a Christian.
@@FlowLai Agreed on that. If we can not have civil, good faith discussion on non-salvation matters, how could we ever have healthy discussions with others on matters pertaining to salvation? Kudos to The Gospel Coalition.
In a democracy, how we vote is part of how we represent Christ. There is also the additional question of individual believers and their approach to the issue in their lives (such as whether they will own weapons and engage in self-defense), so I think this is totally appropriate.
Typical American preoccupation with their constitution and Christianity. This the right to bear arms has nothing to do with Christian worldview or ministry, nothing. TGC has lost credibility thanks but no thanks. Unsubscribing.
The right to bear arms is a direct extension of the right to life. You cannot claim to have a right to your life if you do not have the ability to defend it.
Funny, it seems like all the people in Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand are doing fine after having giving up their right to defend their lives with guns. And btw, you’ve traveled via airplane before….did you give up your right to life when you entered the airport security checkpoint without any guns and waited peacefully for your flight?
@@Adam-mj5hl
Lets say assualt weapons, meaning fully automatic weapons, are banned and not used in this scenerio.
When you stand in line at the security checkpoint you are giving up your right to defend yourself with a firearm, so, what if someone comes and shoots up that line? What can you do? Not much right?
You cant fight back. Maybe encourage everyone to rush towards the active shooter? Or how about stop all the bullets yourself, like a sacrifice? Or maybe you could if you had a firearm? But you've left those at home or entrusted them to someone else to be able to go on this trip thats been on your mind for the past couple of days.
You could shoot at the attacker and end the situation as quickly as possible, but there is still a uncertain chance that you may be unsuccessful.
Now one important distinction is that some people, wanting to be able to protect themself and those around them by having a capable method to via a firearm while others want to ban guns completely to eliminate the threat of it ever happening. WE both want to reduce the loss of life.
Another important distinction is that a criminal is a criminal we dont care how he got his weapon or where he got it in that moment, we just want to have an equal chance at fighting him, with or whitout a firearm.
In an airport, past the security checkpoints, it is assumed that all the people are non threats and all they are thinking about is getting to their next destination. Though that maybe not always be the case, you are talking specifically about being localized in an airplane.
You chose to board this airplane because you believed that it will successfully make its journey to its destination.
You chose to give up your firearms because you believed that the airport would handle the security properly.
You chose to board the airplane because you believed that none of the passengers boarded planning malicious intentions.
Thus you conclude that your right to life is protected and insured.
Of course, this does not apply if the plane crashes due to technical problems because nothing could be done in that moment unless someone had the knowledge on fixing the issue right there and then. (but we are talking about self defense and the right to bear arms)
Now another countries laws maybe different but still if we get the chance we would still want to be able to protect ourselves from that danger.
But as OldMovie said earlier the right to bear arms is just one of the many extensions of the right to life.
If you have no way of keeping it, you done all you can do within God's commands, and you've tried to find another way, you might as well accept that he is calling you home.
@@bio.s2903 You pretty much accurately summed up my airport security scenario point. There’s a situation where everyone’s security from being harmed from gun violence has been guaranteed because everyone’s right to bear arms has been taken away. As to my point in bringing up other countries, why is that most every other civilized developed countries in the world have been able to come to enact gun control when the US has remained the strict outlier? We continue to live in this old west romantic “good guy with a gun” mentality of believing that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves, when research has shown that victims of contact crimes use guns in self-defense less than 1% of the time. Research also shows that guns in the home are used far more often to intimidate and in the escalation of domestic disputes, rather to thwart crime. Citizens of countries with gun control never have to participate in active shooter drills in school or ever have to worry about whether they might be a victim of a mass shooting event in a movie theater or grocery store.
@@Adam-mj5hl Could you link these resources?
The second amendment is not about self defense its the 4th check and balance of the government system.
I don't think that's an inaccurate statement, but I also think that it can also be true that the Second Amendment also stems from the right of self defense.
The way I look at that right is that while the specifications which are outlined in the Second Amendment are indeed more corporately/communally oriented, there is no corporate/communal self defense if there is no individual self defense which is actualized by the private ownership of weapons. Thus, the corporate/communal self defense of securing a free state is actually the most extreme form or extension of self defense.
As I think about "self defense" more, the thought occurred to me that perhaps this corporate/communal "self defense" should not use "self" because it is too individualistic. However, as far as I can tell as a native English speaker for 18 years, self is also capable of being plural, so there is therefore no problem with terminology as far as I can tell.
@@jtraptor7776 Even if the 4A can be interpreted as an individual right to self defense, nowhere else in the Constitution does it grant an unfettered right, without reasonable limitations. The 1A guarantees the right to free speech - yet the right is not unlimited. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. I’m sure the founding fathers did not envision Americans being able to arm themselves with assault rifles with high capacity magazines.
Andrew Wilson makes some terrible arguments in this "debate". Saying that Peter trying to stop Jesus from being crucified is equivalent to saving people from a gunman is foolish.
The statement (paraphrasing) "the reduction of guns would reduce the taking of innocent lives", is not accurate as many of those shot were shot in self-defense, meaning they were not innocent. Taking guns from people who use them to defend others or themselves is tragic. People who have guns and use them to commit crimes will not care if there are any bans or restrictions, they will find a way to get one and will have no resistance if we take away guns from those who would use them to defend against them.
X
00ppp00pl. Lol lllllllllllllll lol llllll l.
The saddest thing about American Christians is that we are having a discussion about what type of guns Christians can have rather than what strategy we will use to minister to those who are actively trying to take our lives. Jesus CLEARLY did not start an armed crusade during his ministry. American Christians are terrified of earthly death yet are the least persecuted Christians in human history. That's concerning. In fact you'll find that the most persecuted Christians usually have the most peaceful and self sacrificial theological responses to violence. And the safest and wealthiest Christians tend to have the most hawkish theology when it comes to violence. 😂 Why?
Well I think it's obvious. When you are sheltered from TRUE war and violence, we tend to romantisize the idea of violent heroize in a naive way. When you actually live in a war zone, you see violence for what it is.... Which is a senseless aimless cycle of human depravity and trauma and gut spilling horror.... Christians that live in perpetual violence tend to rightly hold a non-violence theology. Christians that live comfortable peaceful lives, like suburban American Christians, tend to warp the broader cultural violent heroism trends of our time into scripture to justify being armed and being ready for a war or fight that never really comes. I garentee you that if you are a born again temple of Christ, the moment you experience humans blowing each others brains out of their skulls, you will instantly drop whatever just war theory you previously held.
Long guns of any description are vastly outpaced in terms of homicide by simply no weapons hands/fists/feet. What they are used for are overwhelmingly shooting animal flesh, paper and steel.
And defense against criminals - without firing a shot.
Using Australia as an example for gun control is foolish. Do we want our government to do what the Australian government did over the last year.? The US government must instead deal biblically with murderers, rapists, etc. by implementing stronger death penalty usage.
Q. What did the Australian Gov do over the last year? Something obviously that perhaps by your reasoning should require Christians to threaten and intimidate the Gov with weapons? Doesn't sound very Christ-like. Doesn't sound very Rom 13, or 1/2 Peter...
PS. I am no fan of the Australian Gov even though I am thankful to live here. Threatening and intimidating them with violence/weapons however is not the answer - I suspect you would agree with the conclusion I here but maybe haven't seen the implications of your argument?
God bless you my friend, though we may disagree
What did my government do? We haven’t had to legislate gun laws in over 25 years.
The TRUTH of the matter of the 2nd Amendment of 1791 A.D. was that it has a 2-part CLAUSES, namely the PREFATORY CLAUSE, separated by a comma (,), then followed by the OPERATIVE CLAUSE... the Operative Clause can not stand alone without answering a reasonable reason/purpose that correlates with the Prefatory Clause...
Let us analyze the 2nd Amendment Clauses...
Prefatory Clause:... "A well-regulated MILITIA (Civilian Military) being necessary to the SECURITY of a Free State" (,)
Operative Clause:... "The right of the people to carry and bear arms (weaponry) shall not be infringed (removed/banned)."
Analysis:... The operative clause can not stand alone clearly without answering reasonably which correlates with the Prefatory Clause on why the people need the right to carry and bear Arms?... There must be a reason/s that only the Prefatory Clause could clearly answer and justify...
Now, if the purpose/reason is all about "SELF-DEFENSE"... protection for themselves and their families...
Then, the Prefatory Clause should correlate and say like this... "A well-regulated SELF-DEFENSE ARMS, being necessary for the LIFE'S PRESERVATION of a Free State" (,) ... then, the Operative Clause is clearly justified.
But unfortunately, that was not what the Prefatory Clause was written by the FOREFATHERS of this Nation... Facts and Truth, Historically and Rhetorically Speaking...
The founding fathers put in the 2A (so we could own true, whatever is current, weapons of warfare) for self defense against a tyrannical government.
Let's say the MAIN Purpose/reason of the PREFATORY CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment that was created and ratified in 1791 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS, was written this way...
"A well-regulated FIREARMS (Weaponry) being necessary for the SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State (,) the Right of the People to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."
q?... (Prefatory Clause)... Why does the Free State need FIREARMS?...answer... for the "SELF-DEFENSE" of the Free State... (can stand alone as a statement)
q?... (Operative Clause)... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... answer must come from the Prefatory Clause... For "SELF-DEFENSE" by using well-regulated FIREARMS.
If this is how the 2nd Amendment was written (main purpose and reason), we do not have argument and conflict in today's issue, most especially during PEACETIME
In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment was NOT created and ratified in 1891 A.D. for the purpose of "SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State," but for "the SECURITY of a well-regulated MILITIA" (Military-Civilian) based on IMMINENT War Conflict with Britain that caused the 1812 A.D. Maritime War... Facts and truth, HISTORICALLY speaking...
SOLUTION... The Senate must Amend the 2nd Amendment of 1781 A.D. by replacing/changing the PREFATORY CLAUSE only thru/by People's Vote (Referendum/Plebiscite)...
I wonder if the anti gun presenter knows what homicides are? Homicides are also legal uses of firearms as a justified shooting and as a result the attacker dies.
@@pb1anco172 Yes I am aware.
Why did Jesus tell the disciples to carry a sword?
Luke 22:36-38
The debate is not about guns, it is about who controls them. “170,000,000 people have been murdered by governments from 1914 to 1990.” - RJ Rummel in Death by Government
Choose wisely.
You're not going to stop a military with your itty bitty guns. If the government wants to kill you, they would kill you, regardless of any firearms you own. So, that's not a valid argument on owning guns.
Looks like they are hiding replies.
Since governments existed - more people have ALWAYS been killed by their own governments than in wars and murders combined. Our founding fathers were good historians. THIS is why they put in the 2A (not because they just finished fighting a war)
Neither man fully understands the details of the gun debate in America. Bob Thune has a better grasp of the theological, but he still hasn't done his homework fully of the details of American gun culture. The terms Andrew Wilson uses (conflating assault rifles, machine guns, and AR15s) are muddled, at best. Bob doesn't notice this and, therefore, cannot make a really well-reasoned rebuttal. The vast majority of gun violence in America has to do more with drugs and the moral breakdown of Judeo-Christian foundations of this culture rather than the existence of semi-auto weapons. Neither man seems to grasp this truth, and the debate was disappointing as a result.
There are plenty of countries other than U.S. that doesn’t have gun massacres at the level of U.S. without having “judeo Christian” foundations in place. Like Asia and Europe perhaps? I think it’s pretty clear America believes God loves guns.
@@JoeTchify, you are correct about other countries. The problem here is that our foundation has been ripped away. That leaves an instability. Our foundational documents create a government for people who will for the most part self-govern. Without our foundation, we are a people that must be ruled. Our Constitution was never designed for that. Either we get back to our foundations, or we move to a different form of government.
@@alanmuxlow7093 The Constitution was formed by Unitarians and by Ben Franklin, who lived an immoral life and James Madison who was a wealthy slave owner who drafted it. But yeah I guess you’re right God is in the very fabric of America… Did I forget to mention the Native Americans who were slaughtered before the Christians colonized as well? But yeah anyways you’re absolutely right, it’s about the “foundation”.
@@georgegoltz8813, those numbers may be true, but they are misleading. The majority of our gun violence is gang/drug related. This drastically skews the numbers. Also suicides in American are often by gun rather than other means, this also skews the numbers. Legal concealed-carry license holders commit nearly no crimes (gun or otherwise). The gun-control would target the gun owners who both do not commit crime and often discourage crime, but do nothing to stop gang violence or disturbed people looking to do harm. Remember, late last year, in Waukesha, WI, a disturbed man used a SUV to kill and injure dozens.
Perfect reply
I appreciated the discussion, but I am convinced Wilson and the pacifist interpretation in general rests on a faulty covenant theology. He applies the standard of personal conduct for the church to scenarios it does not address, and ignores the passages that do. The Noahic Covenant still applies, the government must still wield the sword, and the right to self defense is still in effect.
No joke, i don’t know why no one brought this up.
Jesus told His disciples to carry a sword. It wasn’t for shaving
Luke 22:36-38
Such a relief, an actual debate ! Except ... it is pretty mute over all, because an AR is not a military rifle. It is the brand name of said rifle like a Winchester. Also, the people were the militia early in our history and the debate is whether or not we still
should be. Our Founders knew Governments get all cocky and heady.
The militia is not the same thing as the military. The people are still the militia, and we should be. Prior to 1781, more people were killed by their own governments than in wars or murders. After 1781 this has still been the case. THIS is why we have the 2A, and it is just as valid a reason today.
I always thought the right the keep and bear "arms" meant small arms -- that is, rifles and handguns. Then I learned that at the time civilians could own cannons and warships. Now I'm not so sure.
I have heard historians say that there was a difference recognized in the colonies between "arms" and "munitions". The regulation of a militia required all people to have arms- the panoply of equipment carried by the individual soldier (rifle, bayonet, pack, boots, socks, rations, ammunition, perhaps a horse and so on). The Army was responsible for munitions- like cannons, mortars, and the connected equipment. Though you're right that it is true that civilians and companies could have cannons, and that government even published letters of mark- allowing non-military armed entities to act as the military against certain enemies- like Barbary pirate slave traders.
Remember, before 1934 there was no federal regulation on small arms, and it didnt come about because of “school shootings”. Its a travesty that christians especially care so little about even knowing about civil laws and rights, but here we are.
@@nagibson1 Semantics galore. So do you want the mentally ill classmate of your children or future children or relative’s children to purchase an AR-15 at the local Wal-Mart with a side of Snickers and Skittles 🙄 yet need a prescription for Hydrocortisone cream? The majority of Christians don’t live in the US. They are around the world and they are nauseated at the site of the bloodshed we welcome in the name of our ludicrous idolatry and navel gazing. True and undefiled religion means protecting widows and orphans. NOT making widows and orphans. But welcome to modern day godless America and the so called Christians who foster it. We have become a train wreck video game.
The word "arms" in the 2A does not in the least, refer to the arms available at the time of the writing of the amendment. It refers to the arms available at the time of the reading of it.
@@TeranRealtor As opposed to the arms available 200 years in the future!? Good point! We should all be stuck with muskets.
The heart of God isn’t that justice be done only as long as someone committed to evil doesn’t come along - at which point we must ensure that that person or group has free reign. The heart of God is for justice period.
The purpose of Jesus’ teaching in respect of those who do evil is to ensure that his kingdom both not be ESTABLISHED by violence - nor DEFENDED by violence when not resisting evil will not amount to the way of evil - injustice - being established beyond our individual circumstances. Someone might at this point be tempted to say that it isn't our job to establish justice outside of the community of God's people - however this idea rests on a wrong understanding of God's kingdom plans - he is seeking to build a kingdom within a kingdom by REDEEMING the first kingdom - not by creating a holy ghetto within it. The need for Christians AS INDIVIDUALS not to resist evil doesn't extend to offering one's life. We know this because in Matt 5:39 - after saying that we should not resist evil - it says:
ESV
“...turn to them the other cheek also...”
- something which it is difficult to do if one is dead.
If the Bible intended for us never to kill someone it would tell us not to kill anyone. But the command in the ten commandments is not that we should not kill - it is that we should not murder (we should not kill in a way which is inconsistent with the heart of God).
To understand the way of Jesus in respect of physical force I believe that the biblical approach to slavery is helpful. The bible doesn’t have any command against slavery - instead its teaching when applied will lead to the end of slavery. One reason why this is so brilliant is because it means that when the slave becomes a Christian he isn’t bound by God to instantly assert himself against his master - his conversion doesn’t lead to his having to demand equal status with his master. Instead he can share the gospel with his master - he is free to win his master through the way of submission instead of the way of power. Yet this sits alongside the fact that the gospel intends to see a kingdom established in which all people are of equal status before God.
I haven't examined the arguments of the first speaker enough yet to establish whether there is a right to self defence in respect of one’s life - I am only at this stage convinced that there is no biblical teaching which contradicts our having such a right. However the problem with many who hold this view is that they hold it as if it does not need to be weighed against other biblical principles - in a way that suggests there is a need to act in a way that will not result in harm being caused to others. Obedience never requires us to choose a path which will bring harm to people as part of doing right.
I thought that the way in which the second speaker pointed out that all kinds of objects are a potential weapon and that weapons extend from baseball bats to nuclear bombs - and that virtually all people to SOME extent compare the potential benefit of owning them with the potential harm which might come from doing so was very helpful. However that principle only comes into play when people are convinced that there is a co-existent principle - the need to act in a way that doesn't result in harm to others (it may only currently exist subconsciously).
In believing in no right to self-defence (in my view without foundation) the second speaker vacated the theological space - he wasn't in a position to THEOLOGICALLY question the bounds of any theological right to self-defence.
To Bob's point at 26:40, that if all Christians were committed to non-violence after the example of Jesus and the early church, the Christians of Ukraine would not be willing to use deadly force to repel Russian deadly force. His point appears to be that the higher the population percentage of non-violent Christians, the more defenseless the nation. Well, this point needs to be considered from the opposite perspective as well. If all Christians were committed to non-violence, the enormous Christian population of Russia would not be complicit in sending their children to another country to become killers, and to be killed. If the Russian Orthodox church were truly committed to Jesus, rather than nationalism, this war would never have begun, or at least there would be massive, organized, visible opposition by the church. The same can be said for countless other nations with overwhelmingly Christian populations (Nazi Germany, for instance), the atrocities of these countries are ENABLED by complicit Christians who ignore the commands of Jesus.
What about Christians violently resisting the NAZI govt., not for the building of the Kingdom (because no violence can be done for Heaven), but simply out of love of neighbor and other Biblical principles of freedom like life and duty to protect it?
This was interesting to watch as a former college debater (with some solid success) and a former college debate coach. This was really really well done and I hope and am praying that this will be a helpful model.
I think I would have liked a brief introduction of the speakers, the opening speech coming right after the music was a bit confusing. I could also want another set of speeches for rebuttal, to let the speakers really respond directly to the arguments being made. For example, I would have liked to hear the second speaker say, "He said that we have an obligation to defend the lives of our neighors, so if the statistics show that favoring restraints saves lives, by his logic we should favor gun control." And other applications and clash like that.
Of course, maybe that would have made the videos too long or edged out some of the really really excellent discussion that went on. And the discussion was so good that I would hate to have lost any of it.
Great debate, but Bob Thune dropped the ball on the Exodus quote (22:2). It's not permitting killing for self-defense in any situation but only if done in the night. In verse 3 its says the defender is guilty of bloodshed if they kill the intruder after sunrise.
Exodus 22:2-3 ESV
[2] If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, [3a] but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.
I would not interpret that passage to mean killing in self-defense is only justified at night. Rather, in order to be justified, a thief would have to be killed in an act of self-defense at the time when the victim’s life is threatened. The victim would be guilty of murder if they sustained an act of violence, let the thief depart, and then went out and killed the thief in vengeance the next day (after sunrise). The sun can only rise once in a day and is not implying daytime vs. nighttime, it is talking about the next day.
@@davispjd That's an interesting take on the meaning of sunrise. I'll have to look into that. In any case, I would still argue this law is not permitting killing in self-defense but rather killing a thief in the night for stealing whether they attempt to take the owner's life or not. Hence, it can't legitimately be used to argue the Bible permits killing in self-defense. There aren't any laws that explicitly permit that. People infer that from this passage.
@@davispjd thanks for the explanation 👍👍
Scriptural references are completely moot and indulgent in this context! The right to bear arms is not even what’s in question in America. It’s the slightest regulation of ANY kind period. We think it’s cute to just have anyone walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 alongside a bag of peanut M&M’s at the cash register. You want to quote scripture? How about, *”The love of money is the root of all evil.” * Politicians beholden to NRA and Gun Manufacturer MONEY do not care about YOUR right to bear arms. They care about their personal and campaign bank accounts.
Should CHRISTIANS own and carry guns (firearms)?... it DEPENDS on WHAT and WHEN... HOW?... on "WHAT" kind of Christian, practicing or not, by birth or by name only?... and... on "WHEN" to own and carry guns (firearms), whether PEACETIME or WARTIME?...
During PEACETIME, true civilians practicing Christianity (not Law Enforcers/Soldiers) do not need to carry and own guns (firearms/weaponry) for their personal and family protection... why?... to show to God and prove to themselves that they FULLY TRUSTED (100%) their Lives in the Hand of God... Aside from that, It is the duty of the government to protect the citizens of the country.
During WARTIME, true civilians practicing Christianity, need and must carry and own guns (firearms/weaponry) for it is their Duty to Protect a "HIGHER/GREATER CAUSE (Purpose/Reason)." The Bible also supported this time of bearing weaponry of the civilian Jews/Israel... It is not about saving/protecting yourself, or your own family, but protecting from ANNIHILATION of their country's IDEOLOGY (Belief) such as FAITH in God (Religion), Democracy without Slavery, Basic Human Rights, and God-given Freedoms...
Back then, when the USA was still young and they had just gotten their Independence from the British Empire, they have not established yet "LAW ENFORCERS (Police) or PEACEKEEPERS". what they had at that time was a MILITIA, a civilian authority who carry weaponry due to the imminence of war... so, in those days, the "MILITIA" served as both civilian peacekeepers and as military forces as 2 in 1 at the same time due to imminent war...
Now, in the modern world, we have already established the creation of LAW ENFORCERS (Police, FBI, CIA, etc.) during PEACETIME, civilians do not need to carry guns (firearms) for the Duty and Responsibility of the Law Enforcers solely to protect the civilians of the country... If any civilian has proof of death threats for his life and his family, the government will provide them extra protection paid by the government, or they can HIRE security personnel as additional protection for themselves... Civilians are now paying the Law Enforcers thru the People's Taxes to protect them... so, why carry?
Unless we go back to the old ways of MILITIA (Civilian Authority), where all civilians have their own guns and let the Republic remove the LAW ENFORCERS/PEACEKEEPERS... in that way, the Civilian People need not pay the Law Enforcers/Peacekeepers to protect them... logically speaking... but there are more DISADVANTAGES than ADVANTAGES if we do that...
Why does the anti gun guy mention machine guns with AR-15s. It seems he is clueless that AR-15s are semi automatic only and are entirely ignorant of American gun law in this regard.
You don’t have to know anything to be platformed by TGC, you just have to feel very strongly about certain things.
I agree. It is difficult to take a debate argument seriously when the debater can't or won't get definitions correct. In truth, we can't really know what he is proposing since he is loose with definitions.
@@prairiebaptistnoblesville it’s like someone who claims women are being abused but then can’t define what a woman is.
It is an interesting move leaving the comment section open on these videos. Because any conversation that happens here is going to be far from a "good faith debate."
Which comments here are made out of "good faith" and/or inaccurate?
@@1911GreaterThanALL they didn't suggest any would be inaccurate 🤷
Healthy open debate should never be discouraged. Not sure why it would or should ever be snuffed out.
@@HearGodsWord inaccurate means wrong right? If you suppose a bad faith argument wouldn't that by default be wrong?
@@1911GreaterThanALL if that's what you want to go with.
Any argument that starts with gun deaths in the US vs UK/Australia or "look at what we accomplished with gun control elsewhere" MUST address the difference in gun deaths between the US and UK/Australia BEFORE they instituted gun control. Why was there such a stark difference and how would you address that violence?
I don't think Australia is "finished" in finding out their "results".
We should compare gun deaths in USA compared to those in Venezuela, after gun control. Or after Mexico.
USA - 350 million people - 2A - 38,000 gun deaths
Mex - 135 million people - no 2A - 200,000 gun deaths.
Comparing the US and Australia (or really any other country, honestly) makes no sense for demographic, socioeconomic and political reasons even if they are culturally similar. But for the sake of argument, let's compare the advancement of tyranny, government overreach and totalitarianism in the last two years: Australia is a police state and most of America still isn't. The difference? I think a good case can be made that it's the right to bear arms. Guns. Not carving knives or other ridiculous weapons the second speaker proposes when it comes to defend against a dangerous government (who will definitely have guns even as they take them away from the people, if all of history is any indication), which is the explicit point of the 2nd Amendment.. Why should Christians care about the advancement of totalitarianism (that goes way beyond martyring Christians for their faith)? 1) Jesus died for our freedom. 2) I haven't run the numbers yet, but I'm pretty sure totalitarianism has killed far more people than individuals with firearms.
One of the biggest disservices so many gun control activist do is give statistics without context. So many of those stats are MUCH more complex then what’s put on. Like accidental discharges, suicides, self defense , etc .
Another point I remember is a quote that’s kinda says , IF you knew a person was coming to kill (on purpose) would you rather have a better weapon or worse one then that attacker???
The least used weapon in criminal activity is the semi auto rifle.
The best weapon for home defense is the semi auto rifle with adjustable stock (so any member of the family is comfortable with it)
The best weapon remaining for stopping tyranny is the semi auto rifle with standard (30 round) magazine.
THE first weapon the government wants to ban, .....
What is the duty of a Christian policeman?
Does “Turning your face to the enemy” include refusing to fulfill your duty as a policeman to protect an armless civilian from life threatening danger?
He answered. Christians shouldn't be in the military or police force
Great question. Why do liberal Christians trust godless police officers and soldiers with weapons over their own Spirit filled brethren? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. It shows that government is actually their god.
Why Jesus tell the disciples to carry a sword?
Luke 22:36-38
@@BleedingFool and yet then tells Peter to put away that sword just moment later… almost like Jesus knew what was coming and would prove his power greater than created weapons.
Perhaps someone shouldn’t become a police officer if they’re unwilling to use firearms.
This is long so I apologize in advance-
I ask the question...what policy changes do you think will work? Not which ones do you think are noble...
1. Greater restrictions for buying/selling guns. I think most gun owners (myself included) are fine with more laws and hoops that need to be jumped through on this. Law abiding citizens who are purchasing guns aren’t afraid of deeper background checks, longer waiting times and even mental health screenings. So I hope this may be a common ground place where gun advocates and anti-gun advocates can possibly find some common ground.
2. Banning of “Assault style weaponry”. (Semi-automatic rifles, pistols etc). This is a common misconception among people who don’t know much about guns. Every gun is an “assault weapon”. Sure some carry more ammunition than others, some are harder to reload than others. No weapon sold today to the public is fully automatic like the military uses. Every one requires a single pull of the trigger to fire the round. From the 6 shooters of the westerns to the AR-15, they are all the same in this respect. “AR” in the AR-15 stands for “Armalite Rifle” not “Assault Rifle”…that’s an invention of the media. So to think that banning these weapons will stop school shootings is an uninformed position, the shotgun you can buy at Walmart with no waiting period actually can cause even more damage close up than an AR. People will say “there is no reason for a private citizen to own a military style weapon.” Again, that’s an uninformed position. No private person can purchase a fully automatic gun, that law is already on the books.
3. Banning high capacity magazines. I agree that having a 30 round magazine is a lot of rounds that can be fired. However…it is a very simple skill to swap out a magazine in a second or 2, and if you can own as many magazines as you want…then? So again, the person hellbent on a massacre walking in with a 30 round magazine or 3x10 round magazines will most likely cause the same amount of damage. (see below as well…americans have purchased 30 round magazines in bulk…so banning them, while stopping the sale of them won’t get them out of the hands of criminals altogether) This is an issue that I think we can find some common ground on. If it can be shown that eliminating these high capacity magazines would have an effect on reducing gun violence.
4. Banning guns in certain areas or “Gun Free Zones/Cities”. As sweet as this sounds, it’s a bit like saying “Hey there are no guns here, so criminals and crazies come do as you wish.” Criminals don’t obey these laws. The city of Chicago which has banned guns has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the nation. I fear “gun free” zones/places may make people feel better but in reality do nothing for actual safety.
5. Banning guns, the way Australia has done. This would mean no private individuals being permitted to own a handgun or rifle/shotgun. This would involve obviously the stoppage of sales of guns, the buying back and or turning in of guns to the government and some type of punitive legislation for any who refused. I hear this one kicked around a lot but Australia isn’t the USA. Unfortunately, the USA has had a proliferation of guns and I will fully admit that in the past gun sales were not regulated enough and loopholes got more guns out into the USA than should ever be there. Be that as it may, we can’t go back in time and stop that. Pandora’s box as far as that is concerned is open and it’s too little too late. The naivety of thinking that we will get the guns off the streets by doing this is grotesque. People who are intent on breaking the law, people who are sadists and frankly evil will not comply, because that’s what they do. Law breakers break the law. So in order to stop gun violence you would take the guns out of the hands and homes of law abiding citizens leaving only the criminals with them? Believing that criminals and sadists will turn over their weapons is a pipe dream that needs to be abandoned. This is different from outlawing a practice or a behavior. This is outlawing an object and the ownership of it. It’s already in existence in the hands of someone. And the objects in question are often small and very easy to hide.
6. Giving out platitudes that Christians ought to lead the way in giving up their guns is idealistic but with no foot in reality. Christians are the main ones who won’t be committing gun violence…and asking “what would Jesus do” with guns makes as much sense as what would Jesus do with space shuttles…neither existed in His time and He never talked about banning the sword or spear, nor did He forbid anyone to own them. He told His people to not live by/through their power. The gun at its core is simply an object and its use is derived from the heart of the person in possession of it.
So I ask, what policies and change are we talking about here?
I think the only solution is better security. And apparently, better adherence to security measures that are already in place.
The only problem I have with your 6 points is the first one. It turns a right into a privilege. It gives too much power to someone else in choosing whether you should or should not be allowed the best tool for your defense.
@@garyrolen8764 I agree, it's certainly putting a lot of hope into a government system that continually shows itself inept. I will say however that If we could agree to stricter background checks/waiting periods ETC it wouldn't effect law abiding citizen purchases and would make the anti-gun people "feel heard". But I agree with your sentiment.
@@paulcummings287 I'm for less restrictions, but raising the age to 21. If it were me I would avoid setting any precedent around gun restrictions by simply raising the recognized age of adulthood to 21. Other age reliant purchases will get swept up in solving the problem, but I think ok with that.
We have to change peoples minds and make marksmanship a civic need and duty. Then do away with the NFA. Christians knowing some history would help. TGC makes me look like a professional historian, SMH.
Your post shows that a lot of thought went into it..... about stopping criminal use of firearms.
Before taking down or altering any fence, no matter how unsightly or "in the way" it may seem to be, you have to ask yourself "Why did someone think to build that fence, and has that reason changed over the years?"
The 2A is just such a fence. People are looking at all sorts of ways to change or tear it down or go around it - without recognizing WHY we have it.
So I ask you a few questions:
- Why do you think we have the 2A?
- Does the reasoning for putting it up still exist today?
- Have we maintained it, allowed it to deteriorate or damaged this fence?
in my research Andrew Wilson is factually wrong on the violence gains that result from gun control. In the Usa, as guns have proliferated in concealed carry states crime declined, and did so faster than in non-carry states (homicide rates up to 46% higher in restrictive states). Estimates on violence prevented by defensive gun use fall between 800,000 acts of self defense and 2.2 million annually, and in 88% of these encounters the defended does not fire his weapon.
In the UK, the gun ban was in 1998. the crime rate flattened for a few years. This however coincided with a 16% increase in law enforcement spending. Further, crime rates rose through about 2005 before starting to decline, but peaked 25% higher than 1998- even with the 16% increase in law enforcement spending. Plus virtually all violent crime rates are higher in the UK, as much as 436% higher. It's true that in the UK you are less likely to be the victim of a gun crime, and MUCH more likely to be the victim of virtually all other forms of crime.
This must also be compared to proportions. there are relatively few murders compared to these other crimes. Most people would not trade a slim rate of being less likely to suffer gun violence for a multifold higher chance of being raped, brutalized, stabbed, and so on.
The strength of Andrew's argument must be in the words of Jesus alone, and the purported power of pacifism and the testimony of a martyr's spirit. That may be right. But I think his pragmatic argument is wrong.
That was a wonderful and well-written response!
Excellent points. If we look at gun ownership compared to crimes committed with guns outside metropolitan areas over 200,000 people, America has the lowest gun crime rate in the world by far. Why are the cities the issue? Why won’t they talk about the data? Propose a ban on carrying handguns (allowing defense of the home) in every city over a population 200,000 and institute death penalties for ANY violent crime committed using a hand gun. Watch all gun crime disappear. They won’t do this because they want to ban weapons that were guaranteed as a right to resist tyranny.
@@mrich21087, very good points. My concern has been that those in the position to implement real solutions do not actually was real solutions.
I honestly think his arguments were overall very weak.
That and his christian pacifism seems more fatalistic than pious
Also, before the national firearms act of 1934, you could by an automatic weapon at any store that wanted to sell them, and all you had to do was have enough money. They weren’t outlawed because of mass shootings of kids, thats for sure. The case that pretty much decided the fate of the NFA we have today, US Vs MILLER was pretty sketchy in and of itself (read: probably unconstitutional).
The right, both theologically and civically here, is grounded in civic duty. This should be obvious to christians, but unfortunately its not, not even to the “scholarly” TGC. Side note, you can buy functional tanks, plans and machine guns still.
The British guy needs to use Scripture not personal opinion for his argument
This british guy’s shallow and incurious arguments are not going to age well at all
I think the value of life, not preservation of life, is the biblical wisdom (to live is Christ, to die is gain)
This is so powerful
It would not be unconstitutional to outlaw hunting rifles or hunting itself since that’s not what the 2A is about.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with weapons: It protects the right of the people to keep bear arms, after having hunted down a bear. This was a big improvement over British law, according to which one had to deliver bear arms to the local nobleman, as bear arms were considered a delicacy. More importantly that obligation was a remnant of the much hated feudal privilege of hunting, which was prevalent in old Europe. Hence protecting the "right to bear arms" by extension meant protecting the right to hunt. Clearly that right implies the right to keep and use weapons for HUNTING.
At this occasion George Mason, Benjamin Franklin and others hotly debated the right of the people to carry weapons for upholding law and order. They reasoned that having a "well regulated militia" made such a right superfluous. Hence they left individual weapon carriage to be regulated by the RULES OF THE MILITIA(S).
As everyone is entitled to self-defense by NATURAL LAW, codifying it was deemed to be superfluous. Clearly the hunter, the militia member could use their weapon for self defense, just as a lumberjack could use his ax. Yet to preemptively arm everyone with firearms amounts to believing that your republic is basically unable to uphold law and order, that it is a permanent ANARCHY.
So the Second Amendment protects the right to hunt and keep weapons for that purpose, plus envisions an (armed) militia for upholding law and order. While self defense is a natural right, weaponizing citizens amounts to envisaging anarchy.
The US Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen certainly changes the lens in this debate.
The Bible said, "Fear NOT Men who can kill only the Body/flesh but Fear GOD who can kill both Body and Soul."... Owning and carrying guns (firearms) can not guarantee us living a longer life... A person with or without guns (firearms/weaponry) could still die by just sleeping in their bed or couch even if no bad guys with big guns invade their home/house...
How can Christians (believers of Christ/God) show to God and prove to themselves that they put their FULL TRUST in their lives to God, if they carry and own guns (firearms) during PEACETIME?... The Bible also said, "Do not TRUST the intelligence of MAN but rather TRUST the wisdom of God... "For Man's ways are not God's Ways"... and what seems to be intelligence to Mankind, is foolishness to God."
God does not like a "LUKEWARM" Person when it comes to our FAITH... It is either YES or NO only, HOT or COLD with nothing in-between... It is either you TRUST God 100% only... and not 50/50%... By Trusting both God and Guns with your life and the lives of others... God will vomit/puke/spit out from HIS mouth those who do that... it is either you are 100% IN/FOR God... OR ... 100% OUT/AGAINST God... as simple as that, Biblically and logically speaking...
According to the Book of Genesis, in the beginning, ALL that God created are GOOD, both living and non-living things, visible and invisible... but most of the Man-made creations were "Destructive in Nature" like the creation of weaponry by forging metals, to make SWORDS, SPEARS, BOWS, and ARROWS, and as time goes by, Men's technology took over to create MASS-Destructiive Weaponry of Nuclear Bombs, etc...
...... are you saying that unless you trust in God ONLY for your safety, then you aren't really trusting God?
So..... no guns, locks, seatbelsts, airbags, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, or checking out babysitters before hiring them?
@@TeranRealtor YES, during Peacetime of the Nation... How?... True (100%) LOVE and FAITH mean you have Full (100%) TRUST... and not Partial TRUST... LAW OF CHRIST... 1st, "LOVE God with all your HEART, with all your SOUL, with all your MIND and STRENGTH"... and the... 2nd, "LOVE thy Neighbors (foes alike) just as you love yourself."
Therefore, if you are a true CHRISTIAN (believer practicing your Faith) and not Christian "by Name or by Birth" only... We must put our TRUST (100%) in the hands of God/Christ most especially in UNCERTAINTY (unforeseen) events that do not cause harm to others (neighbors/foes alike)... We can use other precautionary measures that were designed primarily to protect oneself without causing danger to others, like for example SEAT BELTS, LIFE VESTS, SAFETY HELMETS & SHOES, etc...
You will argue, how about the protection of my family?... If you are the Head of your Family being a True Christian believer, it is your duty to see to it that your family members believe also in God and had taught them to put their FULL (100%) TRUST in God... If not, you Failed as the HEAD Christian of the Family... Remember, No FIREARMS can protect your family, and yourself 24/7... Death is just around the corner... We may DIE just sleeping in a bed or couch without any Bad Guys with Big Guns invading our household...
We ENTERED into this world ONE WAY naked thru BIRTH Only, ... but we EXITED this world 1001 WAYS naked thru DEATH... (accident, illness, disease/virus, old age, etc.)
FIREARMS (Weaponry), were created by mankind whose main purpose (meant to be) is to harm, kill, and destroy the Flesh/Body of Living creatures (Men and Beasts)... There are tools that are not meant to kill or destroy the flesh/body (Men/Beast) like TASERS, PEPPER SPRAY, RUBBER BULLET (pellets) GUN, or DART GUN (Tranquilizer) are some of the tools to temporarily stop/prevent both men/beasts from attacking us...
God allowed as the last resort for the True Christians and Jews to carry FIREARMS during GLOBAL WARS (War of the Nations) for a "GREATER CAUSE," and not just SELF-DEFENCE of themselves or for their families but for the PREVENTION of "TOTAL ANNIHILATION" of the Nation and their Existing Democracy into slavery, dictatorship, and communism... You can read them in the O.T. Bible...
After the War, the Jews must surrender all their Battle Weaponry such as Long Spears, Bows and Arrows, and long Swords, but they are allowed to keep kitchen knives not longer than 12 inches and agriculture/carpentry tools for work...Why?... for the Jews have Peacekeepers (Standby Military and Police) under Joshua's leadership during PEACETIME...
Today, almost all Nation around the world had their own PEACEKEEPERS during PEACETIME, like the Police, FBI, CIA, Drugs, Food/Medicine and Immigration Enforcers, etc... aside from their own Standby ARMFORCES... Perhaps, the USA is the only NATION in the whole world wherein Civilian People have the RIGHT to own and carry FIREARMS during PEACETIME...
Which was unfortunately NOT the ""Primary Reason" why the SECOND AMMENDMENT was created and ratified in 1891 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS of this great Nation, the USA... Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking...
@@TeranRealtor Let us analyze the creation and ratification of the SECOND AMENDMENT of 1791 A.D. by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS...
The 2nd Amendment has 2 Clauses, namely PREFATORY CLAUSE that can stand alone, and OPERATIVE CLAUSE that can not stand alone without the PREFATORY Clause.
The Prefatory Clause is separated by the punctuation mark of a COMMA (,)... followed by the Operative Clause...
"A well-regulated MILITIA (Military-Civilian) being necessary for the SECURITY of the Free State (,) the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."
PREFATORY Clause:... "A well-regulated MILITIA being necessary for the SECURITY of the Free State (,)"
Q?... Can the Prefatory Clause stand alone as a statement?... YES.
Q?... HOW?... If you asked a question... Why does the Free-State need a well-regulated MILITIA?... answer... for the "SECURITY" of the Free State... (make sense)
OPERATIVE Clause... "(,) the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."
Q?... Can the Operative Clause stand alone as a statement?... NO
Q?... HOW?... If you asked the same question... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... does not say any reason why... so, it needs the Prefatory Clause to answer the reason why there is a need for the People the Right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed... which was for the SECURITY of the Free State by using the well-regulated MILITIA...
Let's say the MAIN Purpose/reason of the PREFATORY CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment that was created and ratified in 1791 A.D., by mostly Christian FOREFATHERS, was written this way...
"A well-regulated FIREARMS (Weaponry) being necessary for the SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State (,) the Right of the People to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed."
q?... (Prefatory Clause)... Why does the Free State need FIREARMS?...answer... for the "SELF-DEFENSE" of the Free State... (can stand alone as a statement)
q?... (Operative Clause)... Why do the People have the RIGHT to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed?... answer must come from the Prefatory Clause... For "SELF-DEFENSE" by using well-regulated FIREARMS.
If this is how the 2nd Amendment was written (main purpose and reason), we do not have argument and conflict in today's issue, most especially during PEACETIME
In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment was NOT created and ratified in 1891 A.D. for the purpose of "SELF-DEFENSE of the Free State," but for "the SECURITY of a well-regulated MILITIA" (Military-Civilian) based on IMMINENT War Conflict with Britain that caused the 1812 A.D. Maritime War... Facts and truth, HISTORICALLY speaking...
SOLUTION... The Senate must Amend the 2nd Amendment of 1781 A.D. by replacing/changing the PREFATORY CLAUSE only thru/by People's Vote (Referendum/Plebiscite)...
@@jvlp2046 I would respond to what you wrote - but it seems like either you are a bot, or someone who simply copies and pastes the same thing, again and again, with no thought process.
.... and it's incorrect the way you wrote it (or whoever you copied it from)
@@TeranRealtor There are tools created and meant for the purpose of PREVENTION and not HARMING/KILING/DAMAGING other People regardless of their intentions...
For Example, does the main purpose of the Seat Belts, to hurt/harm/kill/damage others (2nd party), other than the one using it (1st party)?... nope... but as PREVENTION of the 1st party without the power of harming/damaging any of the 2nd or 3rd parties... Most of the Preventive Tools are used for the 1st Party's benefit only... for example, safety Helmets, Safety Shoes, or Safety Gear (gas/virus masks, clothes), etc
FIREARMS are not meant as PREVENTIVES TOOLS, but as SELF-DEFENSE tools, that have the power to harm, damage, and worse to kill by accident or intensionally themselves (1st party/suicide) ... by the perpetrator/attacker (2nd Party)... and by non-intentional accidental harm/kill of the bystander (3rd Party)...
FIREARMS (Guns, riffles, bombs, etc.) were created and meant to harm/damage/kill (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Parties) any living creatures (Humans and Beasts)... If we argue for SPORTS events or HUNTING Events, then you do not need to keep (owned) and bear arms... The Committee of Sports, Recreation (hunting), and Leisure will allow/grant us a temporary single short weaponry (non-automatic) during the allotted time of Sports Events, Recreation, and Leisure... afterward, we need to surrender everything (firearms) to the firearm committee... why?... because we do not DO Sports, Recreation, and Leisure 24/7 all year thru... THERE IS ONLY A SEASON FOR HUNTING ALLOWED by the Law of the Land...
"AR15s/ machine guns" buddy... learn the difference before you debate this subject... pulling my hair out.
Thank you for discussing this topic from a Christian perspective. Christians need to be able to think "Christianly" about everything. A lot of commenters are not seeing the value in this discussion. Of course it is not a Gospel issue, but it is an issue that people care about. If we are to reach people with the Gospel we need to understand cultural situations and be able to explain a Christian perspective. This also perfectly showed how a civil conversation on a tough topic should go.
Thinking “Christianly” is not the same as thinking “Americanly” - Christians around the world think Americans are nuts for thinking AR-15’s should be as easy to get as a chocolate bar at the corner store.
I will state my opinion to the British man, here in the USA if someone puts gun control infact the only thing it will accomplish is it will stop the gun sailing in the stores but it will open doors that people will wished that they didn't open because it will not stop gunrunners sailing on the streets
Good format, good quality production and interesting debate. Great job TGC
I am shocked they allowed a halfway competent pro gun person in front of the camera. Give it time, they are still early in the propaganda game.
When does the next one come out? I really enjoyed this!
I think it’s interesting that Andrew seems to make the argument that he wouldn’t use violence to defend himself or others because Jesus didn’t but would defend himself against things like false accusations… Is that because Jesus defended himself against false accusations?
Remember that time that Jesus didn’t defend himself against false accusations?
@@mrich21087 yeah that’s my point. By his logic he shouldn’t defend himself against false accusations either.
No the issue isn't about defending yourself. The issue is about hurting other people to defend yourself. The verbal version would be like verbally assaulting someone else to get revenge. I feel compelled as a follower of Christ to always place my perpitrator and enemy's well being before my own. My destiny is ceiled in prosperity. My enemy's destiny is in the balance. Its not my job to be judge jury and executioner of my enemy. It's my job to love them self sacrificially just as Christ loved his enemies self sacrificially. I can't think of any other theology that correlates with the raw text of scripture
@@leonscott543 Someday, if you get married and have children - you will feel differently about being capable of, and willing to use, force - as a means of defending against a perpetrator. But as long as you are single, and not responsible for anyone else in the world, you can allow a perpetrator to kill you rather than risk taking his life by shooting (or other forms of force) him.
At the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus told Peter to put away his sword - because it was not time to use force to defend Jesus.
........ but Peter DID carry a sword, and Jesus DID allow for that. Jesus was not saying to not have weapons with which to defend yourself or others.
I'm taking Bob's side of the argument here. But the real issue is the degradation of morality enabled by political leaders who will pander to or enable any deviant behavior or say anything for a vote. I've heard stories of people on drugs such as angel dust that have broken through chain link fences, smashed down doors and having been shot 6 times finally staggered into the street and died. When I grew up you could buy a rifle or shotgun in a gas station. My Dad on a Sunday ride would pull off to the side of the highway, pull a rifle out of the trunk and pop a crow with others driving by. As a teen I could walk out the door with my shotgun through the neighborhood a couple blocks and go rabbit hunting and no one cared. We saw our neighbors in Church. I truly miss those days. Fix morality, put CHRIST first and there won't be any need for a debate over gun control.
The last few minutes of footsie sums up the whole debate. 😂😂
This guy just said we shouldn’t have killed hitler.
Also, I think I’m hearing him right cause he also denies that Christians should ever be in support of capitol punishment…
Yet he probably thinks our firebombing of civilians in Dresden in WW2 was justifiable because it might have saved some Jews from the death camps by ending the war sooner….their conscience is seared
He is honest and consistent in his defense of being harmless and defenseless.
I’m really surprised that neither of them addressed the passage where Jesus tells the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword, which in the context seemed to be for the purpose of defending themselves on missionary journeys that He was sending them out to. That’s one of the easiest places to see Christ’s support for self-defense weaponry.
It was interesting to listen to this debate as someone who lives in a country with very strict gun laws
@Guido De Based 1561 I've done both and not in a rush to do either again.
Interesting that Andrew states, "Jesus said you have heard it was said, but I'm saying this..."
Jesus was going above and beyond the law to show how the hearts and minds of people are at the root of sin. It is the state of a person's heart and mind that brings about murder. The tool is incidental. We don't have to go far into Genesis to see this.
Laws exist so that sinful man has limits to his wickedness. That’s what red flag laws are for. That’s what gun restrictions are for. Ask any Christian outside America what they think of Americans’ obsessive gun idolatry. They are utterly baffled. We look like little kids in a train wreck video game. But with actual bloodshed to show for. Sickening how loose our laws are. It’s easier to purchase an actual military grade weapon here than the latest video game in some cases. Wow.
Do any of the detractors of the right of self defense here, who (especially after the last two years) would pound the table talking anout Romans 13, disagree that the US government has the right to bear the sword, and set up laws expect its citizens to defense of community and country??? Well, look no further than the laws of our country that we have had for 100’s of years. A valid question could be posed: are you being a good christian, and secondarily a citizen, if you deny people the ability to protect themselves with common weapons (US VS MILLER)? A much better case could be made for a NO answer than a YES answer
Pro2a arguments are going to fail if you Bible thump. No offense! I'm not saying the argument is invalid, but .....A secular argument would be better. Then you could further back it up with biblical texts.
I’m very pro 2A and I completely agree.
I’m actually impressed that TGC brought Bob Thune in on this and that they’ve left comments open…. Surprised is probably a better word. I find it curious that they brought a Christian pacifist in as the backstop on this debate. Had they brought in most any of the squishy BigEva guys, they’d not have been able to just settle back against the position the same way. Maybe a John Piper could, since he wouldn’t even defend his own wife from assault, but there’s really not any other way that I see there to be a respectable defense to Bob’s position. I do think that Andrew is wrong, but I at least can appreciate his consistency in his worldview. I did think the use of the example of Paul in the garden could have really wounded him in a moderated debate under cross examination though; given that there was a particular reason for which Paul was in error and the tension placed up against Jesus’ command that they arm themselves, even at the cost of their own cloak.
Unlike some of the other ‘goodfaith’ debates, I thought this was actually beneficial to the people and edification of the Church. 👍
Peter was the one with the sword in the garden.
This is a silly debate. There is no scriptural prohibition on owning a weapon, so why have the debate? It's a political issue, not a Christian issue. Peter carried a sword and all Jesus told him was to put it away. Plus, everybody has some sort of weapon in their home, why single out guns? Is it okay to kill someone with a knife? This debate is a waste of time. PS the Brits stats are bunko.
Well done, guys. It would be interesting to redo this debate with a non-pacifist arguing for stricter gun control. The pacifism element may tempt some to be dismissive of the gun control case being made here. Thanks for doing these!
That could be better. Honestly though, he was pretty close to what most proponents of stricter gun control advocate, to a “T” almost. And he didn’t do it any better. Pretty surface level arguments. But i like the idea
the problem is that he thinks pretty much the same as everyone else that argue for gun control. he just at least has the courage to say his views in plain english(letting hitler take power and control the world while purposely doing nothing). most people argue points that directly insinuates the same views, but wont openly admit it.
I watched this yesterday March 27th probably around the same time as what happened in Nashville 😢.
Great discussion. I personally would love much more actual debate. Direct back and forth between the two rather than the constant moderation. Think it loses a lot of steam because of that and assumes the two handpicked debaters (who are obviously Godly and gentle men), can’t just have a 30 minute actual discussion with far less moderation. But: still grateful for TGC in putting this series of topics debates online
To be fair, debating is an actual event with standards of conduct. Think of it more as a court case rather than an argument in which the two presenters are trying to persuade a judge, not their opponent.
I like how the brit makes the argument “i dont want to ban carving knives”, but his countrymen have regularly thrown around banning even being able to carry around knives for protection
What would Christians think about civilians owning AR-15's? We should ask Christians in Ukraine and Christians in Venezuela and Christians in 1775....
I will grant the arguments of the opposition for unrestricted gun ownership if he applies the same logic to cars and alcohol, which kill far more than firearms. I will be waiting.
Only in America this would get an audience. In most other places where Christianity has sprouted, it's crystal clear that Jesus calls his followers to turn the other cheek, to pay evil with good, to go the extra mile. "“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." But in America, one's is a Republican before a Christian...
Or is it "only in Europe"? I'd really like to find out how Christian in sub-Saharan Africa and South America view this. But the standard evangelical response to the "turn the other cheek" argument is that Christ was talking about insult, not assault.
@@cbrooks97 I'm from Latinamerica, and I personally know people from 20+ Hispanic countries. The concensus in evangelical Christianity is that weapons are not something you cherish. You don't participate in any violent demonstration. Arms are associated with gangs and drug cartels.
@@kennethgmtz "Violent demonstration" -- does that include self-defense, though?
"For all who take the sword will perish by the sword".
Christ commended the faith of the centurion with no reprimand on his occupation.
I'll take up arms in self-defence, it's a reasonable thing to do and I'm not American. "Let your moderation be known to all men, for the Lord is at hand."
@@cbrooks97 "Insult" is definitely not a standard interpretation. It's not an unheard of one, but I would say an unusual one.
One speaker seemed to confuse the kingdom of Heaven (where the sermon on the mount is effective) and the kingdom of this earth.
Tanks and cannons are legal. So are machine guns.
How about doing a “through” topic on the Ukraine War since you opened up with it? Really dig down into the past and bring it full circle; give all the facts. Oh, sorry, you’d probably want to retract what you said and publicly repent, right?
I can't get behind Andrew's total pacifism, but do think he's basically right about gun control. I don't see how you can reasonably leap from the right to self-defence to the right to bear arms. It's perfectly possible to operate a liberal democracy (and one much freer and safer than America) without the need for your citizens to be armed.
Yes it is possible for other democracy’s to exist but that is only do to the American experiment. The first modern democratic-republic. Every unarmed populace is eventually ravaged by its government.
@@tanneryirka7935 As for your first point, sure. Everyone is standing on another's shoulders. But that doesn't mean we keep the conditions which got us to where we are. Much of modern civilisation was built on war and slavery, for example, but most people agree it is desirable to eliminate these as much as possible.
As for your second point... well, you'll have to substantiate that argument a bit more. Most of Europe seems to be getting on basically okay, and has much stricter firearms control and/or lower ownership rates. Certainly there's nothing I can think of that would be best redressed by an armed populace. Probably the main thing to stop a government from ravaging its people is separation of powers with appropriate checks and balances, and the ability of the people to fairly elect their leaders on a regular basis (an area the USA could definitely do better in).
You know what they say, “Those who don’t know history are bound to make an incorrect comment on an internet video.”
@@mrich21087 how about making an argument instead of being condescending?
Watched this as an Australian Christian trying to understand the US gun context (which to most Aussies is quite weird). Was pleasantly surprised to see we got quite a mention!
How's the gun confiscation working out for you Aussies with your Cøvíd Nàzì government setting up quarantine camps?
wow this was fantastic
The anti gun guy has no clue what he’s talking about literally extremely uninformed and many different domains and facets
God says to obey your leaders. America was founded on the principal of individual liberty and political engagement.. therefore, Americans are commanded to engage with their nation’s politics, including the topic of gun ownership.
Unless the leaders were causing us to sin. When it comes down to it, the government is full of greedy, power hungry people who want control what we do. The second amendment allows us to have a regulated militia to keep the government in check. The government works for us, not the other way around. Obeying those in charge only go so far.
Thinking Americanly and thinking Christianly are two separate things. Most Christians around the world find America’s obsessive idolatry of guns disturbing.
If every Christian has a responsibility to love their neighbor and encourage them to defend their rights then there should be no debate on whether or not abortion or LGBTQ rights are deemed legally acceptable either. It's asinine.
LGBTQ right we’ll yeh, not marriage tho if your a Christian. And abortion is still wrong because it’s not a right.
@@cractrick9225 Actually according to the Bible God gave us free will and dominion over our bodies so it is a right. Marriage is also not a right solely given to Christians or straight couples. Marriage is a ceremony with many different names across many different cultures and religions so no one has the right to try and restrict others from deciding who they want to commit to and how they do it.
If people who claimed to be Christians focused on spending even half as much time worrying about their own individual shortcomings versus the everyday trials of others the world would be a better place. But then again the Bible says the road is narrow so 🤷
@@doubleiidivapsn1335 not a Christian btw just pointing out that scripture doesn’t condone gay marriage and if you do want a gay wedding a paster will rewrite scripture so yeh I can see why some Christian’s would be pissed off. Btw Evan from a religious standpoint about abortion the idea is that the soul is there before birth when exactly most Christian would say conception. So my point in saying my first message Christians are following scripture and not just new age hippie Christians that don’t care about scripture or sin just acceptance.
whatever you say redcoat
Jesus made sure that the disciples had swords on the night of Jesus arrest. Peter used one on a guard but Jesus rebuked him and healed the man. The swords were only there tp prove they could resist but chose not to - they chose healing over self-defense. If you can't use a sword to save Jesus, you can't use a sword. That's the gospel message.
that's a descriptive story about swords, not a prescriptive teaching about them.
So your theory is that Jesus instructed his disciples to buy a sword so he could teach them a lesson about how using swords is wrong? Jesus had a mission to accomplish. Peter starting a rebellion would not have accomplished that mission. How do you get from a rebuke in that specific situation to the conclusion that there's never an appropriate situation to use violence?
"vengeance is ____"
... not the same as self-defense.
@@cbrooks97 Guns are not defensive tools. Shields are. God is our shield and refuge, right?
@@Dylaniated That is a /very/ narrow definition of "defensive". So a "defensive war" wouldn't even be possible, you can only build a giant shield and hope they don't go around.
Vengeance is STILL not the same as self-defense.
@@cbrooks97 yep I think the kingdom isn't what we would expect.
Yes for sure vengeance isn't self-defense. And self-defense doesn't necessitate using guns. This is assuming self defense is a Christian behavior ("And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.")
@@Dylaniated I ask, are you married and have children? As a single man, I would have said "Ok, I will take a bullet to make the Gospel Statement" As a father and husband I have a mega-shift in my worldview. I would fight tooth and nail til my last breath using whatever means necessary to protect my family.
GOOD Faith Posted Property No Tresspasion Means Keep Out Or No Traping Hunting or Fishing Or Traping or Droins Night Vision Like To Watch My Little Girl Play Dress up 5 x5 Gal Buckets Got Shot Down 1 Night 8
Sure, but would Jesus kill someone?
God does, and Jesus is God, so... maybe/
@@coreywhittaker504 well more specifically God the father does, but not God the son
@@Dylaniated True, but is that an actual role distinction? in the final judgement, I believe it is Jesus who sends people to hell. It's hypothetical of course, but we can't really say it would be outside Jesus' character, could we? Depends on our Trinitarian Theology I guess.
@@coreywhittaker504 sure, so either way ppl are not the judge
“God kills everyone.” - John Piper
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
Bro I hope you realise how fucking long that is
The Quran has nothing to do with the Christian perspective on gun control.
The Gospel Coalition (and this pastor) lose credibility with this. This is far beyond the biblical scope we are called to be representatives of for Christ. As a comment earlier stated, we are mixing up the kingdom of God and the kingdom of earth with this
You completely missed the point. First of all, this is an exercise in showing how Christians ought to debate - without acrimony but with good faith and gentleness.
Secondly, worldly matters are less significant, but are still important in Christian life. We engage them from the perspective of the Gospel. You don't just put your head in the sand after becoming a Christian.
@@FlowLai Agreed on that. If we can not have civil, good faith discussion on non-salvation matters, how could we ever have healthy discussions with others on matters pertaining to salvation? Kudos to The Gospel Coalition.
I would say they've actually gained credibility from this. It was a good, healthy debate, which a lot of people could learn from.
In a democracy, how we vote is part of how we represent Christ. There is also the additional question of individual believers and their approach to the issue in their lives (such as whether they will own weapons and engage in self-defense), so I think this is totally appropriate.
Typical American preoccupation with their constitution and Christianity. This the right to bear arms has nothing to do with Christian worldview or ministry, nothing. TGC has lost credibility thanks but no thanks. Unsubscribing.
Do you think the same when it comes to critical race theory?
Typical response of the morally confused and arrogant. Do you have a channel i can unsubscribe from?
Although, i am happy whenever someone digs TGC