Doesn't Being Pro-Life Mean Supporting Gun Control?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences.

These audiences may include but are not limited to professing Christians who never read their Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man

bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies.

Viewer discretion is advised.

People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and gloom.

The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject

Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of

heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of almighty

God is hanging over our heads.

They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath

come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a

man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended

to the right hand of the Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods

of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask.

We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we'll seek to answer the age -old question, doesn't

being pro -life mean supporting gun control?

Now, I'm sure if you're a living, breathing person who's not living under a rock, you've probably heard that in

the last probably month or so, maybe a month and a half at this point, there's been two sort of

major mass shootings, major in terms of the devastation of them,

but then also the coverage of them by the mainstream media.

So what always happens whenever something like this comes up is naturally everyone sort of

starts debating what should we do about the fact that

we can own guns and the laws that surround owning guns, because I

think a lot of people are legitimately concerned over the safety of others,

and people just don't always agree on what makes people the most

safe.

So a lot of times what happens is you'll see on major news outlets, you'll see all over social media,

people will all of a sudden be debating everywhere, what should we do about gun control?

Should we implement stricter gun control laws?

Should we ease up on gun control laws?

Should we start arming certain groups of the population that are not currently required

to be armed?

These are all questions that are being debated all over the place right now.

So we wanted to be able to have an episode that helps Christians think through these

questions as it relates to guns, as it relates to weapons, as it relates to self -defense.

What should our view be?

What does God tell us about these things?

Tim, really the place that I think would be most helpful to start would be just to

ask you the question, before we get into what should we do, should we own guns, should we not?

What should we do with those weapons that we have?

Really the first question I want to ask you is just, what do you think about having these debates at

all pretty much immediately after a big situation like

this happens where you have some sort of mass shooting?

Do you think that there should even be debates over gun control immediately after these things

happen?

Or do you think that's appropriate for the situation?

What do you think?

I think the standard conservative response is to basically say to the liberals at that

point, because the liberals use every one of these situations as an opportunity to essentially

try to take everyone's guns away from them.

The standard conservative response to that kind of thing though is to say that, hey, this isn't the time or place to have that kind of discussion.

While the bodies are laying on the floor, so to speak, this isn't the time.

We need to agree with those who grieve, and we can have this kind of discussion later.

I've never, honestly, I don't really think that that is

a good response to the left as far as that's concerned.

It doesn't appear to me that your standard conservative is even remotely grieving

about a situation that they're so far removed from.

It does seem difficult to sustain the kind of

personal grief for every atrocity that happens in the world.

We're living in a bit of a different time now.

If this is something that's happening in your area, so to speak,

and you can literally imagine yourself standing outside the massacre, and

the bodies are on the ground, and someone comes up and wants to engage with you in a gun control

kind of discussion at that point, then I would think that, yes, in that specific kind of situation,

that wouldn't be the time.

But then when you're living in the social media world, and you're aware of all sorts of events

like this, you're not exactly in that moment talking to grieving people at that moment.

And so I've never been persuaded that there's some sort of lack of propriety in having

the conversation itself.

Now, what I mean by that is I don't begrudge them for having it in that way.

I think it's a dumb conversation to have, period.

So that's just telling you where I'm coming from.

I think it's a dumb conversation to have at that moment, period, just because it's

a dumb argument that's being made.

But the fact that they're having it at that point in time, I don't necessarily...

When are you going to talk about it?

So it's just one of those things where it's just like...

You can imagine something like that happening in your home, for instance,

where maybe there's something that's a bit dangerous in your home, and one of your kids...

Maybe you have some sort of BB gun in your house or

something like that, and you can imagine one of your kids shooting another kid from that.

Then if your wife were to come up to you and basically say, Hey, we need to do something about this because

this is not the first time this happened and our window is getting busted out.

I don't think at that point you're just like, Hey, not the time and not the place.

At that point it's like, No, this is an opportunity to revisit what we're doing here, right?

Now, I don't know that the best decisions are going to be made in an emotional framework anyways, but

I don't know that it's a horrible thing to have the conversation.

I think it's more just about...

Particularly when you're commenting on issues that you're not intimately involved in from a distance anyways.

So I think, yes, I don't begrudge a person for having a conversation

because of timing.

I just more begrudge them for having the conversation because it's a dumb argument that's being advanced.

Now, do you think that there's any legitimacy to the objection that,

Okay, so we might not be necessarily mourning directly with those who

mourn, but then isn't there a sense in which you view something like that and

the natural response would be like, I can't believe something like this happened.

This is utterly evil and wicked.

Isn't there still that response though?

I'm not saying that you should be a robot or something along those lines.

I mean, I would pick at your words a little bit just to say that, yes, I can believe it would happen.

Right, yeah, yeah.

Honestly, because if you...

And that's part of the reason why the discussion goes the way it goes is because you have a fairly naive view of the way human nature

actually works.

It's an operation in these kind of discussions.

I don't think a Christian should be absolutely emotionalist like a Spock kind of person just

carefully having a discussion, but at the same time, there are thousands of atrocities just like

that that are happening every day, all day long, that now we're made aware of by

virtue of the fact that we're living in a world where all these things are being put on full

display all day long, every day.

I mean, if you go on social media, it's just like a horrible thing after horrible thing after horrible thing, and there's only so much

outrage and scandal and weeping that you can possibly do at a certain point.

It's just like, okay, these are up for public comment, so we need to be able to provide public comment for it

as far as that's concerned, so I don't think you should be emotionalist.

I'm just trying to suggest that there is a...

It is a bit of a different situation that's happening with these kind of things when you are not there on the ground in the

moment and have no connection to anyone.

Like, in some sense, I don't know that it's possible just to...

Every time something happens...

I don't know that it's necessarily possible or necessarily reasonable just to...

Like, every time a problem surfaces in the world, just to say, well, we need a...

It's inappropriate to talk about.

Now, I mean, in a lot of these situations, yes, I do think you need to take some time to actually figure out what happened first,

and so social media does kind of encourage everyone to instantaneously respond with very little information

and try to fix problems.

Like, the Bible says, if you give an answer before you hear it, it's following shame.

So I do think there is a type of appropriateness to waiting and suspending judgment

until you can figure out what the situation was, and we don't do a very good job at that.

But I do think conservatives could be criticized at that point where they could just

look at us and say, essentially, it's always inappropriate to have it.

When are you going to have it?

How many times does this have to happen before you're willing to have the conversation?

And by the time that it all dies down, then, you know, technically, then no one wants to talk about it anymore, right?

Right, right, yeah.

It's not the popular thing anymore.

It's never going to be the time and place to have this discussion, right?

So, yeah, I understand that, but I mean, I just, I don't...

I mean, it's just, in some sense, it's like, you know, if Japan were to drop a nuke on us,

we have to figure out what we're going to do, right?

Right, uh -huh, yeah.

Not the time and place.

People are grieving, you know?

It's like, no, but they may drop another one if we don't do something, you know?

So there are, I mean, I just question that kind of logic in general is the only

point.

Right.

I guess the other bit of pushback that I want to ask you is, is there any legitimacy

to basically saying like, hey, look, this is a really...

For a lot of people, things like this tend to be like really, really emotionally charged.

Is there any value in saying maybe we should at least wait a little bit

to let the emotions of everything die down and kind of like make sure

people have processed it where they can think logically about these things?

Or do you think that that's not really all that valuable in this day and age where there's no

telling the type of people you're going to interact with?

I don't know the type of person that you're talking about who is going to be thinking purely on emotion.

Is the kind of person who needs to be making any decisions at all.

Uh -huh.

So, I mean, you would hope that the kind of people that are making decisions would be the kind of people who are

not largely appealing to emotion at that point, but appealing to reason and logic and principle and having a

backbone and having a spine.

You do need to have individuals who are making those kind of decisions be the type of

individuals who are not training themselves to respond emotionally.

Now, I don't know that that's what we have.

Right, right.

Period.

But then I don't know that it helps it either way.

An emotional thinker is an emotional thinker.

If all we have is emotional thinkers, we're in trouble anyways.

So, I don't know that it really helps all that much.

But, yeah, I mean, surely you can get a mob worked up in the midst of a tense situation and something needs

to be done, something needs to be done.

I don't think those are the best time to make decisions, but having a conversation is having a conversation

as far as that goes.

Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.

Well, turning to the topic at hand, which is not necessarily

directly mass shootings, but rather what should Christians think

when it comes to owning guns, owning weapons of self -defense, defending themselves.

Why don't we just start with that title question?

So, I've seen a lot of people online who are suggesting,

Christians, we're notoriously pro -life.

I mean, it's probably one of the most annoying things about us is we think you shouldn't kill

babies.

And that's a pretty drastic, that's a pretty

frustrating stance for anyone who's not pro -life.

So, something that is often said towards Christians, I think kind of

really as a way to undermine both our stance on

abortion and gun control at the same time, is this idea that you

aren't actually pro -life if you support owning guns, right?

Why?

Because the people who support owning guns are,

according to some people, actively enabling these sorts of tragic events, these types

of mass shootings.

And so, the argument then is you're not actually pro -life if you support

the Second Amendment, basically.

So, what is your response to that?

Do you think that being pro -life means being pro -gun

control at that point?

Yeah, I mean, I guess there's two responses to that.

One response is just to say that they obviously aren't pro -life themselves.

Like, these are the people who want to kill children.

So, they're not the ones to lecture anyone on what it means to be consistently pro -life.

They're not Obi -Wan.

They don't have the high ground.

No, for sure.

Response number two is just to say that yeah, I'll agree with you.

I'm not pro -life.

I'm anti -murder.

So, I'll concede the point.

I'm not pro -life.

I'm anti -murder.

I don't feel like pro -life is a good slogan that we should be using.

I'm anti -murder.

And because there are murderers in the world, I feel like we need some ability to stop them.

And that's part of the problem with this kind of discussion is that there isn't a realistic perspective of the nature of

pervasive evil in the world.

And murder is as old as Cain, right?

It's as old as sin.

It's as old as the devil.

I mean, it's a problem that's never going to go away.

So, because murderers exist, then we need it seems to me to be a little bit

unwise to give them a massive and overpowering technological advantage over you that would

render you powerless in your attempt to stop them.

So, that's the issue.

The issue is, well, what do we do about the problem of murder?

So, yes, I believe murder is wrong.

I believe that Christians should try to stop it.

So, that means that I think it would be absolutely foolish to give evil people

the ability to have some form of technology that would render you completely and totally

powerless.

I think you need if you actually care about life and preserving life, then

you should have the ability to have the same kind of technology that's

available to those who seek to do you harm.

Okay.

So, in terms of answering the question, doesn't being pro -life mean being pro -gun?

Your answer is, well, I'm actually not pro -life.

I just think it's a dumb slogan, pro -life, and it's a dumb slogan.

But, I mean, if you just take it at face value, like I mean, it's just a dumb I mean, if you take it at face value and you say,

okay, like, you know, Christians have tried to present ourselves as being pro -life, meaning we don't want to kill

people, then sure, yeah, but now a logical entailment of that is not that you should,

like, get rid of guns, because that doesn't logically follow from the position.

So, you know, I'm going to distance myself from the pro -life movement that I think is largely

ineffective, but, you know, I want to distance myself from that, but at the same time, you know, it doesn't

follow to say that if you're pro -life, then you want to remove any ability that anyone has to defend themselves from

evil people.

So, if you do value life, then it seems like there like,

what's happening here is you have a major disconnect between the nature of the problem that we face.

So, like, guns, you know, like, guns don't kill people, right?

Evil people kill people.

To put it that way.

Adam Sandler, Happy Gilmore, the shirt, guns.

Don't kill people, I kill people.

I mean, the issue is it's like a gun doesn't do anything, a rock doesn't kill people, right?

Right, right.

You have to use –.

You can use a rock to kill people, you can use a knife to kill people, you can use a gun to kill people, you could use your fist to kill people.

Like, you can't outlaw everything, so you can't outlaw a fist, you can't outlaw –.

Chop all the hands off.

Yeah, I mean, maybe the feminist dreams would be realized at that point if all the men were, you know, had their hands removed.

But then, like, that isn't really at some point, like, the issue is there are evil people who are going to that

have murder in their heart and are going to kill people.

And you can take away guns, but that doesn't stop a person.

They can strangle someone, they can – you know, there's a lot of ways that you can kill someone.

It's neither here nor there.

Now, the issue is, like, if you want to protect people, then if there are evil people exist in the world and we have a responsibility to protect people,

then it seems to me that you don't want to cripple, like, the law -abiding citizens' ability

to protect themselves from those who have a propensity to break the law anyway.

So, you know, the kind of person who's going to be a school shooter, like, they're the kind of person who basically you can

tell them all day long, you know, you can't shoot people, you know, and this is a gun -free zone, but they don't care about that,

right?

Yeah, yeah.

Like, they don't care.

So, like, the issue is, what do we do, like, to protect life?

Well, that, like, it because, like, evil is stubborn and pervasive and insane and

there's no way to stop it, like, through legislation, evil is always going to be there.

I mean, just look at the fact that if you try to outlaw –.

I mean, they know this in the abortion discussion.

Like, this is what's so absurd about it, is they know this.

It's like, if you make it illegal for a woman to kill, like, their child in their womb

with a doctor, then everyone's like, well, what about the clothes hanger abortions and things like that

that put the life of the mother at risk and all that, right?

It's like, they know that you take away the forceps that are going to cut that baby in half and, you know,

the vacuums that are going to suck their brains out of their skull.

It's like, well, they can just stick a coat hanger up there if they don't want the baby, you know?

So, like, the issue is not, like, you know, a murderer is going to murder, like, that's the issue.

And it's almost taken for granted that, like, if you stop her from doing it in a legal way, they're obviously going to do it in

an illegal way, right?

Yeah, even at the risk of their own safety.

Right, I mean, and it's just like, yeah, that's the way it works.

So, like, the issue with the guns is not – that's not the issue.

Like, the issue is, like, evil people are going to do evil things.

Right.

So, then you have to have some ability to stop them, and it may be that you don't want them to have

a massive technological advantage over you, if possible, if you have any goal of stopping them.

But, yeah, no, it's a dumb argument.

It's being pro -life or anti -murder does not entail taking away any

ability on the part of good people to protect themselves and others from evil people.

So, I guess, is the difference in your mind in terms of being pro

-life and anti -murder, is the difference basically like, hey, so, I don't so,

no matter what, I don't want murder to happen, but then, you know, I'm not

necessarily, like, completely pro -life because I think that, like, the one trying to

do the murder should probably die?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, hang them by the neck till their feet.

Stop kicking, right?

Uh -huh.

So, I mean, I'm not, like, you know, for all life, period, the end.

Uh -huh.

Right?

I'm for the protection of innocent life.

I'm not for the protection of guilty life.

So, the Bible talks about, like, if you spill the blood of man, by man your blood will be shed, meaning there are

things you can do that forfeit your right to life.

Now, for a baby in her mother's womb, they haven't done anything to forfeit their right to life.

Right.

Now, if you kill someone, you've forfeited your right to life.

So, I'm not just pro -life in the abstract, meaning that all life has dignity and

value and must be protected at all cost, period, the end.

No, like, yes, we all have a right to live unless we forfeit that right through our actions, if that

makes sense.

Yeah.

And there are things we can do that would forfeit that right.

And then at that point, I'm not pro -life for murderers.

Uh -huh.

Right?

I'm anti -murder, right?

And that's why saying I'm anti -murder is clearer is because I'm saying I'm anti -murder.

Now, there is such a thing as a justified killing, and that's what the government is there to do, is to bear the

sword and to provide a justified just killing in the case of individuals who have violated the rights of

others.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah.

So, just saying you're pro -life does leave you open to this juvenile kind of

argument that's being put forward.

That's not a good argument.

It's like, oh, I thought you were against killing, right?

And it's like, when I just read a dictionary, there's a difference between killing and murder, right?

I'm against murder.

And I'm not against all.

Like, there is such a thing as a justified killing.

Yeah.

Government -sanctioned executions.

Yeah.

I mean, now, just because the government sanctions it doesn't mean it's good, but there are cases where it

would be good for them to sanction it.

Does that make sense?

Right, yeah.

Like, the Holocaust is an example of a very bad one.

Yes, that would be a government -sanctioned unjustified killing.

But the only way you figure out what a justified killing is is by going to the Bible and figuring out what the Bible's

definition of a justified killing is.

And there are a few examples in there, one of which is when someone murders you, like, you

have the responsibility as a nation to put that murderer to death, an eye for

an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.

You know, another example is Exodus 21, 1 -2, if a man steals an ox or a sheep

and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox and four sheep

for a sheep.

If the thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood guilt for him.

So, like, there are rules in the Bible of, like, someone sneaking in your house, particularly at

night, and, like, let's see, Exodus 22, 3, but if

the sun has risen on him, there shall be blood guilt for him.

He shall surely pay.

If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Like, the issue is, like, if a thief comes in your house to steal something at night, you don't know what his intention is.

You can't just see, oh, he's just trying to steal something, right?

And so, like, then at that point, there's a justified right to self -defense at that point that can be lethal

because you're in my house under the cover of night and I'm unable to discern, like, your

motives at that point.

So there are times where, like, there is such a thing as a justified killing.

The Bible gives us examples of those things, and, you know, so I'm not just pro all life, right?

I'm pro Hitler's life, right?

Like, Hitler forfeited his right to life after he murdered six million Jews, right?

Yeah. Yeah.

So I guess, so owning a gun, then.

Sure.

Your argument would basically just be, well, and I think you said this earlier, but

your argument would be, well, the criminals are going to own guns either way because

they're criminals.

They don't care what the law says.

They're going to do whatever they want to do as long as they think that they can probably get away with it, most likely.

So the answer, then, is to not, you know, strip the right away from

the law -abiding citizen who is probably going to just, to the best of their ability,

follow the laws that they've been put under.

So the answer is to not, you know, make laws for them that would essentially strip them of the

capability of defending themselves, right?

That would be, I mean, that's one argument.

I think that there's many arguments for the right to bear arms in

terms of arguments for the Second Amendment.

So I think the primary argument that was given at the time

for the adoption of the Second Amendment in and of itself was the idea that governments can turn

tyrannical.

So, like, the issue was, like, it's a citizen's duty to protect themselves from a

tyrannical government.

So one of the things that's happened is we believe that the government is essentially God over us.

And we look to them, like, in these situations whenever a shooting happens, we look to the government essentially to be our savior.

And that's what's happening.

So people are looking to the government to fix all problems, but there's some problems that simply can't be fixed.

So one of those problems is the issue of murder.

It doesn't rise.

Individuals aren't innately good.

Individuals are evil, and they're going to, like, there's anger in their heart, and they're of the father of the devil, and they're going to, you know,

murderers are going to murder, right?

So the issue is, like, how are they going to do it?

So, like, but then the issue, though, is that, like, you know, with the advent of guns, like,

it's just, you know, with every technology that's ever been invented throughout the history of the world, when,

like, a group of people possess a massive technological advantage over others, what that means is that they

essentially can do whatever they want to do.

Right. Yeah.

So, like, if you're going into the, you know, the tribe, the primitive tribe, and they have their wooden spears, right, and you

have your tank, they're done.

You know, I mean, it's just like, like, that's what a massive technological advantage essentially will do.

Like, it just basically puts the other person, it makes them powerless, and you can imagine this with any

type of sophistication as it relates to the technology.

When you possess that massive technological advantage, I mean, this, I mean, essentially happened with swords, you know,

with the different ages, you know, are you talking about the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or whatever else?

Like, but then you bring, like, the problem up to the level of guns, and essentially, like, guns are

just an overwhelming technological advantage, particularly when you have, like, laser

beam, laser beams on them and scopes on them and everything else.

Like, there's just a massive technological advantage there, and I mean, if you're pointing a gun at someone and you've learned how to shoot

it, I mean, essentially, there's very little ability they have to react at that point,

right?

You pull a trigger, they're dead, right?

Right. Yeah.

I mean, not in every case, but I mean, that's just typically, like, that's the way it works, right?

So if you're a good shot, there, you know, there's adrenaline and there's other factors, but, I mean, it's just the

kind of thing where you don't, you know, you have a sword, you have to actually walk up to them and you have to actually swing it well, and there's some kind

of skill involved, but with a gun, it's like an equalizer at that point.

But then, like, the issue, though, is that whoever has that advantage, whoever has it is

the one who basically calls the shots, okay?

Like, literally, no pun intended.

I mean, that's the point, though, but then it's like if the criminals have it, that's part of the problem is that, right, well, why would you, like, so part of

it is, yes, like, one component of it is, like, all right, now you disarm

the law -abiding populace and the criminals now are the only ones who have it, then what that means is that everyone is essentially

a self -target, right?

So everyone is at the mercy of the criminals, because the criminals could care less about your laws, and that's why, you know,

the most unsafe place to be is to be in a gun -free zone, right?

It's like what that is is just this advertising soft target, right?

That's what it says.

And so part of it is a criminal discussion, but then the issue, though, is it's like, well, someone has to have the technology in order to

keep everyone in check, right?

And now are you going to trust the government to do it?

Like, the same government who's locked us in our home for two years, the same government who is trying to force vaccines, you know, down

our throats and up our nose, nostril rape us, right?

You know, like, do you trust them?

Do you trust these individuals to be the ones who have the overwhelming technology to basically call the

shots and do everything that they're telling you to do?

Well, they have no track record of earning trust in that way.

Like, they violated trust at every single point.

And so the issue with the Second Amendment was that there was an understanding that the

rulers could go bad and become tyrannical, and now we have rulers who have gone bad and gone tyrannical.

And if they're the only ones with the technology, you're at their mercy.

That's the point, right?

Right, yeah.

So anytime they're wanting to force you to do something that you don't necessarily want to do, they have the ability to do

it.

And that's why every time, like, in every society, I mean, that's what's happening in Australia right now.

It has been happening in Australia is they've disarmed the populace, and now the government basically comes in and makes them do, you know, puts

them in concentration camps, you know, kind of things.

Yeah, yeah.

If they don't get this vaccine.

And I mean, that's the way it works.

And throughout history, that's how it's always worked.

The first step of, you know, a totalitarian regime is to disarm the populace, and at that point, they're sitting ducks,

and they do whatever they tell you to.

And, you know, there's been millions and millions of people who have died due to communism after communism disarmed the populace.

That's the way it works.

If they have the overwhelming massive technological advantage, you have no recourse at that point anymore at all.

So, I mean, part of it's that.

So part of it's like, yeah, the criminals are not going to obey it, right?

They're the ones who are not going to obey it.

Government officials are not trustworthy.

They're not the ones—we can't trust them to do it.

But, I mean, I think that there's just plenty—.

I mean, there's biblical arguments just to say, like, Jesus tells his followers to go buy a sword,

even, right?

So there's that.

But, I mean, I do think we also have an actual responsibility to protect individuals, and that's

something that has to factor into this kind of discussion.

So, you know, there's plenty of situations where there's some sort of active shooter.

I mean, I read an article just last week of a situation where there was an active shooter, and the woman shot him, right?

Pulled out a gun and shot him.

It's like, well, that's what you want to have happen.

The issue is when you have this overwhelming technology, and there's no way to

unravel Pandora's box at this point.

Everyone has it.

The issue is if you make it ubiquitous, meaning it's widespread, then that deters people.

So you have a strategy discussion that's involved in this kind of discussion as well.

I mean, it's like, what's the best way to do it?

To discourage people from becoming an active shooter.

Well, you know that no one's going to become an active shooter at a gun show, right?

Well, okay.

So you're bringing up an interesting point there, and I wanted to mention this

while you're kind of on this topic.

The reason I want to mention this is because I really haven't—.

What I'm about to ask you is something that I don't know that I've really seen

anyone mentioning.

If there are people mentioning this, I haven't seen it at all, and I've seen a lot of

takes on gun control both ways.

But isn't it interesting that it seems like more often than not, these sorts

of mass shootings are happening at schools?

Why are they happening at schools and not

the military base?

Every single action movie is always at a military base or something like that where

there's going to be people fighting back at you.

That's the whole conflict, right?

So why are they happening primarily at schools?

Well, yeah, there's like five answers to that.

I mean, part of it is schools are gun -free zones, and so that means soft targets, right?

There's like one resource officer in the building maybe who might have a gun somewhere.

Who knows where?

I mean, it's just a soft target, man.

It's like evil people are going to do evil things, and you've told everyone that this is

functionally the easiest target that you can have, right?

And the kind of person who's going to do that is going to pick on women and children anyways, right?

And so part of it is just like these are the most helpless people imaginable, and you make them even more helpless because the

teachers don't have guns themselves, right?

You can imagine if every teacher were required to have a gun, what would happen, right?

I would think that the school shootings would go down.

So part of it is that.

Part of it is asking.

So part of it is like it's a soft target, but then a lot of it has to do with the fact that many of these kids, like I

think in one of the more recent examples, like a transgender, I'm using

fake words here, but a guy who had those kind of tendencies, I think.

Yeah, there's no such thing as transgender people.

Yeah.

But then bullying happened and all this kind of stuff, and then he's angry at the

world and doesn't fit in.

And so biblically, where do wars and fights come from among us?

James 4 tells us, do they come from the desires for pleasures that are waging war on our members?

Like essentially, murder comes from a sinful heart.

Essentially, it wants what it wants when it wants it.

And in a lot of these cases, there's a desire to be loved and cared for and respected and

everything else that a person has enough, and then they go on a shooting spree.

So part of it is that.

A lot of these cases, you have individuals who don't have father figures in their life, and so they've never

learned how to— or they've had fathers in their life, their fathers were destructive in certain

ways, and so you basically have a lack of strong male influence in their life that can

weed out some of the destructive tendencies.

What we're not allowed to ask in any of these situations is, are these individuals smoking weed?

Are they high?

Marijuana can really affect an individual's perception of reality and make things

that are very abnormal seem to be normal.

We're not allowed to ask how many psychotropic drugs this individual is taking,

and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many of these drugs are

very prevalent in these kind of situations.

We're just not allowed to talk about it because of the money that goes into pharmaceuticals.

I think there's a lot of things that could be happening in those kind of situations, but typically, yeah, it is going to happen in a

school situation because these are helpless people who have basically functionally been disarmed.

And that tells you something about the logic of the project.

All that you do when you disarm people is— you create a gun -free zone as you do create a soft

target.

Yeah, definitely.

Sitting duck, basically.

If you think about it, if you're a teacher in a school and you know

that there's an active shooter and you have no weapon, you're never going to have a

logical thought that leads you to say, I need to run out there and confront the shooter.

You're going to say, we need to hide and lock the doors, hope that they don't find us.

If you're a girl.

If you're a girl, yeah.

We're definitely going to talk about that some more here in a minute.

But before we get there, before we get there, so I know that

owning a gun is something that the Constitution says is our right.

The Second Amendment tells us that we have a right to bear arms.

So I guess my question would be like, all right, so that's great and all, but is

it an actual God -given right that we be able to

own guns or knives or whatever as self -defense weapons?

Or is that just something that the Constitution affords us and could go either way,

basically, just depending on the government you live under and the specific

laws that they have?

Or is it an actual God -given right that can't actually be taken away from us the same

way your right to life can't be taken away

without proper cause, like we talked about earlier, murdering someone, raping someone,

something like that?

Well, I think in a certain sense, the question itself kind of assumes an answer

or it assumes a burden of proof that may be a bit inappropriate.

So the assumption behind the question is, and this is what people are asking, the assumption behind the question is it's

just assumed that the government would have the authority to disarm people.

Do you get what I mean?

Yeah, yeah.

And so then the burden of proof is on the Christian then to come up with a Bible verse essentially to

defend their right to have a gun, right?

Uh -huh.

But the burden of proof should actually be on the government.

The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate from the Bible that they have a responsibility to police

the possessions of their citizens.

Do you get what I mean?

Yeah.

Meaning you can ask it as if the burden of proof is on me to defend my right to have a gun or

you can ask it as the burden of proof is on the government to defend their right to take it.

And so then the way you go depends on your understanding of what the government is

there to do.

And so the country was founded as a limited form of government because it acknowledged

that the government had certain responsibilities but then those responsibilities were not exhaustive and so

there's plenty of problems that exist in the world.

But then the American project was not forming a government that basically had

unlimited authority to do whatever it wanted.

The government was given specific powers, right?

And the powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states, right?

And so the issue though is that we just assume that there's such a thing as a federal government that is

allowed to tell us what to do and micromanage our life and that's a poor assumption to make even from the start,

right?

So what you have to ask is why is it the government's purview to prevent me from

having some sort of means of protecting myself, okay?

So that's the issue.

So now let's just roll back the technology a little bit to where we all have sticks, right?

So let's say that someone came along and cut it.

Sharpened sticks?

Just sticks, man.

All right, just normal sticks.

Yeah, just say someone decided to snap off a branch of a thick

tree and he walked up and he smacked someone on the head with it, right?

Uh -huh, yeah.

And it's like, well, what do you do in that kind of scenario?

It's like, do I have a right to grab a stick myself, right?

Uh -huh.

Well, I mean, if a guy's coming at me with a stick, I think I might like to have my own, right?

Yeah, preferably sharpened.

Right, so the issue there is though, should I have to defend my right to

try to stop this individual from harming me in a manner that's appropriate, right?

So what are you going to do?

You're just going to let him come up and hit you, right?

What are you going to do?

So then the issue is, what I'm trying to say is this is a problem of technology at a certain point.

It's a problem of it can happen at any level.

So you pick up a rock.

Do I have a right to hold a rock, right?

If someone's trying to throw a rock at my head and bash my head in, can I pick one up and throw it back at him, right?

And if I'm living in a village where there's gangs of individuals who come along and throw rocks at

people, am I allowed to go maybe grab a few, put them in a pouch and carry them around, right?

Abel was probably wishing he had a rock.

Abel probably wishes he did.

But then the issue there at that point is you have to ask at every level of technology.

So a rock, a stick.

Let's say that individuals start making knives.

What do we do?

Do we outlaw all the knives?

Do we ban all the knives?

Am I allowed to...?

So the point I'm trying to make is at a certain point, if there are evil people in the world who are seeking

to do harm, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself from them.

And part of the way that you figure out how to protect yourself from them is to create the better stick, right?

Mm -hmm. Yeah.

So what do you do?

You just allow yourself to be pillaged?

The issue is if you're living in an evil world with evil people who do evil things and they're going to

use their brains to figure out how to take from you what they want.

And so what you have to figure out how to do is to figure out how to use your brain to outthink them,

okay?

And the only way you do that is you develop and create technology that's better than theirs in order to stop them.

And if you're at a massive technological advantage, you simply lose.

You're just at the mercy of them.

That's what happens.

So then I don't have to prove from the Bible...

I mean, I can, but I don't have to.

You know what I'm saying?

Mm -hmm.

I don't have to prove from the Bible that it's okay to stop them from doing horrible things to me.

Right?

Right, right.

So I mean, like now, does the Bible...

I mean, meaning like there should be some sort of innate moral

awareness that it's okay to stop people from trying to kill you or rape you or...

Yeah.

Right?

I mean, I'm just thinking, just think in terms of basic, like the basic issue at stake.

If there are evil people in the world, and there are, and then those evil people are going to use the creation,

like to create technology in order to enslave you, then it better, you know, it is

incumbent upon you in order to be faithful to God to try to stop them somehow.

So there's that.

And I mean, you can read the Bible and Jesus tells his followers essentially to go buy swords at,

you know, a specific point in his gospel ministry because they're going into particularly dangerous territory.

And they could be in danger of thieves and robbers on the road who don't care one way

or the other that they're Christians.

They're just evil people wanting to do evil things.

And so there's Old Testament examples of like, you know, Nehemiah and them

building a wall and the enemies of God reviling him.

And they set a guard, you know, they had swords.

They set a guard and they prayed.

So there's, you know, there were situations that happened where

the whole of the Israelites were going to be slaughtered because their enemies had conspired a plan against them and they

petitioned to the government to let them have the ability to defend themselves and they were granted that ability.

But that isn't in the government's purview anyways.

Like it's not in the government's purview.

So like what I'm trying to say is the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it's their prerogative to

take an individual's means of defending himself away from him, you know, or just

allow himself to be a sitting duck to evil people.

And like that's essentially the issue that can happen at a variety of levels.

Like meaning it's not a gun problem.

It's a technology problem.

It's a defense problem.

It's a, you know, if it's sticks we're talking about, it's sticks we're talking about.

It's guns we're talking about, it's guns we're talking about.

It's rocks we're talking about, it's rocks we're talking about.

Am I allowed to build a fence around my house, you know, in order to stop the zombie horde from coming in?

Can I electrify it, you know?

Like what can I do?

And so like the issue is it just depends on what the plans are against you,

right?

Meaning like, you know, if you have evil people who are doing evil things against you, then, you know, do you have a right to defend

yourself?

And then in some sense it's immaterial how you, like what technology you use to do it.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

So I do want to give just a little pushback or maybe just get you to kind of clarify what you

meant.

Because right at the beginning of this you said, you know, is it the government's,

does the government have a right to control the possessions of its

people was essentially what you said.

So in your mind does that mean like when it comes to, you know,

drugs or something, should the government not, like, you know, dangerous

drugs, not like prescription drugs, should the government confiscate those

things?

Do they have a right to confiscate those things?

Or in your mind, no, they don't have a right to that.

Yeah, I think that the drug conversation is fairly, I think it's kind of a complicated discussion

in general.

And you have the libertarian kind of individuals who basically, you know, they're basically saying, hey,

limited government and the government doesn't have a right and we don't need an anti -state and like we don't need the government stepping in and telling

us what we're able to do and are not allowed to do.

And I think a lot of the laws in the book are essentially, you know, the government playing the role of an overprotective mother,

like seatbelt laws and things like that.

And, you know, I question like the right of the government or the responsibility, the God -given

responsibility of the government to basically tell their citizens that they must be safe.

And I think when you accept that kind of logic, essentially that leads to the pandemic logic where they lock you in your home in

order to force you to be safe.

You know, I don't believe it's their job to do the risk management for you.

Right, right.

I don't.

So now, I mean, like with the drug kind

of discussion, I mean, you could look at that practically and I don't think they're doing a very good job of policing it in general.

Yeah, I mean, they were straight up handing it out.

I don't think they're doing a very good job of that, you know.

And I think I would probably, I think there's a good argument to be made that,

I mean, there are arguments to be made on both sides.

I don't know that I've necessarily landed on that one yet.

Like with the, I've listened to arguments on both sides and I lean more towards the,

I don't see that as a scriptural right.

Our scriptural responsibility of government is to, you know, essentially be

an anti -state government at that point.

Like I believe they have a responsibility to bear the sword, but then I don't think they have a responsibility to bear the

sword against swordless citizens.

Right?

Yeah.

Especially the innocent ones.

Right, yeah.

So, I mean, I don't see anywhere in the Bible where God gives the government the responsibility to

basically de -arm all of their citizens and put them at their mercy and basically force

them to do anything that they tell them to do.

I mean, it seems like a recipe for disaster at that point.

But with the drug discussion, part of why it's complicated is because drugs

do, like I don't believe that, I'm not like a pure libertarian in that way, I don't believe that

government, I mean I don't believe that porn should be

legal, but then you do have

biblical passages that you can appeal to that define the government's responsibility along those lines

to punish fornication and adultery in certain ways.

And so I would appeal to those kind of passages.

But then with the drug kind of passage, I don't know that I'm finding a lot of passages in the Bible that basically make it the

government's job to police alcohol or certain kind of drugs.

So I need a better argument at this point.

I guess, is there anything in your mind that the government should be able to,

I guess, police in terms of possessions beyond just individual cases?

So like the individual person who goes and attacks another person

with a sword.

I mean, he should be put to death, right?

But then assume he's not for whatever reason.

It seems like the government would at least be in the right to say, all right, well, we're going to take your weapons because

we don't want you doing that anymore.

You've proved that you're dangerous.

So beyond that sort of example, is there anything in your mind that the government has like a, no, they actually do

need to have their hand in their citizens' possessions when it comes to

this specific thing, whatever that is, or no?

When it comes to this specific thing related to weapons in general or just in general?

Just possessions in general.

Yeah, but I don't, I think government can covet too, right?

Right, right, yeah.

So the government can be guilty of coveting.

So I don't know that it's, I don't know that there is such a thing as

property in the Bible.

So you don't take anything that belongs to your neighbor.

And the government can be guilty of theft.

And so I think you need, like you do need some kind of biblical

case to be made that it's the right of the government to take things that belong to certain

individuals as far as that goes.

Okay.

Meaning like you need to make a case for why, like the burden of proof is, I would say the burden of proof is on the

individual to show why.

Biblically this is the responsibility of the government to take certain things from people.

And you know, the government does confiscate, they do steal a lot of things from their citizens that they have no right to take.

Yeah, even the kings of Israel.

Yeah.

That's how God described.

If they pursued kings, then they were going to take all of their stuff.

They're going to take, and they're going to take, and they're going to take.

And that's, I mean our government is out of control takers at this point.

So like now, like there are individuals who can make certain choices that forfeit certain rights.

Right.

For sure.

But then just, you know, taking things that are, you know,

being produced by citizens that, I mean, the things are neutral in and of themselves.

So, meaning like, you know, like if you come in and if your government comes in and they take all the

people's sticks, right, that they made.

And it's like, we're the only one allowed to have sticks.

It's like, well, I don't know how this kind of ends up, right?

Yeah.

Basically, you're the only one with sticks, so that means we do whatever you tell us to do, right?

And there's no brakes on it anymore because now we're all defenseless, right?

Right, right.

And that's just the way tyranny works, so.

Okay.

So, some pushback that I have seen before, and I think, you know, James White, he mentioned this as

well, but as like pushback that he's seen, but I've seen a lot of people who say

there are certain weapons that kind of get the spotlight in these conversations, one of those being like the AR -15.

So, the argument is basically like, hey, you don't need that, right?

That's like military -grade weapon, and what do you need a military -grade

weapon for?

If the government ever comes for you, like they've got tanks, and all you're going to have is an

AR -15.

So, the logical conclusion is to say, so you don't need that.

So, we should make it illegal to own that so that people can't use them to easily

kill people in schools, for example, right?

Sure.

So, what should like the Christian view be,

or even just, you know, like the American citizen view, when it comes to that sort of

argument, like, hey, we shouldn't be allowing people to own, you know, quote -unquote military -grade

weapons.

It should be like bolt -action rifles or something, muskets instead, or something.

People, probably most people are just thinking like, yeah, maybe it's fine to own pistols, but you don't need,

you know, a 30 -round rifle, semi -automatic rifle.

So, what's the thought process there if you're the Christian?

Yeah, I mean, I did a Twitter thread on this idea

conceptually that, I mean, I can kind of bear out to try to answer that kind of question.

But, you know, just imagine that you are in, like, just imagine for a second

that there is some sort of technology developed that, you know, essentially allows you to

stop time around you, okay?

So, let's say that you have like a gadget you developed that is like a time bubble or something.

Now, this is like pure sci -fi, obviously, but I'm just trying to get you to think through a principle here.

But just imagine you have a time bubble kind of technology, you know, say it's a watch or something like that, that

essentially lets you move around while everyone is just, like, frozen, right?

Mm -hmm.

All right.

So, if that kind of thing were possible, you can imagine, like, the entailments of that.

What that would mean is, like, if you, you know, you see a pretty girl or something like that, you

could just, you know, grab her, put her in a truck, drive her off, right?

Okay.

Yeah, I'm just trying to, I'm telling you what depraved people could do, right?

Right.

Like, you see, like, you want to take people's wallets, you can just walk through a crowd and take everyone's wallets, right?

See a car you like, you can grab the keys, take the car, drive it off, no one can do anything about it because you're essentially

operating at a different, like, time, frequency, speed than them, right?

Okay.

All right.

So, the issue then would be that that technology would basically put you, like, you would have an overwhelming

technological advantage that basically means you can do whatever you want, right?

Right, right.

All right.

So, that's the way, like, civilizations have always worked throughout the history of the world, is that the individuals who have the overwhelming technological

advantages, they do whatever they want.

That's the way it works.

Okay?

Mm -hmm.

So, like, that's the issue.

Like, the issue is, like, if you have an overwhelming technological advantage,

you are basically entering into, you know, lower G god mode, right?

Yeah, pretty much.

All right.

So, like, the problem then is that, like, this can happen at any level conceptually, so it doesn't matter.

Like, if everyone has sticks and you have the, you know, the, if everyone has sticks and you have the

AR -15, you're basically a lowercase g god, right?

Mm -hmm, mm -hmm.

You do whatever you want, right?

So, like, so the issue then is, like, well, like, who has, like,

if there are these technologies that are invented, the government has the overwhelming technological advantage over its

citizens, then functionally the government does whatever they want, okay?

Yeah.

Right?

So, now, is that the arrangement that we thought we were signing up for in

creating the United States?

Well, no, we, that isn't the arrangement we thought we were signing up for.

We weren't signing up for, like, a kind of arrangement where, like, government authorities were essentially had

unlimited ability to, like, do whatever they want with us, okay?

So, like, if you give them that massive technological advantage, like, the issue is they have it.

Like, that's what they have.

And so then you're at their mercy.

So, that's, like, so part of the issue is, like, well, we should have the kind of weapons that they have,

right?

Yeah.

And if we have the same kind of weapons they have, then what that means is they're accountable to their citizens, right?

Right.

And what that means is, like, meaning, like, you know, like, if you're, like, all right, you imagine, like, let's

roll back time, everyone has their swords, right?

Mm -hmm.

I have my sword, the king and his men have their swords.

Well, yes, the king and his men, there's a bunch of them that can gang up on me, right?

Yeah.

But we all have the same technology.

Like, that's the point.

We all have our swords.

And it might be that, like, I'm better at my sword than one of the king's guard.

And so, like, if one of the king's guard wants to, like, rough me up and, you know,

do horrible things to my family, I could stop him if he's off the books, right?

Mm -hmm.

But then if he's conspiring with the rest of the king's guard to basically tax us

to the point where we can't feed our families, at a certain point, what happens is the peasants get tired of it, right?

Yeah.

They all grab their swords and, like, then the king is accountable and in trouble, right?

Right, right.

Does that make sense?

Like, he's like –.

Yeah.

But then that is only possible if we all have the same kind of technology, right?

Or the ability to have the same kind of technology that, at a certain point, like, you can't like,

you can stir up the people and you can stir them up and you can, you know, lock them in their homes.

You can take away their freedoms.

At a certain point, like, you're going to become accountable to them.

And so, like, the issue then is that the government's not neutral.

Like, they're not neutral.

And that's part of the issue that's involved in this kind of discussion.

They're not neutral.

They're evil individuals, right, who, like, are showing that they have

contempt for the governing documents, the constitution that we have.

So, at a certain point, you do have to have, like, citizens who have the ability to defend themselves.

And it's like, well, you know, like, if you have an armed populace who knows how to use it the reason why Americans have won

wars in the past is because we had guns.

We trained them.

We knew how to use them better than the other countries did, right?

Right.

Yeah, they grew up their whole life shooting, basically.

So, now, if the government turns on you and is starting to oppress you, like, what you need is, like, you need a government

that's accountable to the people in a certain sense.

And, you know, us having, you know, an AR -15 instead of just a six -shot pistol

is a means of greater accountability for them.

Now, certainly –.

Yeah, I mean, certainly, there's, like, you know, a thousand tanks or whatever that we have.

Whatever.

They can, you know, bring their tanks in.

But, like, they're not going to bring their – they don't have enough tanks to stop, you know –.

Everyone.

26 million people.

They don't even have enough, you know, tanks and, you know, planes and everything to stop,

you know, the terrorists over there in the Middle East.

Right.

They just surrendered all their assets and resources to, right?

Right.

So, like, that's the thing.

You say, well, they have planes and everything else.

It's like, yeah, they lost millions of dollars of technology to

a bunch of individuals who just had guns, right?

Right.

So, yeah, the short of it is, yeah, I mean, you know, what are they allowed to have?

Yeah.

And if they have overpowering weapons, then why shouldn't we?

So, it's basically like, well, yeah, obviously they have a, you know, technological advantage, right?

I mean, we have a our military spends more than, I think,

like the next nine countries combined or something.

I don't remember the statistic exactly, but America spends a lot

in terms of the military.

And so, obviously, there's going to be a technological advantage there.

I mean, they have planes that don't require a physical person in

the cockpit to fly them, you know?

But if you say, like, well, we can't hope to keep up with that, so you might as

well just take away the AR -15.

Your response is basically to say, well, yeah, like, sure, maybe we can't keep up in terms of just

the actual technology, but then, you know, there's like, what, 150 million

people in the U .S.?

Or is it 300 million?

I can't remember.

I think we have 380.

380 maybe.

I don't know.

But, you know, if that many people are armed, the military I mean, you

have to drop nukes or something.

Right, yeah.

It's something utterly devastating and just totally over the top, you know, that changes the

course of history forever.

So, am I kind of understanding what you're saying?

Yeah, what I'm trying to say is I'm just trying to –.

I'm basically just trying to say that, you know, the assumption there is that the government obviously should have a massive

technological advantage over their citizens, and I would challenge that assumption.

Okay, okay.

I would challenge that assumption to say that, you know, like, what do we do if they go bad, right?

Right, right.

Well, if we go bad, then we might want to have the means to stop them.

Right.

And so now, if you just believe that they're all wonderful and they're all good and, you know, they can do no wrong, then, you know, I do

have some, you know, land to sell you in Florida, you know, that I might be interested in.

Right.

Now, we –.

Doug makes a response, like, you know, related to this too, but, you

know, in one of his posts he says, he says the Second Amendment was

not this is an objection the Second Amendment was not included in the Constitution because the Founders wanted to preserve

their posterity, the right to hunt squirrels with muskets, so he's saying it's not because they wanted to preserve

their right to hunt squirrels, it was included because they wanted the population to have the resources available for a well

-regulated militia.

Now, this militia was for coordinated military defense from the outside invaders, indigenous hostiles on the

frontier, or he says tyranny from the johnnies in Washington.

This means that assault weapons need to be part of the mix.

If someone replies that modern weaponry was not in view, it should be noted that modern form of militias

were not in view either.

They're not talking about a National Guard that could be called up by George III.

But surely the response come, this can't mean to include high -tech weaponry like shoulder -mounted surface

-to -air missiles, and he says, well, sure it does, how else could we shoot down their surveillance drones?

So, you know, I would just say something similar to that.

Right.

Like, if the government I don't want the government having, you know, just a massive technological avenge over us if we can help it,

and so I don't just grant that it's natural and normal and obvious that they should have an overwhelming technological

advantage to essentially be able to make us do whatever they want us to do.

You know, and that kind of I was thinking about this because in one sense it sounds a little bit ridiculous to say

like, all right, I should be able to own, you know, a bazooka, for example,

because I need to be able to blow up the Abrams tank if it ever comes rolling my way, right?

Right.

So, like that and I think in our society that sounds pretty ridiculous

because it's like, all right, well, we can own bazookas.

Well, how do I know someone's not just going to blow me up with a bazooka, you know, like randomly because they just they

got mad at me for saying something.

Well, then, the next step is to say, well, I'll just get a bazooka too.

Right, well, that's the issue, right, yeah.

So, the issue in my thought experiment before is like, you know, you imagine that scenario where like you have the

time bubble and you can do whatever you want.

Well, like in my, you know, hypothetical imaginary scenario, like the only way to stop that would be to have your own,

you know, to where you both are operating in normal time together, right?

Like, but then the issue is then if everyone had one, then you even the playing field.

That's the way it works, right?

Yeah, I mean, you think about, you think like, all right, it sounds ridiculous to say like, hey, I'm just going to own a bazooka

too to deter you from shooting me with your bazooka, right?

But then wouldn't we all agree that we as Americans feel safer

that knowing that we have nukes to deter Russia from shooting their nukes at us?

That is the logic, right?

And that's why, you know, but then, you know, we, that's the whole logic of the project is to say that, well, we

have ours, you have yours, you shoot yours, you shoot, we shoot ours and we all go down together, you know?

Yeah, like, all right, you want to shoot me on, you know, mutual destruction and shared

mutual destruction or whatever.

So now, I mean, I do think you have to, like, you do have to think, like, well, about the nature of

technology itself.

Like, you have to think about the nature of how technology actually works and is it the government's responsibility to take,

like, to regulate, like, the kind of technologies that we can have and in that kind of way.

And, like, so, like, the issue is, like, what is their regulatory goal

or responsibility along those lines?

And, like, the issue is that, like, with weapons in general, like,

you know, you can take the guns, you can take the knives, then we're helpless, right?

Right, right.

Then whatever you say goes, right?

Like, whatever you say goes and, like, there's no stopping you at that point.

Yeah.

And the issue is, historically, whenever that's happened, whenever they've de -armed the

population, they do whatever they want to do.

Like, you know, and I'm talking about hundreds of millions have died in those kind of scenarios.

Like, it's insane.

Like, that's the way it works.

But then it just happens at every level of technology and that's what you have to think about.

So, but then the issue is, like, the more pervasive a technology is, like that, that gives you that kind

of advantage, you deter people, right?

Like, that's what happens.

You can't just do whatever you want to me anymore.

So, if we all had our little time bubble things, then no one, like, they would all be useless, right?

But if you don't have one, you're at the mercy of everyone else who does, right?

Right, right.

And then it doesn't do you any good to say, well, I'll just be at the mercy of the government then, right?

Because they can go bad, man.

They're not Christians.

Right, right.

Well, I guess, you know, I'm safe from the bad guys and now I'm, you know, at the mercy of the other bad guys, right?

The ones with the suits and ties.

Right.

Now, Canada just passed a law that I think is,

I don't know if it's necessarily a law that gives the government the right to confiscate

guns.

But I think it at least is outlawing the sale of guns at this point.

Yeah, I heard something about that.

I'm not aware of what.

The details.

Yeah, it sounded like an outlaw or something, but I don't know.

Now, let's say that were to happen in America.

Should Christian, and let's assume it's a, you can't buy guns anymore and you cannot

own guns anymore.

So, if you own a gun, you are required to turn it in to the government.

What does the Christian do at that point?

Should the Christian, number one, let's assume there's one Christian who does not own a gun, who now wants to own a gun

because they're worried that the government's coming after them.

Or even, you know, their neighbors are coming after them or something and they need to defend themselves.

Should that person go try and buy a gun off the black market anyways?

And then let's assume there's a second Christian who already owns a gun.

Should that Christian turn in their guns or should they keep them against the government's will?

Yeah, well, part of what you have to do is you have to ask yourself, what kind of government are you living in?

And, like, part of the government that we're living in is we're living in, like, a, you know, essentially a

representative democracy.

But then, like, the highest human authority in our, or the highest authority in our nation under our former government is the

Constitution itself.

And the Constitution does give us certain rights.

And so, let me see if I can just give you a thought experiment just to help you to maybe navigate some of these issues.

But just imagine that you were to receive a tax bill from Georgia.

Mm -hmm.

What would you do?

Ignore it.

I mean, but shouldn't you submit to the government?

I mean, yeah, like, the Alabama state government.

But, like, they're telling you to do something and they're, you know, official, right?

I mean, yes, they are also a government, yes.

So, it's not your government, right?

Right.

So, like, the issue is, like, you wouldn't obey that, but then would you be violating Romans 13?

Well, no.

I mean, you wouldn't be violating, like, you submit to the governing authorities and, like, there are rules, right?

There are rules to these kind of things.

And so, like, submitting to the governing authority doesn't mean any, like, tyrant who comes along and says, hey, I'm in charge,

right?

Mm -hmm.

So, like, if someone, like, walked up to you and just said, hey, I'm a king, I'm the king of America or something, you

know, give me all your money.

You know, it doesn't look like they have a gun or anything.

They're just, I'm the king of America and I command you to become my servant, you know?

What would you do?

Tell, I mean, I would just tell them, leave me alone, crazy person.

Right, because you're not actually, you don't have the authority to do that.

That's the issue, right?

Right, right.

You don't have the authority to do that.

Now, like, under our former government, like, the highest authority is the Constitution and, like, the legislators

and, like, the President of the United States.

And the judges are under the authority of that Constitution.

And so, the Constitution gives us rights to guns.

And, I mean, it doesn't give it, like, as if it granted to us the rights to guns.

It's just recognizing our right to that that's intrinsic.

And that was part of, like, the discussion about how it was even rewarded.

Like, how are these rights, these rights are not being granted by the government, they're being recognized by the government.

But then, like, in that kind of way, they're under, like, they're, that's the rules.

And so, whenever, like, the way the system's set up is that when, like, you know,

different branches of government try to overreach, then it's the citizens and the other branches of

government's responsibility to resist that, to work it out in the courts.

Does that make sense?

Mm -hmm.

Like, so, like, if, you know, if the legislative branch or, you know,

if the President were to, you know, do a ridiculous, you know, executive order, you know, where he pretends like

he's a member of the legislative branch and just makes laws by, you know, divine fiat or whatever.

Like, if he were to do that, like, it would be our responsibility to say no and then challenge it in the courts.

Because what's happening is he's being the tyrant.

He's the guy walking up to you and saying, give me all your stuff.

And it's like, no, that, you're under the authority of the Constitution.

We all are.

And you can't do that.

That's not the way that this works.

And so, at that point, it's, like, a citizen's responsibility to resist and work it out in the court system.

And then if it doesn't get worked out that way, you know, our government makes it our

responsibility as citizens to overthrow tyrannical rulers who refuse to submit to the

laws that are established for them.

And so, like, in that way, like, it is in our government framework

our responsibility to overthrow tyrants.

Okay.

So, the long and short of it is, well, being in America, living under the

Constitution, the Constitution recognizes our right to bear arms.

And that's above them.

Like, that's authority above, like, you know.

The executive branch, the legislative branch.

The executive branch is not a king, you know.

Right.

He's a man under authority just like we are.

And if he violates it, we're supposed to resist.

That's the arrangement we're under.

Okay.

So, we should resist.

What about a government that doesn't recognize that right?

That doesn't, like, recognize the right of its citizens?

To bear arms.

Yeah, I mean, part of it….

There's no, like, there's no Constitution that, you know, says that citizens have the right to bear arms.

There's not even a Constitution.

It's just, like, a monarch or some sort of totalitarian ruler.

Yeah, I mean….

What do those Christians do?

I mean, I think they persecute you in one town, you flee to the next, you know.

So, I can….

One of the things that's amazing here is that we're living in a transitional time where we're living in a time where we do have the moral high ground to

resist.

And then what we're doing is we're, like, we're being told by, you know, our effeminate evangelical leaders to basically just,

you know, hand over all authority over ourselves to, you know, tyrants, basically.

Like, so, like, we're in a stage right now where we're being told that the biblical response is to enslave ourselves to

tyrants, essentially, right?

To give away all ability we have to defend them.

And so, it's, like, there's a….

In the name of, like, turning the other cheek.

Yeah, I mean, to willingly go into slavery.

Like, that's, like, so right now, like, we're free men who are being told to enslave ourselves to

these individuals who don't have the moral high ground in order to protect our evangelical witness.

But, I mean, once we do that, you know, I mean, it's, like, it's unthinkable.

You know, it's, like, biblically speaking, it's, like, if, you know, live as free men, right?

And if you can find a way to, you know, remain free, then take it, right?

So, like, so we're in a situation where, like, we haven't been enslaved yet, but we're being told that

the path to faithfulness is to enslave ourselves to evil men, right?

And then, like, once we give them all of the, you know, just give them permission to do it, they'll take it.

And then it's, like, then we're going to have to figure out what, how do you respond when you're living in, like,

in a totalitarian regime, you know, that you let happen, right?

Right.

Like, you don't have to let it happen, you know?

Like, you know, so it's, like, I mean, conceptually, it is like someone walking up to you, just some random

person walking up to you and saying, I claim you as my slave, right?

Mm -hmm.

Like, what our evangelical leaders are essentially telling us is that anyone who does that, you just say, okay, in

order to protect your witness.

I'm your slave now.

I guess, I mean, you said that you're my king, and so, sure, I guess I have to just, you know, go to your

basement and you chain me up, you know?

Like, I mean, it's just that level of stupid.

Like, it's that level of absurd to the point where you say, no, I don't have to, no, you're not my king, like, you don't have the

ability, I don't have to do what you say.

Like, are you nuts, you know?

Right.

Like, and that's, like, what we need to do to our government is to say, are you nuts?

Like, we have a constitution that gives us rights.

You're not allowed to do this, right?

But we're supposed to lay down our rights, remember?

Yeah.

The Christian life is all about laying down all your rights, I thought.

No.

Yeah, I mean, lay down my right to my wife, lay down my right to my kids, you know?

Lay down my right.

I mean, like, this is, certainly, like, Christians are to be individuals who,

like, don't seek retaliation, you know?

So if someone hits you on one side of the cheek, you turn the other cheek, we're sure we're supposed to be forgiving, we're supposed to be merciful,

we're not supposed to be individuals who are litigious, who are vengeful, who are taking matters into our own hands,

who are unable to overlook an offense.

Like, sure, we're not to be vengeful, but that's very different than just, like, individuals who are

basically laying down rights.

And so, like, the issue with rights is that, like, a right and there's a lot of pastors who say that kind of thing, and I think they haven't

thought through what they're saying.

But, like, the issue with rights is with every right there's a corresponding responsibility.

So if I lay down my right to my kids, right, like, what I've essentially done is I've laid

aside my responsibility to be their parent, to protect them, and to provide for them, and to care for them.

So, like, the issue is if you lay down rights, you're laying down responsibilities.

If I lay down my right to guns, then I'm laying down my responsibility to protect weak people who need protection.

So, like, it's not that simple.

Like, you can't if you tell me to lay down my right to my property, I'm laying down my

responsibility to, like, take care of my family, to steward God's money the way that He tells

me to do.

So we shouldn't just voluntarily surrender rights in that way.

Like, we should like, certainly, you know, if someone is holding up a gun to your head and saying, give me all your

money, then I do think what you say you're not surrendering your right to property.

What you're doing in that moment is you're like, you are basically saying

it's better to live than to get a bullet in my head over this stuff, right?

But under coercion, right, you're giving in to a thug in order to, you know,

live the next day.

So I don't think like, there is a type of Christian who is just, like, full of vengeance and just, you know,

don't nobody, you know, treat me bad kind of thing.

Yeah, and that's the situation Peter is actually under is just, like, he didn't have a category for suffering for righteousness' sake and,

you know, essentially Jesus at that point rebuking him, meaning, like, you know, you're so

ready to chop someone's head off, right, that you don't see that I have a purpose to go cross

and this kind of thing.

Even though I've told you time after time again that that's exactly what I'm going to do.

That's exactly what I'm going to do and you just won't hear it, you know.

So the issue is, like, you're not laying down your right to life or property or, you know,

relationships or whatever.

You're not laying down your rights.

What you're doing is, like, you're not being vengeful, if that makes sense.

You're not developing a personality that is dominated by vengeance.

But that's very different from, like, laying down the responsibility to steward the things that God's given you.

And, you know, that's interesting because,

you know, as Christians, obviously Christ, he set an example for us in terms of the way that he

loved us as his adopted co -heirs, basically.

Meaning, he laid down his life for us.

He loved us unto death, right?

But then you do have a lot of Christians right now who are saying, you know, we need to lay down our rights

to own guns, right?

And there even, I've seen plenty of people going as far as to say, hey, like, if there's a, if you're in the

situation where there's an active shooter, like, you hide, right?

You hide.

And it's like, I guess the confusion there is like, alright, but we're the same people who keep

saying that there is no greater love than this, that someone laid down his life for his friends.

So, which is it?

Like, if, it seems like if that's what you believe, and you're put in that

situation.

Now, I understand that it's one thing to talk about it, and then it's another thing to actually

do it.

I get that, you know, it's easier to talk about something than actually do it.

I acknowledge that that's real.

But then, there are plenty of people throughout history who have been able, you know, to lay down their life for

someone else.

And if we're the type of people who are saying, that's the greatest way to love someone, isn't there a sense in which we should be,

as Christians, telling people, like, no, you, if there's anyone who's not going to

hide, and instead is going to, like, confront the situation, it's going to be you as a Christian?

Like, if you have the ability to?

Or am I oversimplifying it?

No, there's, I mean, the whole issue with the discussion is, it's like, what's happened is that guns

essentially have been demonized.

And they're treated like, it's like, if you imagine Lord of the Rings or something along those lines, like,

Lord of the Rings, the ring is kind of inherently evil.

Yeah.

And it's altogether corrupting.

It corrupts, yeah.

Now, that's part of the problem with the way Tolkien wrote it, is that, like, the ring was supposed to symbolize sin,

but then, like, the problem is that sin comes from within, it doesn't come from without.

Right?

So, there's no, like, magical talisman that's inherently corrupting.

Like, that's not the way it works.

So, but then, the way we're told to view guns is we're told to view guns as if they're the ring of power, right?

Yeah.

Like, that they're inherently evil and corrupting, and, you know, like….

They're going to find a way to kill someone, and they're going to manipulate everyone around them to get them to kill people.

Yeah, it's like the fantasy sword or whatever that has, like, the evil personality in it or something, and then,

like, you, you know, you equip the thing, and it's going to turn you evil, you know, or something like that.

Like, it's just, like, that's not the way that guns work.

I mean, they're just, it's just a tool, right?

Right.

It's just a sophisticated tool.

So, but then, the issue is, like, where does evil come from?

And we're living in a culture and society right now that doesn't realize that evil comes from the heart.

So then, like, the issue is, like, you know, if someone wants a gun, it's like, well, you must be a Trump supporter and, you know,

mass murderer, killing spree kind of person.

It's like, no, I, I, the only reason I would want a gun is so that I could stop what's

happening in Chicago every week from happening at my house.

Yeah.

Right?

Like, I don't want my, I don't, like, like, and that's part of the thing that's so dishonest about the whole discussion is that no

one cares about all the gun violence that really is happening.

And yeah, a lot of kids are dying from guns, but they're dying from guns in the inner cities due to gang violence.

Right.

Like, a thousand times more than, like, they're dying to school shootings.

Yeah, hey, I'm pretty sure, so, and I saw this the other day, 50 people died

in Chicago over Memorial Day weekend from guns.

Right, and that's just one city.

Yeah.

Like, that's one city and, like, how many school shootings happen a year, right?

Right.

Right?

And, and, and that, you know, totally outnumbers that one school shooting in that one city.

And so, like, there is an epidemic of gun violence.

It's just not where we think, and it's not politically correct to talk about it.

But, like, the issue is if there are people, if there are gang members who have guns,

they're going to do what they're going to do.

And they're going to shoot people.

And so, it's like, if I don't have one, then, like, I've surrendered my responsibility to protect my family and

protect those who around me.

But if everyone, like, relearned how to be courageous, then what you would realize is that, like, you have a moral

responsibility to protect the weak.

Yeah.

And the only way you're going to do that is to, you know, not bring a knife to a gunfight or whatever, right?

I mean, that sometimes may work, but, I mean, that's the point.

Like, the point is, like, you, you have to be ready, you know.

And so, what we did in previous generations is we trained men to be ready to protect people.

And that happened through, in a wide variety of ways.

I mean, you teach your kids to, you know, you don't pick on a girl, you don't fight a girl, you don't, you know.

Even, like, the Your Mama jokes have, like, they

arose in the kind of worldview where men were trained to defend women, right?

Uh -huh.

And so, like, if you think about, like, now, it's just funny, you know, because you lost, like, the foundation

for it.

Like, it's like, don't nobody make fun of my mom, you know.

It's like, who cares, you know, it's just a joke, you know.

It's like, no, but that was happening in a society where men thought they had a responsibility to protect women, right?

Right.

Particularly their mom and their sister.

And then, like, you would get this kind of outrage that would happen if you said something insulting.

But the point, though, the broader point I'm making is, like, we used to have trained men to be courageous, and then they would...

But now what happens is, you know, you can have a, you know, a sodomite go into the Pulse nightclub and just

shoot people and unload, right, and do all that.

And, like, everyone just sits around and waits because they don't have any courage, they don't have any...

Yeah, but one of the things I've taught my kids is, like, hey, when you get to be a teenager or, you know,

whatever, someone starts shooting, you all run at them.

And maybe he'll get one of you, but he won't get all of you, right?

Mm -hmm.

But that's what you do.

Like, you go and you go after him, right?

Right.

But, I mean, like, if he had guns, it'd be a lot easier, right?

Right.

Like, you pull him out and you stop him, right?

But that's what you need, like, you know, if there is evil in the world and it's going to express

itself, like, then what you want is you don't want to wait on another man to do your job.

And that's what many people do with the police.

They're looking to another man to basically be a man for them.

Right, yeah.

Instead of, like, you know, thinking to yourself, no, I'm a man and I have a responsibility to protect people around me, instead of

just being a coward who's just going to watch as someone unloads on people.

Yeah, it just seems like one of those things that you would say, well, if I'm going to, you know,

if I'm put in that kind of situation, if I'm going to die, I'm going to die fighting.

You'd go out and hail a gunfighter, right?

I would much rather, you know, I would much rather be dead because I was trying to protect other

people than I'm dead because I was hiding and I got caught.

Well, I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've had that kind of thought process happen in my mind.

Like, you know, what if someone were to come up to our church and start shooting?

What would be my plan?

And, you know, I have it worked out in my mind.

There's a plan.

Yeah.

You know, and I hope that the rest of you guys have a plan.

Yeah, I think the same way.

I mean, I hope you do.

Obviously, I hope that, you know, you don't want that to happen, but then that doesn't mean you don't

mentally prepare yourself for if it does.

Because, you know, okay, so.

I saw a funny, just quickly, I saw a funny meme or whatever where like

the bear is attacking a man and like, you know, it says something like, you know, 40 of

men's life is devoting to trying to figure out what they would do in this exact situation.

Yeah.

That's pretty, that's pretty accurate.

All right, what do I do if the bear attacks me?

Real men, you know what I mean?

I'm pretty sure I was thinking about that the other day.

I heard some story about someone.

Oh, no, you know what it was?

I saw a video of a guy who was riding his mountain bike out in the woods, and he had a

camera set up, and you see him kind of ride past.

And then a few seconds later, he's running back with his bike, and then you see a bear

step in the frame.

And then, you know, the comments are all like, yeah, they're similar.

Like, most men have devoted a significant amount of time to asking themselves, what would I do in

this exact situation?

That's right, that's right.

But what I was going to say is, you know, we interacted with someone online who was basically,

you had mentioned the idea of men needing to be courageous.

If we don't train men to be courageous, if we don't train them to know how to use

weapons to attack people who intend to cause

harm on other people, then how are you ever going to do something like, you know, raise up enough people to

storm the beaches of Normandy, right?

And this person that we interacted with, they kind of viewed that as like a preposterous thing.

Like, that's just not something that we have to train people up for.

But then, you know, unfortunately for that person, a few days later, you know,

this shooting happens, right?

Right.

And what is everyone doing?

They're praising the person who was brave enough, and they're praising the person who was brave enough to run in

there and shoot the guy, right?

Right.

And now obviously, those are different situations.

They require, you know, they're not in every way

comparable, but they require the same exact thing.

Courage is courage.

Right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Now do they require the same degree?

I mean, we can debate that, I suppose.

But, you know, like, that person was the type of person who most likely was raised up,

or at least later on in life, taught themselves to be courageous.

If you can't face a virus with a .01 chance of death, you're not going to be able to storm the beaches of Normandy, you know?

Right.

If you're walking around wearing a mask right now on your face, like you're doing that in a non -ironic way

or something like that.

Like, you know, you don't have the requisite courage needed to do anything.

But, I mean, just think about different civilizations throughout the history of the world.

I mean, like, the Spartans or, you know, different societies like that.

I mean, they trained their kids from an early age to know how to use a sword because that was tied to what it

meant to be a man.

Right.

It was tied to, like, being able to defend yourself and defend others.

And it wasn't, like, no one thought, oh, well, we're training you to be a sword, how to wield a sword so you can be a mass murderer.

It's like, no.

It's like, no, there are actually evil people in the world.

Like, and so, like, the issue is, like, we're, you know, we're supposed to protect ourselves from

enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Like, that's the issue.

Like, the issue is that there are enemies out there.

There are evil people who have evil designs and evil plans.

You know, some of those designs, I mean, some of those evil people might be, you know, these individuals who

have a chip on their shoulder or they're mad at everyone around them.

And, you know, probably on significant kind of drugs, they may be the enemies that we need to protect each other from.

It may be, you know, these enemies in the inner city, gang violence.

It may be, you know, the bureaucrats in Washington or the enemies that we need to protect ourself from.

But, I mean, imagine, like, you know, if China or Russia invades.

Like, what are we going to do with all of our safe space warriors, you know?

Right.

Like, what are we going to do?

It's a joke, man.

I mean, it's just like, they said something mean to me.

They can't even handle that.

You think that they're going to be able to, like, they can't even, like, face, like,

you know, the statistically insignificant kind of risk that was associated with this,

you know, pandemic fake thing that we just went through.

Like, they're not going to be able to do.

I mean, they're just going to roll over, you know, and we're enslaved.

And, like, our civilization goes.

And, like, when the men go, the civilization goes.

That's the way it works.

And it's like, oh, well, who's attacking us?

It's like, well, just wait, man.

You know?

Get a few years.

You know, that Russian, you know, no one thought Russia was going to invade Ukraine either, right?

Right.

Everyone would have bet against it.

Now, all of a sudden, their citizens are having to fight.

Right.

I mean, but then, like, you prepare yourself for that beforehand.

And, like, the way you prepare yourself is the way that you respond.

Right.

And so, I did see a video of a guy who stopped a robber, you know, at

a store.

And, like, the guy pulled a gun on him, and he reached up and grabbed the gun and, you know, disarmed

him.

And the lady who was interviewing was so enthralled by that, she's like, I'm sure that that was your military training.

And he's like, no, that wasn't my military training.

That was, I had planned in my mind what I would do in that exact scenario.

And then when it happened, I executed the plan.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

And that's the way it works.

You plan, like, you have to plan on what you're going to do.

And so, what are we going to do if there's a shooter at our church?

We need to have a plan in our mind what we're going to do.

You know, I hope the plan at our church is that, I mean, I hope it never happens, but I hope the plan at our church is that the moment he walks in, all the men in the room charge him.

And he may get two or three of us, and then we get him, right?

Yeah, or at least all the men pull out guns and shoot him.

Or that, yeah.

I mean, yeah, I mean, that'd be better, you know, too.

But, yes, you need a plan.

Right.

Okay, well, that's all the questions I have.

Tim, is there anything that you want to just bring up that maybe we didn't cover or even just summarize what

we have talked about?

Yeah, no, I think you have a lot of evangelical leaders right now who are essentially just

falling all over themselves trying to win the world's approval by being agents that are actively

trying to enslave us in the moment.

And so they really do need to think through some of these things.

And, you know, the Predictable Fellows all come out every time we have one of these predictable discussions about gun control.

And, you know, they want, like, common sense gun control measures.

And it's just like, yeah, I mean, I don't know that I trust any of these,

you know, leaders that we have to do anything common sense.

I mean, they've asked us to deny common sense at almost every single point.

And so I don't know that we have a shared, agreed upon definition of common sense anymore.

But then what it sounds like you want to do is you want to, you trust the government implicitly to be your

dad, you know, and your God.

And I don't, you know, I don't trust the government to do that.

I think that they're obviously corrupt and are filled with an evil agenda.

And I think that it's our responsibility to try to, like, it's our right to bear arms, but

it's our responsibility to bear arms in order to protect individuals that God has placed in our

life.

So, like, this isn't, I mean, just trying to reduce it to some kind of pro -life discussion is just

neither here nor there.

Like, we need to be men of courage who are, you know, using the resources that God has given us.

And we're still in a country right now that, you know, has these rights still.

And we need to use them or we're going to lose them.

And when we do lose them, it goes bad.

You know, you can expect hundreds of millions dead at that point.

That's what's happened throughout history.

So, just look at, you know, what happens when communism has taken over countries.

And there's, you know, plenty of historical examples to show you.

First move is disarm population.

Second move is you're done, you know.

So, if that's what you want, then, I mean, you know, it's

hard to, like, the naivety there is just mind -boggling.

Right.

Yeah.

Well, thank you, Tim, for walking us through that and answering a lot of my questions.

Yeah, hopefully this is helpful for you guys out there listening and sort of forming your

own understanding in terms of how Christians should view weapons of self -defense

and that they aren't inherently evil.

I think that's a really big point that we made is they aren't inherently evil, as a lot of people

really kind of make them out to be.

And we need to be people who are ready to actually, you know, lay down our lives for our

families, our friends, you know, our neighbors.

That's what Christ tells us is truly loving.

And part of being prepared for those types of situations in a way that

maybe you don't have to actually, you know, like, lose your life in the

name of protecting them, but you are laying down your life, meaning you're putting yourself in

harm's way and stopping someone who is trying to harm the people that you care about.

Part of what helps us do that is actually having weapons.

And so we hope this has been helpful for you guys.

We hope that this equips you guys to go out and have your own conversations about what it means for

Christians to own weapons.

And we want to thank you for all your support and we look forward to having you on the next one.

If you would like to be Bible bashed personally, then please know that we also offer free biblical

counseling, which you can take advantage of by emailing us.

Now, go boldly and obey the truth in the midst of a biblically illiterate world who will be

perpetually offended by your every move.