Home » Headline, Liberty, Police State, World

Jesus, Jefferson, Gandhi, Hamilton and Hitler on Gun Control

10 November 2008 Comments Written by: Andrew S.

A previous post has been host to a flurry of commenting activity, but this article was about the surveillance cameras in Rochester, while most of the comments pertained to “gun control” discussion. Someone suggested that we start the discussion anew with gun control versus the right to self defense at the forefront. While gun sales have been setting daily records in an already record-breaking year, we should seek to understand whether these people are “clutching to their guns,” or whether they are justified in their actions.

WASHINGTON - AUGUST 18: Dick Heller, plaintif...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

To start off the discussion, here are some quotes from famous and notorious historical figures throughout time:

courtesy of vtgunsmiths.com | sourced 10 November  2008

WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT ABOUT “GUN CONTROL”

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

The Jefferson Memorial

Image by Tony the Misfit via Flickr

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster

Image via Wikipedia

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

Topic #2:
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT BY THE  “MILITIA”

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “STANDING Army” to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

The Constitution

Image by Peter Davis via Flickr

Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”
(Federalist Paper #29)

“Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

Topic #3:
MODERN LEADERS THOUGHTS ON GUN CONTROL:

Adolf Hitler: “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead.”
(Chancellor’s Speech, 1935)

Charles [Schumer]: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) “All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.” (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)

Mao in 1946 in Yan'an

Image via Wikipedia

[Adolf] Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let’s not have any talk about native militias.” (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)

Mao Tse Tung: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in “Selected Works of Mao Zedong,” 1965)

Diane Feinstein: “US Senator, If I could have banned them all- ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ -I would have!” (Statement on TV program 69 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Mahatma Gandhi: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” (”Gandhi, an Autobiography,” M.K. Gandhi, 446)

Sigmund Freud

Image via Wikipedia

Sigmund Freud: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
(”General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,” S. Freud)

Bill Clinton: (US President, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, (not to violate it, criticize it, and belittle it)) “When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly…When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.” (April 19 1994, on MTV)

TOPIC #4:
FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” (Convention of the commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority…the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: “On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)

Topic #5:
RELIGION,  WEAPONS AND SELF DEFENSE:

“Now there was no metal smith found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines had said, “Lest the Hebrews make for themselves swords or spears” …But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, each man to sharpen his plow blade, his coulter, his ax and his maddock. So it came to pass on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul or Johnathan; but with Saul and Jaohnathan there was found [other lethal weapons]
1 Samuel 13:19-22)

“Jesus said, ‘But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.’” (Luke 22:36) “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” (Exodus 22:2) (Note, the test later indicates that this right to kill does not apply to a daytime break in. So in daylight, self defense must be shone.)

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” (Matthew 11:21)
(Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could overpower a weaker or
poorly armed victim, so get a magnum!)

How do you feel about these quotes? Who do you agree with and why? Do you disagree with any of the quotes here?

I, for one, feel that Hamilton was a terrible president and I don’t much like Freud, but I can’t disagree with them on their views pertaining to guns.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up (+5 rating, 1 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...

Viewing 22 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I have 2 quotes by Dr. Ron Paul regarding the Second Amendment that I like:

    "More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now."

    This above quote was actually exactly what I was thinking of and wanting to get across to Ryan W earlier. Our founding fathers wanted to protect Americans then and in the future. Tyranny is never a far cry. Ron Paul is a brilliant writer and speaker; it's generally his speechs/writings that come into my mind throughout these various topics, as I'm not sure there is anyone that can get an important mesage across better than him.

    Another of his quotes:

    "...the Constitution’s Second Amendment is the most important. Without the ability to protect themselves and their property, discussion of any other rights is only so much talk."

    I agree. If we do not even have the right to protect ourselves, what other rights even matter before that?
    • ^
    • v
    Here are a couple of thoughts I have on why your arguments don't work:

    1. Quoting our founding fathers for advice about gun control is almost entirely irrelevant. Would you follow a strict interpretation of Henry Ford's ideas on Model T auto safety in the world of the modern automobile? No, technological change requires you to think for yourself, for today. Were our founding fathers that much more brilliant than us and are their ideas more relevant to us today than our own ideas? No, if you take anything from our founding fathers, it should be that these were men who defined themselves and thought for themselves. We can do that today too.

    2. Unlike the Nazis, Soviets or any other country that massacred its own people, our country is highly diversified and we have a government that promotes diversity. It would be easier for me to agree with you if our government was openly advocating persecution or hostility to any particular groups in this country. This is an important distinction between us and failed regimes of the past.

    3. No one here has offered any practical limits on what they think defines "protecting oneself." I think at one point that daisy yang poster was ranting about legalizing plastic explosives. Would legalizing plastic explosive allow the citizenry to protect themselves in a greater way? Probably, but putting plastic explosives the hands of the common man would probably introduce many more problems than it would solve.

    4. I'll bring back up the idea from my other post: Do you really think an uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military? Someone posited the idea that military would become demoralized if the citizenry fought back. Wouldn't this give Army people more justification for what they were doing? It seems easier to feel bad about hurting innocent people than it is about people who are shooting at you.

    5. If you still feel concerned about the military or government persecuting you, why not join the military? One thing we can learn from the civil rights movement is that it is harder for a government to persecute minorities if minorities have an active place in government.

    http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/p...
    • ^
    • v
    1) So in YOUR world you believe that as our society grows and changes we need to TAKE AWAY rights and liberties of the people in order to adapt to the modern world? I agree entirely with you about technology change requiring us to have to make appropriate changes; not following along with something that is outdates. However, I do not agree that we have any reason to take away rights and liberties in order to adapt to changing times. My point is that I AGREE with what the founding fathers and their reasons behind the Constitution. I think that if we had a government who actually stood by the Constitution our society would function better as a whole. We should not be going in a direction that takes more rights and liberties away from the American People, which is obviously the direction you want to go in.

    2) Ethan answered this in the best way I see possible. Just because we have a diverse nation does not mean that a majority cannot create tyranny. I urge you to educate yourself on tyranny, as it does not appear that you understand that it is a real possibility in the future, especially when we are on the track of taking more and more rights away from the American People.

    3) I would put more value into what you say if Daisy Yang’s comments were not what you put value in. You must have missed her comments about Boston Crème Pie and wiping someone’s blood up off the floor, prior to that comment being taken down. Her comments were sick, twisted, and made no sense to any of the discussions we were having. I will not respond to any questions pertaining to Daisy Yang, as, in case you missed this, her response to her comments being taken down was to post the word “penis” on one of the pages. This is a person whose opinion you value?

    Your question about plastic explosives is ridiculous. I think it is obvious that I believe that having a gun is the best method of protection.

    4) You have said this over and over again, questioning that the “uncoordinated American public would stand a chance against an organized US military.” So your answer to that is to TAKE AWAY any possibility of being able to defend ourselves? It’s simple: If our right to bear arms is taken away from us, then it will be known that we are disarmed and definitely unable to protect ourselves. If we continue to have our right to bear arms, then it will be known that we have the ability to protect ourselves.

    5) Joining the military is not the answer. That’s a similar mentality to joining a gang so that the gang does not hurt you. Do not get your panties in a bunch, I am not comparing our military to a gang, I’m just saying that I’m not going to join the military for just the reason of wanting to protect myself. I already have an “active place” in the government and plan on becoming even more involved to try and make sure that we can retain our rights.

    I’m just not quite sure where in your list there is an argument that trumps my argument for why we should have a right to bear arms. Your only real argument is that you don’t think that tyranny is a real possibility, and, therefore, not something we need to plan for or protect ourselves against. Other than that, I don’t see any real argument here.
    • ^
    • v
    1. The tenets of human liberty have been unchanged since the beginning of human society. Plus, the founding fathers understood tyranny as they had lived under it. They knew what it looked like and they knew what was required to prevent it. Do you understand tyranny?

    2. Do you not see the active division taking place in this country? Politicians pit young against old, black against white, rich against poor. Strata are being developed to be exploited. The Soviets used class warfare to divide the people. Our diversity makes it that much easier for the powers that would like to be to divide us. Tyranny of the majority is something that needs to be avoided at all costs. Just because we have many ethnic groups in our country does not prevent a majority from creating tyranny.

    3. Daisy Yang's comments were purposefully ridiculous. Plastic explosive would not stop someone from doing immediate harm too you. That is my definition of protecting myself, maintaining the ability to stop others from doing immediate harm to me. There is no single better tool for that than protection with a firearm, specifically a hand gun.

    4. Again, it does not matter. If you took away guns from the people you would only be guaranteeing their failure to defend themselves. If the people fail to defend themselves from tyrannical government without that handicap then so be it, but to handicap them and never give them the chance strikes of immorality. Besides, the people have won before, and they could do it again.

    5. Being a member of the military does not give you privilege to change the policies of the military. The government however, does have control over military policy and it is the government that people should be joining in order to prevent a tyranny of the government administered by the military. And to answer your question, yes, I do plan on taking an active roll in government to prevent the very acts I fear.

    Now, a question for you, which I’ve asked before. When the police, store owner, military or anyone else you put on that list of people whom you think it could be okay to have guns, when they are not there to protect you from being robbed or beat or murdered, what would you do? Would you prefer to be defenseless against the attack or would you prefer to be able to defend yourself? Just knowing that you have a gun could be enough to prevent your assailant from attacking you. Would you want to carry that protection or not?
    • ^
    • v
    1. So you're refusing to think for yourself in the modern world?
    2. Any legitimate references for active division taking place in this country?
    3. Yes the were. Now can you please in detail describe what qualities distinguish a handgun from plastic explosives (both destructive devices) in the context of why we should allow ownership of one, but not the other?
    4. So you still think a loosely organized militia could take on the Army? Or you don't care that they couldn't and are still clinging onto your point?
    5. Government participation is important, however the government can't control the efficiency of the army. It can order it to do demoralizing things, but it won't do them efficiently.

    To answer your question, I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well.
    • ^
    • v
    1. I have thought for myself and I have analyzed the arguments of the founding fathers. Their being dead is irrelevant to their ideas being sound.

    2. Any legitimate references for my a diverse society is less likely to be beholden to tyranny?

    3. A pistol has the quality of being a precise weapon. I point it and I shoot at the target. Plastic explosives are meant for destruction not stopping power. I never said people could or couldn't have plastic explosives, that is outside of the gun argument. I am asking you why you think we shouldn't have hand guns. Please stick to the topic. But if I want to stop someone from doing me physical harm a gun is the most effective means of stopping them.

    4. Yes I do, and yes they have. A loosely formed militia defeated the British. Loosely formed militias keep various governments at bay around the world today. I do care that they could and would defend themselves. Do you not care about handicapping their ability to do so?

    5. I never said anything about military efficiency. In this country the government controls the actions of the military. It is through government that we would prevent a situation of oppression of our people. If the military went rogue, joining it would not stop their actions. The only thing to do would be to fight it.

    Most people don't have anyone actively seeking to rob, beat or murder them. But then people who least expect it suffer from these fates, don't they? Or are you of the belief that everyone murdered is deserving of their fate? A police officer cannot be following you around all day to protect you. You are your own first line of defense. But you did not answer my question. I asked you if you would want the ability to defend yourself. What would you do when faced with someone ready to do you serious harm?

    You have gone off on so many tangents when the core of the argument is wether or not people should be able to defend themselves with guns. I feel I have done a good job of explaining the threats facing the individual and the reasons they should be able to protect themselves. It would be nice if you would do the same for your beliefs instead of changing the arguments to militias can't win anyway, and noone wants to hurt me, and the founding fathers had stupid ideas. We are talking about the ability to protect yourself. What are your views? Do you believe that these threats to ones life are just imaginary and that government will protect you?
    • ^
    • v
    1) I agree Ethan, we should seek to prevent fires in libraries. The knowledge of dead people is worth reading.

    2) Well, I can think of diverse societies that leaders used the different groups against each other to consolidate power. It's human history and it's tribalism.

    3) Precisely. Not to mention, the founding fathers made no distinction from the start. See Nicole's quote at the top by Ron Paul.

    4) Any military would be wise to think twice before turning on a population with a loosely-formed militia. Here I give my caution, this word was so demonized under Clinton that it's probably better to avoid the "M" word, considering that most people have no idea what that word means. Most would seem to connect the idea with that of "White al-CIA-da". What a shame.

    If you'd like a modern example of this watch "No End in Sight" on Google Video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6182969...

    5) People that have never seen tyranny in their lifetime or have not studied history simply have no idea of the MECHANISMS that allow DESPOTS to rule. If people put themselves in the shoes of a despot, they would understand why kings built castles and dictators disarmed the common people. It's mechanisms of power that allow for domination, technological progress can either work to free or enslave people.

    Making the assumption that technology always is used to liberate people and uplift humanity is simply not the case.

    I agree Ethan, the threat is not imaginary because the mechanisms of tyranny always exist. Tyranny is only one generation away from the freest of people throughout history.
    • ^
    • v
    So, "thinking for yourself in the modern world" means taking away the rights and liberties of our people? Being in agreement with our founding fathers and the decisions that they made means that we do not think for ourselves?

    "I don't have anyone who is actively seeking to rob, beat or murder me. Maybe that's because I haven't given anyone reason to, or maybe its because the police and military are doing their job well."

    Or maybe it's because we currently have the right to bear arms. But let's go with your idea and take that right away, and then we'll see what happens.
    • ^
    • v
    Here's an interesting quote from MLK Jr. on guns.
    "Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." Martin Luther King, Jow Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.r., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 27, Harper & R
    • ^
    • v
    That's a great quote Jeff. We should ask the Civil Rights leaders that are still alive, like Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young, how they feel about the words of their friend. Do you think they'd feel uncomfortable?
    • ^
    • v
    Here is another resource on gun control quotes:

    http://www.quoteland.com/topic.asp?CATEGORY_ID=70

    This site claims that Gandhi never supported the individual right to bear arms, but simply considered the disbanding of the Indian Army as a cause of great suffering.

    Feel free to add other quotes to this discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    We are constitutionally allowed to have guns. Isn't it silly to even have a debate about it?
    • ^
    • v
    Agreed, but...

    "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

    "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

    "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."-- George Bernard Shaw, Maxims for Revolutions, 1903

    http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
    • ^
    • v
    People have been indoctrinated to see guns as "evil," but this is purely by design so people will clamor to government to present the "solution," which the government is more than eager to offer. Whether a person likes guns or not (and I myself am no fan of guns), it's important that people understand the agenda behind gun control and the move to disarm the people.
    • ^
    • v
    Andrew,

    I spent more years than I care to mention in Catholic school, with many hours devoted to theology. I encourage you to check your chapter:verse again, because you seem to have made a mistake somewhere along the way.

    Above, you have written: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” (Matthew 11:21) (Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could overpower a weaker or poorly armed victim, so get a magnum!)" Matthew 11:21 actually says ""Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." As you can see, there is no mention of arms, guards or defense in this verse. Only a warning to repent.

    I think you were looking for Luke 11:21. Interestingly, the next verse in Luke is "But when a stronger man than he attacks and defeats him, the stronger man[s] strips off that man’s armor in which he trusted and then divides his plunder." Does the logic follow that the man should "get a Magnum," as you have suggested? No. That is, not if you take the time to read Luke 11:14-23 instead of two sentences out of a larger paragraph. When you put the quote back into context, the reader sees quite clearly that this commentary has nothing to do with legitimizing the defense of one's own home, and instead was a symbolic statement (Jesus used these frequently in the bible) made to a crowd who was accusing him of taking his powers from Satan.

    Your quote from Luke 22 is right on, but I encourage you again to not take these quotes out of context. If you read Luke 22: 35-38 instead of just the one sentence, you get a much different idea of what Jesus might have been refering to. "Then Jesus asked his disciples, “When I sent you out without a wallet, traveling bag, or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing at all.” Then he said to them, “But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one. Because I tell you, what has been written about me must be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the criminals.’ Indeed, what is written about me must be fulfilled.” So they said, “Lord, look! Here are two swords.” He answered them, “Enough of that!”

    The commonly accepted interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was trying to warn the disciples about the trouble that they were about to have; specifically, that he would be crucified and their faith would be tested. In the last sentences, when the disciples take what he has said literally, and excitedly produce two swords, well, our historical figure didn't seem so enthused. Later in the same chapter, when Jesus is being taken away, a sword is used to defend him, cutting off the ear of one of the arresting soldiers. Jesus basically tells his disciples to stop the violence, then he heals the man's ear. (Luke 22: 47-53)

    You've also quoted Exodus seemingly to allude to what Jesus might have said, or at least to what Christianity might say. Exodus is in the Old Testament, and was written long before the time of Christ. Incidentally, the Old Testament is also a holy book to the Jewish religion. An important note here is that, from the standpoint of the Christian religions, there is a distinct difference between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The OT involved a "God" of which we should be fearful, while the NT promotes God as a loving, cuddly father figure. (I'm not trying to be offensive, merely trying to be succinct.) The quote you've used is pretty typical of OT wisdom, which also would have us beating our wives and children, and eating a strictly Kosher diet. Jesus typically said things that were radically different from many of the OT pearls of wisdom, and for this reason, it is not a good idea to use a quote from Exodus to in any way make a guess at what Jesus would have said about any subject. In general, the Christian dogma is at odds with much of what is contained in the OT. The same argument holds true for the quote you've used from 1Samuel, also an OT book.

    My concern about your use of these "quotes" is that , at best, they are misleading when taken out of context. At worst, they weaken an argument, and suggest a lack of understanding of a major religion on the part of the writer. I do not consider myself a practicing Catholic or even a practicing Christian; I question the existence of a god. The fact that the bible can be considered an historical document is arguable, but it can at the very least be considered a literary work. If you are truly interested in what this major religion has to say on the subject of self-defense, I encourage you to further educate yourself. Focus on things such as the difference between the OT and the NT, and on accepted interpretations of this major literary work. Refrain from taking piecesof it , large or small, out of context, as this is not a good analytical strategy for any researcher.

    Finally, if you are not particularly interested in the religion's view of what is an important political issue, don't feel obligated to include it in the discussion. Per fortuna, the US supposedly strives to separate church and state, and it may be important for us to separate the two in our discourse as well.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey Natalie, thanks for your thoughts! I guess I should have checked that source before including it here because there were a lot of other typos. I'll change that to Luke -

    Also, thank you for your perspective on the Bible. I was "quoting Jesus" only to simulate conversation and to that end this post has been a success. I am aware of the differences between the OT and NT, but I guess that I don't see the distinction between the God in them as large as most people. Jesus has been feminized in today's culture (there are some books on the topic) and it's no wonder that there are so few men in the pews each week.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as most other people focused on the Founding Fathers instead of the quotes you talked about.
    • ^
    • v
    • ^
    • v