- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
American Family Association Claims Jesus Supported the Second Amendment
American Family Association Executive Director and radio host Bryan Fischer was discussing the NRA's latest conspiracy theory, yesterday, about how the United Nations is supposedly plotting to take away guns and destroy American's Second Amendment rights though the Arms Trade Treaty.
During the discussion, Fischer claimed that Jesus preached the right to self-defense and therefore his teaching is "virtually the foundation of the Second Amendment."
Fischer said: "The Second Amendment is very important to us. Jesus, his teaching [is] virtually the foundation of the Second Amendment because, remember, one time he told his disciples 'look, the time is going to come when you're going to need a sword, if you don't have a sword, sell everything you've got and buy one, you're going to need one for your own protection.' So Jesus [was] legitimizing the use of the right of self-defense, endorsing the right of self-defense, and that's what is enshrined in the Second Amendment."
The bible verse that Fischer cited comes from Luke 22, but does not mention guns:
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Even as a Bible reader this
Even as a Bible reader this is the most asinine thing that I have ever read from someone who claims to have read the Bible. Perhaps this is the reason that I don't follow organized religions because they create fools and morons who follow teachings that are based on partial truths and portions of text. These are the same idiots who will tell everyone that you will burn in hell if you don't follow God's law and yet they have no clue as to what that law is
AFA is a hate group and Bryan
AFA is a hate group and Bryan Fischer is an idiot.
While I have no problem with the 2nd amendment, being a vet and well trained in the use of many different types of firearms (as well as some more archaic weapons of mayhem), The presumption of speaking for one's religious deity/founder/myth as an excuse for defending that right is really grasping at straws and borders on paranoia.
They should try logic and reason (like that will ever happen with them) if they want intelligent people to even consider believing their crazy message.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Well, if we're going to use
Well, if we're going to use this passage as the basis for our interpretation of the 2nd amendment then we should do it in full. If it ends with "The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied." then shouldn't the 2nd amendment be understood to only allow you up to 2 guns? God says 2 is enough.
I think it's interesting that based on this one passage the AFA thinks that Jesus (turn the other cheek) Christ supports people carrying guns. Have these idiots ever read the rest of the New Testament.
Of course, I support the claim that the 2nd amendment is biblically based because that means the 1st amendment invalidates it because "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"
Of course a conservative
Of course a conservative group's going to argue for the Second Amendment. I'd expect nothing less. At that point, you can argue semantics all you want. In fact, that's why the argument about the Second Ammendment has been taking place!
I'm not going to argue whether or not I agree with him, or my religious views. Realistically, this is just more trying to define what "is" is.
They might have mentioned the
They might have mentioned the classical theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas who found Christian justification for the use of force in self-defense, which is consistent with the position of medieval Jewish theologians such as Maimonides and RASHI.
Mahatma Gandhi ranked three possible approaches to violent aggression: (1) forceful and violent self-defense (e.g. shooting a mugger with your gun), (2) peaceful passive resistance (e.g. running away -- and if he murders you then he murders you), and (3) cowardly submission (give in to the aggressor's demands).
Advising his sons (in the context of the movement to liberate India from British rule), Gandhi advocated (2), but he said (3) was the worst.
Of course, under Gandhi's philosophy, all of them are far worse than _being_ the armed aggressor.
So, if your neighbors are unwilling to choose (2), under Gandhi's philosophy it is far preferable that you allow them (1) than for you to appoint armed aggressive cops against them to prevent it.
Has anyone else noticed that,
Has anyone else noticed that, when religious people "interpret their "holy books" they always find they say what they want they personally already believe?
In this case, the religion of "peace, love, and tolerance" is turned around to justify violence and killing. Considering the following, that's not so surprising.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
"In this case, the religion
"In this case, the religion of "peace, love, and tolerance" is turned around to justify violence and killing."
The Second Amendment is not about violence and killing. It's about the right to defend yourself, your family, your community, and your nation.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In the 18th Century, the militia consisted of all men from 15 to 55. A well regulated militia was one that could shoot straight.
All good points. But, most
All good points.
But, most importantly, it proves no biblical basis for the 2nd Amendment as defense of one's self, home, family, community, nation are all natural human instincts that predate religion by many thousands of years.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
"The bible (sic) verse that
"The bible (sic) verse that Fischer cited comes from Luke 22, but does not mention guns."
Guess what. The Second Amendment doesn't mention guns either.
It mentions arms, which
It mentions arms, which include firearms.
Since guns existed at the
Since guns existed at the time that the 2nd Amendment was written, it is presumed that they meant guns (firearms have been around since the late 1300's with the 1st Matchlocks), but you are right in that it is not specific about what type of arms that we are allowed to bear.
All that it says is that we have the right to bear arms. Even in 1789, not a lot of people carried or were properly trained in the use of swords, polearms or even bow and arrow any longer, but many folks had flintlocks and wheel lock muskets for hunting and such.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Just in case you missed it,
Just in case you missed it, my point is that one's right to self defense can be reasonably drawn from the Bible and the Second Amendment, as well as from common sense. All three are in alignment on this subject. It is interesting that the author is unable to see underlying logical connections that transcend technology. Throughout the Bible the most advanced technology of the time was used for purposes of self defense. There is no reason to think that because Jesus told His disciples to take swords with them, that we must limit our protection to swords.
Just in case you missed it,
Just in case you missed it, the right to defend one's self PREDATES RELIGION.
Trying to hijack it with the claim of it having a "biblical basis" is just another delusion of the far right. It is typically dishonest and a lie of the worst sort.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Okay, I'll go along with your
Okay, I'll go along with your logic. Then why are you commenting on the right to self defense, as it predates you?
The Bible affirms this right that is inextricable from being a human being. Citing the Bible to establish that self defense is reasonable is completely reasonable. How is it hijacking anything? How is there anything dishonest in it?
It's probably just that you don't like what the Bible says in this instance, and you wish people wouldn't bring it up.
Actually, my problem is with
Actually, my problem is with bible-thumpers imposing their false belief that all good comes from the Bible and that it was Christianity that invented that good, when, in point of fact, it did not.
The Russians used to do that sort of thing, claiming that it was they that invented every technological advancement in the modern world; so how is Christians doing the same thing with social issues any different?
But back to the point; The Bible did not invent the concept and is, therefore, not the origin of the idea as Fischer contends.
And it also predates you, too. The idea actually started when family units were first established, expanded to include tribe/village when family groups came together to form small community groups and expanded further to include nations when those communities united.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
An incredibly dumb statement
An incredibly dumb statement anyhow, since Luke 22 was written long before there was a such thing...
The idiocy of Bryan Fischer's
The idiocy of Bryan Fischer's comments on behalf of the American Family Association seems to know no bounds. His misquoting the Bible as justification for a silly conspiracy theory that the NRA has drummed up shows just the level of intelligence of the people Fischer supposedly represents -- mindless, murky morons.
You expected something
You expected something different from a religion-based hate group run by liars?
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.