Print Friendly

The infamous gunfight at the O.K. Corral took place in Tombstone, Arizona, between the Clanton gang and the Earps (and Doc Holliday). It was won by the Earps because they came adequately armed for the battle. Conversely, our present gun battle isn’t shaping up to be much of a fight and will ultimately be lost. This present “shootout” will almost assuredly end with additional restrictions placed upon our ownership and use of firearms. This is because the good guys are brandishing a “knife” in a “gunfight.” Worse, those with the knife believe it’s a six-shooter.

This knife nearly everyone is wielding at today’s O.K. Corral is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As with all rights, this knife is easily licensed and limited. It can even be completely eliminated if the government ever decides to repeal the Second Amendment:

 Because this is a “right” codified by the United States Constitutional Republic and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can divest its citizens of this right—something it has been doing incrementally for some time. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. Although gun owners hailed Heller a victory, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from the larger and more consequential battle.

Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise. Many Americans who celebrated Heller overlooked the fact that it can—and likely will—be overturned by a future court, just as its decision overturned United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings.

The constitutional right to bear arms is in jeopardy since the Second Amendment could be overturned at any time by future amendment. This was attempted as recently as March 11, 1992, by Democratic Congressman Major Owens of New York….1

When the framers rejected Yahweh’s2 morality as the standard for government and society, they also disregarded the most effective means of protection against tyrants, politicians, lawyers, and other criminals. Rights are easily controlled by whatever government happens to be in power. But God-expected responsibilities (such as found in 1 Timothy 5:8) remain the same regardless what the government says or does.

The knife provided and controlled by the government is not going to save you in the gunfight at today’s O.K. Corral.

 It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in man [We the People]. It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in princes [and their edicts such as the Second Amendment]. (Psalm 118:8-9)

 

Related posts:

The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight

Radio Interview with Larry Pratt

Newtown’s Massacre, Today’s Cultural Abyss, and Gun-Free Zones

Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense

Firearms: Scripturally Defended

 

1. Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense,” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

2. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

  1. Norm Farnum says:

    Boy, Ted. You’ve got this right! As Joshua 24:15 plainly states: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites (such as WTP and the U.S. Constitution), in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

  2. The authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down laws is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, this ‘Judicial review’ was granted within the court by itself, a power which was merely announced that it possessed via Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are to be declared null and void.”) Congress controls the court’s appellate jurisdiction. The people have the final say. Unfortunately, the ‘Christian’ and a proper biblical understanding of WHOM is KING with true authority is woefully lacking in the implementation of those who sit in seats of ‘power.’ It’s all about deception and a little power by a few with a corrupt heart will work against all which is good to expand those powers. Contrary to popular belief and understanding the standard that the BIG ‘C’ states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices – ONLY – during good Behavior…” – so WHOM gets to measure that untimate ‘Good Behavior?’

  3. George Rogers Clark says:

    Ann Coulter just posted an opinion that says the Democrats will not push this to the brink…… this time…. because they cannot afford to lose votes in the next election and perhaps lose the Senate. This too will probably give some gun owners a little hope.

    What a pity that so many think they have to depend on the unfathomable variables of politics for a “right” to protect their families and their property (their guns being part of the property, also). Especially since it is a right that up to the whims of 5 federal judges.

    Since such defense as we desire is a God-given responsibility and is “Scripturally Defended,” I have made my stand. I will not comply with any new man-made law that assumes the authority to offset my God-given responsibility for armed defense.

  4. T. Edward Price says:

    Excellent, as usual. I agree that most are wielding a weapon that will ultimately fail in the heat of this spiritual battle. However, I would like to look at this a little differently. We have all heard the foolishness of “bringing a knife to a gunfight”. In the physical realm, this seems obvious. But the truth is, in close quarters battle, an assailant with a knife has a distinct advantage over someone UNTRAINED in the proper use of his weapon. That is why, when training in tactical or defensive handgun, we employ specific drills, such as the “Tueller Drill”, or “shooting from retention”, to specifically counter a knife wielding aggressor. The point of this is that regardless the weapon, we must be diligent in its training and real world application. In the spiritual realm, we can equate this to being trained in the proper use of the sword or knife (Word of Yahweh), so that we are equipped to overcome whatever weapons our adversaries brandish against us. We all know, (or at least should know), that the enemies of Christ are well trained in using our God’s law against us. Our best solution is to train unrelentingly in the use of God’s Sword (as well as handgun, rifle, shotgun, and whatever else is available), so that we are not left holding the knife (Second Amendment) as the only protection for our families.

  5. Disappointed... says:

    Excellent point Mr. Price! If I may add a thought, the average gun owner who doesn’t have special training with certain semi-automatic firearms( capacity for more than 10 rounds) or a military back ground could pose more of a threat to his/her household as opposed to other types of shotguns. As for our household, we have a shotgun for protection. But, if we found ourselves in a situation with more intruders, say a large group, more than our shotgun can handle, we would call the police and let them do their job. We are not trying to be the police or soldiers at our house. We’re not qualified to start riddling people with 100 rounds… sounds like you could explain this far better than I, but, someone we don’t want to injured can be injured by a ricochet bullet, or worse, a neighbor comes over to help, but because of adrenaline, we accidentally injure or kill the neighbor. Firearms yes. 100 round clips for purchase at Walmart, no! I think high capacity semi-automatics are overkill for what Jesus asked us to do in protecting our family. Gun owners need to be as practical as they are philosophical about the gun issues in our nation. There are more guns than people in the United States. I won’t accept that if we agree on some common sense limitations that may help save lives in the distant future, we, collectively, will be under-armed. Just maybe, if we are willing to c

    • Clint Ufford says:

      After some serious thought, I agree. People who do not know anything about a rifle pistol or shotgun should be allowed to just go out buy one. Now, there is a fine line here. By NO means shall mans law step in and prevent ANY God fearing man from purchasing a self defense mechanism. Switzerland for example, every man is instructed to become not just familiar with rifles, but qualify as a sharp shooter. The key thing to remember here is training, proper training. Military training does help and there are many men out there that would cause harm far before doing any good just out of self pride and stupidity, but regardless, if a bad guys trying to break in your home, dont hesitate to defend your self. We can all learn a great example from Nehemiah. He employed normal citizens with weapons while reconstructing the wall. So yes, a 100 round magazine should be allowed to be purchased after a few questions asked and perhaps a simple piece of paper produced with info on it stating a qualification. Again, something like this would not be necessary if every man in our nation abided by Gods laws. Every family would perhaps have a greater sense of security knowing that around every corner a warrior of Christ.

      • Disappointed... says:

        Good insights Mr.Ufford. I agree one hundred percent that anyone buying 100 rnd magazine should have to present a certificate with training and qualifications upon purchase provided it’s not against your state’s laws. (That alone) would have deterred if not prevented the slaughter of so many innocent children, teenagers and young adults in the past 3 decades.

        Sales of military style semi-automatics skyrocketed in Dec’12 after Sandy Hook shooting and gun control discussions began anew. We’ve heard it on the news and can read it for ourselves on numerous news websites. I don’t think we have a problem with being under-armed in this nation. I just researched some gun/ammo websites that even advise buyers on where to purchase high capacity magazines if his/her state (listed) won’t allow them to purchase it on their website.

        • T. Edward Price says:

          Dis, if your are going to make statements of fact, you should at least make sure that they are indeed facts. Concerning restrictions on 100 round magazines, you said such regulations “would have deterred if not prevented the slaughter of so many innocent children, teenagers and young adults in the past 3 decades.” Please name just ONE shooting that would have been prevented, by limiting access to 100 round magazines. And if you are thinking of citing James Holmes, the Aurora, Co., shooter, you would be absolutely wrong. It is alleged that Mr. Holmes’ 100 round drum magazine MALFUNCTIONED after having fired only 1/3 of its capacity. That meant his rifle instantly turned into a very expensive club. The fact is, had he been armed with multiple twenty or thirty round magazines instead, the outcome could have been much more catastrophic. Even with only ten round magazines, there would have been much more potential for destruction. Magazine capacity limits will accomplish NOTHING to reduce crime. One hundred round magazines are nothing but a political tool to demonize ALL semi-automatic firearms. They are nothing more than a novelty. They offer no tactical advantage, whatsoever. If we can be made to fear them, then thirty and twenty round magazines will be next. Again, you cannot point to a SINGLE death that would have been prevented by restricting one hundred round magazines. I can empty 10 ten round magazines in almost the same time an inexperienced shooter could empty a single one hundred round magazine. That means if I had a malfunction, as did James Holmes, I could clear and reload, and still have ninety rounds available. Should we, therefore, outlaw even ten round magazines, or just outlaw ALL semi-automatics weapons altogether?

          I would like to remind you that the superiority of Yahweh’s law, over man’s law, is a central theme to the core mission of this website and forum. As a result, we should all endeavor to advance His Kingdom with our dialogue and debate. Emotional arguments, no matter how heartfelt, tend to lead to policies detrimental to the Kingdom. You appear to take issue with the manner in which many Christian MEN would choose to defend their homes and families. That is not your place. If you, or your husband (if you have one), decide a different strategy for home and family defense, so be it. But, you will find no Biblical authority to hinder, in any way, the ability of Christian men to uphold their God ordained responsibility to practice the Comfort of Skill at Arms in protection of their faith and family.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Price,
            You appear to take others opinions very personally. Almost as personal attacks on what you believe. If that is the case, will you please cool down. Forums are about dialog and inevitably there will be some differences of opinion. Also, It’s not your place to tell me what my place is here on a website. This is not a church here, I am not trying to pastor, nor is this forum ‘the assembly’ as we would have to be a group of Christians with a shared core doctrine meeting for the purpose of teaching and worship. This is a blog discussion. If that’s your big gun, that I am a female, try and do better next time. Speaking of authority. I think I recall Mr. Weiland, who is a pastor, telling us in no uncertain terms to tone it down. We are all here to post our views for what we believe to be in the best interest of Christianity.

            Besides, how can you mythbust if you don’t have anyone to bust. I am putting myself out here to be busted so that someone might learn something. If nothing else, I will learn something right? One of the most important things that women do is show love and compassion. That is one of our highest callings. Men have one kind of duty in holding family and society together and women have another kind of duty that holds families and society together.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Dis, thank you for the response. I absolutely enjoy opposing points of view, and do not take them as personal attacks. I have been convicted of my errors by those with dissenting positions many times. It is a learning process for which I am very thankful. On the other hand, I do take personally, tactics that run the risk of “leavening the loaf”, or leading the less discerning astray, unintentionally or not. We can all have our opinions, and are entitled to change or refine them. But this particular subject DOES relate to the responsibility of Christian MEN in the discharge of their duty. Emotional arguments are a perfectly normal part of our nature. However, when dealing with a subject as foundational and integral to our faith as arming ourselves in defense of our families, we must have absolute, irrefutable,undeniable facts at our disposal. Christendom (Christian Dominion) has become, as Ted says, “mere Christianity” over the course of the last several centuries, due, in large part, to Christian men abandoning the faith and becoming effeminate. I am not in the least bit offended by your differing opinions. As you said, and I agree, I might learn something as well. I AM offended when Christian men embrace emotional, effeminate arguments that could affect me, and my ability to defend my family and friends.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Thank you. No worries Mr. Price.

            You know, a thought just popped into my mind. I don’t think that we have a problem with gun owners being in general effeminate. People who serve in the military, veterans, gangs, criminals, survivalists-stock-pilers, end-time preppers, gun collectors-traders comprise most, not all, but most of the people who own the type of guns that the government wants to place restrictions on. I wouldn’t call any of these groups effeminate. I don’t think that effeminacy is even an issue here.

          • Disappointed... says:

            More to come Mr. Price. And you are right, I stand corrected, Walmart does not sell 100 round magazines. They do sell up to 30 rounds and several military style semi-automatics if I’m not mistaken again. I did my best to research it. Thank you for bringing up Mr. Holmes and helping me to make my point. Mr. Holmes was using a 100 drum magazine. It malfunctioned but he intended to shower people with it. He was a civilian with no military background playing G.I. Joe in an Aurora movie theater, which is to date the deadliest shooting in US history. No one is bringing knives to the O.K Corral. Young man after young man after young man after young man, angry, confused, and in many cases mentally unstable are going into public places and slaughtering people with military grade guns that are inappropriate for their station in life, to put it mildly. That is a 21st century reality! We need to deal with it. No one will ever make me fear my government or my right to bear arms because I know who is in charge. We can have God’s Laws in full force but bible history tells me that people continuously disobey. We shouldn’t say that because the Law of God is perfect, everyone will obey it all of the time. Some will, some won’t. It’s unrealistic to idealize humans. If we find our gun rights- from God or our government- being further restricted, then that is according to His plan and purpose and maybe we collectively have abused those rights and we deserve it! No one will make me fear the powers that be. The God of Abraham, the God of our fathers is sovereign and all principalities get their authority from our Father in Heaven whether they know it or not! See Christ’s comments to Pontius Pilate before His execution, all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament. Look for the proof of what I’m saying about this for yourself please, you’ll learn more that way. It’s there. God is the sovereign. Whereas we, His creation, spiritually fight against principalities, God controls all. The ‘good, the bad and the ugly.’

          • Disappointed, I was intending to leave you and Mr. Price to hash this one out for yourselves. However, since you mentioned me and my request for toning it down, let me say that when I read Mr. Price’s responses to you, I did not detect anything that needed to be toned down. But, perhaps that’s because I’m male and your female. Mr. Price was very frank but I didn’t detect anything that was mean spirited or that accused you of anything falsely.

            You admitted that your a woman in what is pretty much a mens’ discussion. I don’t know of any other women participating to date. As I’m sure you would agree, women are generally more emotional than men. As such, I would caution you about reading personal attacks into what are somewhat blunt responses to one another.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Thank you, Mr. Weiland. What I actually told another poster is that it appears (he) is feeling attacked by discussions that don’t agree with him. I however, do not in anyway feel attacked. Nor do any of my post suggest that I get worked up about others having a differing opinion. I need to clarify that. Thank you.

          • Mr. Price can speak for himself, but I doubt very much he was feeling attacked or threatened by your post. Once again, I would caution reading anything more (especially motives) into what others post than what’s in the post.

          • Disappointed... says:

            I couldn’t agree more. And again, I will clarify the point. I was asking Mr. Price to do exactly what you have just advised me. Point well taken. Thank you.

          • I don’t recall anything in Mr. Price’s post that presumed your motives. If I recall, Mr. Price merely answered your post point by point. To this you suggested he took your post as a personal attack. This presumes his motive, which you have no way of knowing.

            That this has, once again, entered into these discussions (and which only takes away from their design) suggests to me that, as woman, you should bow out as an active participant in what is a discussion principally intended for men.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland,
            Mr. Price is blunt in his responses to me and I’ve decided that I occasionally need to be blunt as well. No one’s bleeding here. It’s just conversation. What I am going to bow out of is having anymore discussions with you about presuming, over analyzing what I’ve said to others and what they’ve said to me unless someone has broken the commenting policy. If others can be blunt and tell me (what I appear to be or think), without being called out, then don’t call me out for using the same phrase, “it appears”. Mr. Price replied to my post by telling me that he doesn’t feel attacked and that he enjoys discussing opposing views and went on to discuss more of his beliefs with me and that was the end of it. Need I say more?

            I don’t recall reading that men only are allowed to post on this website when I signed up. Moderator, unless you are weighing in on what I am discussing in my posts, which I welcome, I won’t respond to anymore of your posts that I consider argumentative. Responding to them is what’s distracting from the discussions.

          • To put it bluntly: if there’s anymore of this from you, you will not be given the choice to participate or not, you’ll be blocked.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Weiland, your commenting policy to date and also when I registered is in quotations below.

            “Anyone is welcome to post here, regardless of race, religion, or
            lifestyle. However, in keeping with the First Commandment (“Thou shalt
            have no other god besides me”), any promotion or justification for any
            non-Christian religion, including atheism and cults (such as
            Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, etc.) and lifestyles condemned
            by Yahweh’s law (such as homosexuality, women’s liberation, pro-choice,
            etc.) will be banned from this site.

            Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous and functional public environment where we can engage in righteous discourse.”

            What better policy to follow than your own.

          • Disappointed, I was hoping you would prove me wrong. Regrettably, you just had to take one more unnecessary swipe at me. You’re, of course, welcome to follow along and read the comments here, but you’ve given me no choice but to block you as a commenter.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Ted, I’m sorry it had to come to this, but you have been more than generous in your patience. May we all welcome the hearty debate, and enjoy the spirited exchange of ideas. We all have much to learn, and maybe a little to share. But, may we also “quit ye like men” (to show one’s self to be a man), and show humility as we seek to promote the Kingdom.

          • 1stPetrvs3:10 says:

            Edward, because my rebuttal to Ted concerns an argument which Ted himself fabricated between you and my wife, I have copied you on this rebuttal and I hope you get it in time before it’s censured/struck down. Do you want to live in a country that allows for freedom of thought and speech or a dictatorship? Food for thought…
            Here it is:

            1stPetrvs3:10 • 7 minutes ago −
            Ted, first of all, a few words about me:

            I am a Christian MAN, a long time moderator on various Forums for years and the proud husband of the Lady who uses the handle Disappointed.

            Secondly, I have a few bones to chew on this Blog… While my wife was posting in these discussions, I read every post and response she received on this Forum and, may I say, objectively so. For those who are following discussions on this blog, I seriously have to call into question this blog’s moderator’s ability to moderate. A moderator’s job is not to take sides and not derail the conversations between two other posters. I feel that’s exactly what happenedtwice between you and my wife and I found yet another example between you and Kevin Craig in another conversation on this blog, Kevin’s conversation, not surprisingly with Mr. Ufford. A good moderator makes sure every poster abides by the Forum’s rules and regulations, no matter what Forum that is. A good moderator doesn’t disclose in his Forum the gender of another poster, that’s a clear unwritten violation of a Moderator’s rules and duties. You went as far as to publicly let everyone know that Disappointed was a female and you Googled her first name to determine if it’s a female’s name. Since my wife uses a handle and her first name is not contained in her e-mail address, would you please share with us how you came across her first name and why you would ever state that you Googled it? Violation of Privacy?? That is not only irrelevant, it’s getting too personal and downright unethical. It doesn’t seem ethical to bring up my wife’s gender in three of your posts to her. Moderators moderate, they don’t conduct investigations regarding to personal information about a
            particular poster. You said to my wife “you’re a woman in what is pretty
            much a men’s discussion”, then in one of your last posts to her, you ask
            her, “as a woman”, to “bow out as an active participant in what
            is a discussion principally intended for men.” You never established this
            in your commenting policy. And that is UNETHICAL. You shouldn’t have brought her gender up at all and should have treated her just like you treat the rest of the posters. MEN, Christians or otherwise, DO NOT OWN THIS DISCUSSION. It belongs to everybody who is affected by it. On this subject of Guns, I would love to hear from women and teenagers as well, since OFTEN they are victims of gun related mass murders. I am a man and I have the confidence in myself to handle that with no problem.

            When my wife, in other words, basically asked you to stop hijacking and ending her conversations with others and stated that she refused to argue with you personally anymore for about the fourth or fifth time, you kept chasing her. She then intelligently re-posted your commenting policy, you accused her of taking a swipe (???) at you. For what?? Posting your commenting policy? Then, you banned her from posting. I never read where my wife violated ONE of the rules and regulations. You state “We hope you will join us and be blessed by participating in this blog”, “Anyone is welcome to post here”, “Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous and functional PUBLIC environment where we can engage in righteous discourse.” Is that what you’re doing with people on this website that don’t agree with everything you teach? Is that how you conduct yourself? In my opinion, a Forum is where people of all ideas come to discuss them and offer various perspectives. As for this
            site, if there is no OTHER perspective, then it becomes a censored forum and perhaps, more than that, a dictatorship. I know censorship for I have lived in a Communist country for 31 years, prior to my defection (I am a proud citizen of the USA since 1985). This site feels a bit like the ol’ Communist style of functioning, where a lot of propaganda is used to make a point and nobody dares to disagree with the leader.

            TRW@Disappointed: “…Mr. Price merely answered your post point by point. To this you suggested he took your post as a personal attack. This presumes his motive, which you have no way of knowing.”

            1stPetrvs3:10: This makes NO sense. If my wife felt that Mr. Price was taking the post of some of the others as personal attacks on his beliefs, that means she thinks he may feel a certain way. That does NOT mean she presumed a motive. For the record, what my wife actually stated was “You appear to take others’ opinions very personally. Almost as personal attacks on what you believe.” That cannot be construed as presuming a motive. You created a falsehood and then used it as
            justification for inciting her into an argument concerning this and then
            finally, and not surprisingly, used it as justification to ban her from
            posting. This is the very same thing you tried to do to her in a previous
            thread on this forum. You threatened her status as a poster on that previous thread as well. Do we see a pattern here, Ted?? Threats, harassing my wife concerning her gender?? Shameful conduct as a moderator and a mature adult. I’m very proud that a Christian WOMAN, who speaks truth is found threatening to your message. What IS your message if it can’t handle ONE WOMAN?

            Romans 2:1 “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself because you, who pass judgment, do the same things.” Ted, you talk a lot about God’s righteous judgments on your website, but do you really understand Romans 2:1? It isn’t referring to judicial judgments but, rather, to the rash, harsh and uncharitable judgments you have made towards other Christians. And yes, I said
            judgments.

            When I defected from my former communist country and arrived in this great country, the very first things I purchased were a typewriter and a gun, because both were illegal to own in my former country, there was no freedom of thought and speech, among many other things, and they were symbols of Freedom to me. Consider yourself blessed that you can have a website where you can speak your mind and that you can own firearms. For a man who is so concerned about his country, I don’t read
            anywhere where you have ONE good thing to say about it. I am well traveled (10 countries) and also lived under communist rule for 31 years and I learned everything through experiencing it, not from books I read. Our country is the greatest country on Earth, even with all of its imperfections, because people are imperfect and they are who make up this country. You shouldn’t reform something you think is evil… I, for one, love my country, its Constitution and the rights she’s given me.

            This is my one and only post. A real MAN would step up to the plate and apologize to my wife.

          • Tony says:

            Well. This is intetresting. I’m a newcomer to your site and was
            reading this particular sequence of posts given my interst in gun
            rights. But I see that your “resolution” of the exchange with “Dis” is
            to simply exclude her from posting. As an independent “outsider”, I
            found her arguments sound.

            As a man who also heads a family (and
            who has raised, together with my wife, both sons and daughters who have
            grown to be strong, independent, responsible, loyal and faithful
            members of their respective communities), I found that your response to
            her arguments were somewhat childish… especially when she advised you
            to follow your own posting policy. I would have expected that kind of a
            response from an effeminate “fussy” who can’t take a bit of criticism. I
            certainly did not expect that here. A man, as you well state, should be
            able to make his argument and accept responses to it. Responding with
            “it’s my ball and my bat, and i’m taking them away, is boyish at best.

            My
            overall impression was that the “distractor” in the post sequences
            was… yourself…placing “Dis” in the position of having to clarify
            your perceptions. It is unfortunate that you chose this role, because
            the discussion was going pretty well until your intervention.

            Now
            I realize this is YOUR blog. You can run it as you please. But I didn’t
            want to leave you with the impression that you acted appropriately.
            That’s not the impression I got by reading teh posts.

            As to the
            other portions of the post, I found the arguments and counter-arguments
            excellent. I’ve even taken the liberty to “cut and paste some sections
            in order to be able to read them with greater care and concentration so
            that I can incorporate the principles espoused into my own mind. In
            particular, I found the scriptural references to the mandate for self
            and family protection particularly enlightening. So thanks for that
            part.

            Again, as men (in a generic sense) we will always have
            differences. It is well and good to acknowledge those differences. As
            men we will also sometimes be mistaken. It is good to acknowledge that
            too. It is only when we let hubris or disguised arrogance to intercede
            that we start making erroneous decisions. Your decision to shut “Dis”
            out was erroneous in my opinion. But that is really something for you to
            meditate and pray about.

            I don’t think I’ll be
            returning here. I found the information I was looking for and thank you
            for that. May you be succesful in your endeavors and may you find it in
            your heart to allow people who have the wherewithall to pint out
            deficiencies in your reasoning to continue participating in your blog.

          • Tony, thanks for visiting and for sharing your concerns. However, without having followed the dialogue and antics of “Dis” on several posts previous to this one and in emails from her and her husband, you’re not in a position to judge whether I was justified in removing her.

            I’m pleased you found some of the material helpful, and I DO hope you’ll return.

          • T. Edward Price says:

            Tony, thanks for stopping by. I pray you found this site useful. I must admit, though, I’m not sure how well you actually paid attention to the dialogue on this thread. As Mr. Weiland indicated in his reply to you, there was a history concerning “Disappointed”, of which you are unaware. Considering the fact that the discussion you referenced was between “Dis” and me, I feel perfectly qualified to judge Mr. Weilands actions in the matter.

            You stated: “As an independent “outsider”, I found her arguments sound.”

            As a Christian man, and a tactical and defensive firearms instructor. I found her arguments dangerous, emotional, irrational, uneducated, and unchristian. Do you remember her making these statements?

            Disappointed: “As for our household, we have a shotgun for protection. But, if we found ourselves in a situation with more intruders, say a large group, more than our shotgun can handle, we would call the police and let them do their job. We are not trying to be the police or soldiers at our house. We’re not qualified to start riddling people with 100 rounds… Firearms yes. 100 round clips for purchase at Walmart, no! I think high capacity semi-automatics are overkill for what Jesus asked us to do in protecting our family…Gun owners need to be as practical as they are philosophical about the gun issue in our nation. There are more guns than people in the United States. I won’t accept that if we agree on some common sense limitations that may help save lives in the distant future, we, collectively, will be under-armed. If we are willing to legislate some limitations, our citizen’s may be permitted to own firearms both morally and legally for generations to come. As long as it takes to correct the underlying issues of all of this gun violence.”

            That was just the beginning. She was advocating the weakening of my ability to carry out my Christian DUTY to protect myself, family, community, and nation. Make sure you understand that. She was promoting governmental limitations on the practice of my Christian faith. No woman has the Biblical authority to usurp my God-expected responsibility to provide for (including protect) my own family. She made it quite obvious that she has no understanding of the issues of weapons or self defense. I pray you will reconsider your belief that her arguments were actually sound.

            Now to your thoughts concerning Mr. Weiland’s behavior, attitude, and demeanor; you were apparently reading a completely different discussion than the one which took place here. Mr. Weiland actually showed tremendous patience with “Dis”, and gave her every opportunity to exhibit a much more appropriate demeanor, especially considering the subject of man’s Christian DUTY as protector. He is also NOT guilty of the ‘hubris” or “disguised arrogance” that you so carelessly and recklessly implied.

            Tony: “[M]ay you find it in your heart to allow people who have the wherewithall to pint (sic) out deficiencies in your reasoning to continue participating in your blog.”

            Mr. Weiland has even been able to find it in his heart to allow those deficient in reasoning abilities to post here. He most certainly DOES welcome those with differing opinions, as long as they are respectful, courteous, and follow the posting rules. The bottom line is that Disappointed was defiant and contentious, and Mr. Weiland was left with no choice in the matter. He did the RIGHT thing!

          • Disappointed... says:

            More to come Mr. Price. And you are right, I stand corrected, Walmart does not sell 100 round magazines. They do sell up to 30 rounds and several military style semi-automatics if I’m not mistaken again. I did my best to research it. Thank you for bringing up Mr. Holmes and helping me to make my point. Mr. Holmes was using a 100 drum magazine. It malfunctioned but he intended to shower the innocent people sitting in the theater with it. He was a civilian with no military background playing G.I. Joe in an Aurora movie theater, which is to date the deadliest shooting in US history. No one is bringing knives to the O.K Corral. Young man after young man after young man after young man, angry, confused, and in many cases mentally unstable are going into public places and slaughtering people with military grade guns that are inappropriate for their station in life, to put it mildly. That is a 21st century reality! We need to deal with it. No one will ever make me fear my government or my right to bear arms because I know Who is in charge. We can have God’s Laws in full force but bible history tells me that people continuously disobey. We shouldn’t say that because the Law of God is perfect, everyone will obey it all of the time. Some will, some won’t. It’s unrealistic to idealize humans. If we find our gun rights- from God or our government- being further restricted, then that is according to His plan and purpose and maybe we collectively have failed by allowing too many individuals to continue abusing those rights and maybe we deserve restrictions! No one will make me fear the powers that be. The God of Abraham, the God of our fathers is sovereign and all principalities are given their authority from our Father in Heaven whether they know it or not! See Christ’s comments to Pontius Pilate before His execution, all of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament. Look for the proof of what I’m saying about this for yourself. Please. You’ll learn more that way. It’s there. God is the sovereign. Whereas we, His creation, spiritually fight against principalities, God controls all. The ‘good, the bad and the ugly.’

        • Clint Ufford says:

          On the flip side, I will say that regardless if there is 10 rounds or 30 rounds in a magazine, magazine swap drills are easily accomplished and allow for individuals to reload quickly. All the ammo and magazine restrictions are is ore governmental control.

          • Disappointed... says:

            Mr. Ufford,

            I agree. Still..in the time that it takes a (non military trained) young man to change a magazine, maybe 8-10 seconds, someone has time to run to safety.

          • Clint Ufford says:

            Yeah I do not want to waste time discussing tactics with you. I just believe its a matter of control.

          • Disappointed... says:

            All right then. I did revise my previous post to you after more thought. It’s there for your consideration if or when you look at it.
            Peace and Joy to you!

          • Gregory S. Gill says:

            What about others being armed as well and are able to shoot back at the criminal? Gun free zones are one of the most dangerous place to be in.

          • Guest says:

            I believe that if there was no gun free zone anywhere that there wouldn’t be all these public shootings in the first place.

          • Guest says:

            I believe that if there was no gun free zone anywhere, that there wouldn’t be all these public shootings in the first place. There would a lot less of them with far less people been killed as the people would be able to defend themselves.

    • T. Edward Price says:

      I understand your concerns, but acting upon those concerns emotionally is not only foolish, but could get your family killed.

      Dis: “As for our household, we have a shotgun for protection.

      Do you happen to have buckshot in your shotgun? Have you seen what a 12gauge 00 buckshot can do. Have you considered the collateral damage from 15 .33 caliber pellets fired from one shotgun shell? Can you, with certainty, hit only the assailant, and not hit a family member in another room with an errant .33 caliber pellet? Shotguns are great tools, but are dangerous if you are unskilled in proper use.

      Dis: “But, if we found ourselves in a situation with more intruders, say a large group, more than our shotgun can handle, we would call the police and let them do their job. We are not trying to be the police or soldiers at our house.”

      Calling the police is always a great response. But it is IMPERATIVE to instruct the police dispatcher that the first responders should bring plenty of crime scene tape, and notify the coroner. This may seem morbid, but if you are truly waiting for the police to rescue you from multiple invaders, it is all but assured you and your family will be leaving in bodybags. The AVERAGE response time for police emergency calls nationwide is approximately nine minutes. I live in a rural area. I might have to wait thirty minutes, or longer. There is a popular saying, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” And as far as doing “their job”, it is a fiction that the police are obligated, in ANY way, to protect you.

      Dis: “We’re not qualified to start riddling people with 100 rounds…”

      This statement is a complete logical fallacy. How does the phrase “riddling people with 100 rounds” even have a place in logical discourse? I AM highly trained, and have trained many women and children, and have never met ANYONE with the mindset of “riddling people” with bullets. The entire purpose of engaging an assailant in a potentially deadly encounter is, ALWAYS, to neutralize the threat. In most cases that is 2-4 shots. That could vary, situationally, but this is why we teach the liabilities involved with responsible firearms ownership and use.

      Dis: “Firearms yes. 100 round clips for purchase at Walmart, no!”

      Red Herring. Absolutely NO ONE would consider a 100 round “clip”, for self defense, EVER. Also, please supply a link to indicate that Wal-mart sells 100 round “clips” (magazines). This is purely emotional rhetoric, and while you may be sincere in your concerns, they have no place in hindering my God-ordained responsibility to protect myself, family, neighbors, and even your family, should the need ever arise.

      Dis: “I think high capacity semi-automatics are overkill for what Jesus asked us to do in protecting our family.”

      This one seems really disingenuous. It should be apparent to all who enter here that this site is blatantly Christian in its worldview, and overtly pronomian (in simple terms, believing the ever-abiding validity of God’s law) in its mission. Therefore, I truly need to know what restrictions and limitations Christ put on my commission to protect the faith, by protecting my family.

      Matthew 12:29 –“Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.”

      1 Timothy 5:8 –“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

      Where do we find Christ limiting His instructions to us? And Jesus never ASKED US to do ANYTHING in protection of out families. He REQUIRES that MEN do absolutely everything possible to protect, and provide for their families. There is a huge difference.

      Dis: ” Gun owners need to be as practical as they are philosophical about the gun issue in our nation.”

      I agree one hundred percent! I have witnessed countless men over the years who philosophically and Scripturally understand the need to be armed, but are woefully ill prepared, trusting that their shotgun and hunting rifle are all they will ever need for protection. Men should be much more practical in their approach to self defense. A hunting rifle is great, for hunting, but an AR15 carbine with a 20 round magazine should be a serious consideration for anyone resolute about personal protection. I am much more concerned about errant bullets from poorly trained LEO’s than me missing my target. Being “well armed and trained” is as practical as one can get.

      Dis: “I won’t accept that if we agree on some common sense limitations that may help save lives in the distant future, we, collectively, will be under-armed. If we are willing to legislate some limitations, our citizen’s may be permitted to own firearms both morally and legally for generations to come.”

      Biblical teaching does not ALLOW me to accept ANY government imposed limitations on personal firearm ownership, “common sense” or not, that would permit my ENEMY to be more sufficiently armed than me or my fellow brothers in Christ. If we abrogate our responsibility to arm ourselves, forget about “the distant future”. There will be no “near future”, at least not with any semblance of Christian liberty.

      Dis: ‘ If we are willing to legislate some limitations, our citizen’s may be permitted to own firearms both morally and legally for generations to come.”

      Not a chance. “If we are willing to [CONTINUE to] legislate some limitations,” there will be no end, until we have voluntarily given up every last vestige of Christian Dominion we at one time enjoyed. And even the very thought that “our citizen’s may be permitted to own firearms” indicates a complete lack of understanding of the Christian duty of every man. Christian law may “permit” me to eat ‘unclean, detestable, meats” (though I choose to abstain). However, Christ does NOT “permit” me to own firearms, but instead, EXPECTS me to be armed, AND appropriately trained, in defense of myself, family, community, and country.

      The willingness to compromise on our personal defense is but one of the many curses we suffer today, thanks, in large part, to the weak-kneed, lily-livered, effeminate, judeo-christian males in our churches, instead of Christian men who understand our calling and duty.

      • Mr. Price, thank you! Amen and amen to both comments. Let me add another verse to this extremely well-thought out response that reveals the better armed we are the better able we are to protect our families and possessions.

        “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed.” (Luke 11:21)

        Another way of saying “fully armed” is armed to the teeth.

        • Alleged Comment says:

          You forgot to add the below:

          But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. (Luke 11:22)

  6. Roger says:

    Short, sweet, and to the point. No pun intended. Excellent work!

  7. 1stPetrvs3:10 says:

    Ted, first of all, a few words about me:

    I am a Christian MAN, a long time moderator on various Forums for years and the proud husband of the Lady who uses the handle Disappointed.

    Secondly, I have a few bones to chew on this Blog… While my wife was posting in these
    discussions, I read every post and response she received on this Forum and, may
    I say, objectively so. For those who are following discussions on this blog, I
    seriously have to call into question this blog’s moderator’s ability to moderate. A moderator’s job is not to take sides and not derail the conversations between two other posters. I feel that’s exactly what happened twice between you and my wife and I found yet another example between you and Kevin Craig in another conversation on this blog, Kevin’s conversation, not surprisingly with Mr. Ufford. A good moderator makes sure every poster abides by the Forum’s rules and regulations, no matter what Forum that is. A good moderator doesn’t disclose in his Forum the gender of another poster, that’s a clear
    unwritten violation of a Moderator’s rules and duties. You went as far as to
    publicly let everyone know that Disappointed was a female and you Googled her
    first name to determine if it’s a female’s name. Since my wife uses a handle
    and her first name is not contained in her e-mail address, would you please
    share with us how you came across her first name and why you would ever state
    that you Googled it? Violation of Privacy?? That is not only irrelevant, it’s
    getting too personal and downright unethical. It doesn’t seem ethical to bring
    up my wife’s gender in three of your posts to her. Moderators moderate, they
    don’t conduct investigations regarding to personal information about a
    particular poster. You said to my wife “you’re a woman in what is pretty
    much a men’s discussion”, then in one of your last posts to her, you ask
    her, “as a woman”, to “bow out as an active participant in what
    is a discussion principally intended for men.” You never established this
    in your commenting policy. And that is UNETHICAL. You shouldn’t have brought
    her gender up at all and should have treated her just like you treat the rest
    of the posters. MEN, Christians or otherwise, DO NOT OWN THIS DISCUSSION. It
    belongs to everybody who is affected by it. On this subject of Guns, I would
    love to hear from women and teenagers as well, since OFTEN they are victims of
    gun related mass murders. I am a man and I have the confidence in myself to
    handle that with no problem.

    When my wife, in other words, basically asked you to stop hijacking and ending her conversations with others and stated that she refused to argue with you personally anymore for about the fourth or fifth time, you kept chasing her. She then
    intelligently re-posted your commenting policy, you accused her of taking a
    swipe (???) at you. For what?? Posting your commenting policy? Then, you banned
    her from posting. I never read where my wife violated ONE of the rules and
    regulations. You state “We hope you will join us and be blessed by
    participating in this blog”, “Anyone is welcome to post here”,
    “Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous and functional PUBLIC
    environment where we can engage in righteous discourse.” Is that what
    you’re doing with people on this website that don’t agree with everything you
    teach? Is that how you conduct yourself? In my opinion, a Forum is where people
    of all ideas come to discuss them and offer various perspectives. As for this
    site, if there is no OTHER perspective, then it becomes a censored forum and
    perhaps, more than that, a dictatorship. I know censorship for I have lived in
    a Communist country for 31 years, prior to my defection (I am a proud citizen
    of the USA since 1985). This site feels a bit like the ol’ Communist style of
    functioning, where a lot of propaganda is used to make a point and nobody dares
    to disagree with the leader.

    TRW@Disappointed: “…Mr. Price merely answered your post point by point. To this you
    suggested he took your post as a personal attack. This presumes his motive,
    which you have no way of knowing.”

    1stPetrvs3:10: This makes NO sense. If my wife felt that Mr. Price was taking the post of some of the others as personal attacks on his beliefs, that means she thinks he may
    feel a certain way. That does NOT mean she presumed a motive. For the record,
    what my wife actually stated was “You appear to take others’ opinions very
    personally. Almost as personal attacks on what you believe.” That cannot
    be construed as presuming a motive. You created a falsehood and then used it as
    justification for inciting her into an argument concerning this and then
    finally, and not surprisingly, used it as justification to ban her from
    posting. This is the very same thing you tried to do to her in a previous
    thread on this forum. You threatened her status as a poster on that previous
    thread as well. Do we see a pattern here, Ted?? Threats, harassing my wife
    concerning her gender?? Shameful conduct as a moderator and a mature adult. I’m
    very proud that a Christian WOMAN, who speaks truth is found threatening to
    your message. What IS your message if it can’t handle ONE WOMAN?

    Romans 2:1 “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself because you,
    who pass judgment, do the same things.” Ted, you talk a lot about God’s
    righteous judgments on your website, but do you really understand Romans 2:1?
    It isn’t referring to judicial judgments but, rather, to the rash, harsh and
    uncharitable judgments you have made towards other Christians. And yes, I said
    judgments.

    When I defected from my former communist country and arrived in this great country, the very first things I purchased were a typewriter and a gun, because both were illegal to
    own in my former country, there was no freedom of thought and speech, among
    many other things, and they were symbols of Freedom to me. Consider yourself
    blessed that you can have a website where you can speak your mind and that you
    can own firearms. For a man who is so concerned about his country, I don’t read
    anywhere where you have ONE good thing to say about it. I am well traveled (10
    countries) and also lived under communist rule for 31 years and I learned
    everything through experiencing it, not from books I read. Our country is the
    greatest country on Earth, even with all of its imperfections, because people
    are imperfect and they are who make up this country. You shouldn’t reform
    something you think is evil… I, for one, love my country, its Constitution
    and the rights she’s given me.

    This is my one and only post. A real MAN would step up to the plate and apologize to my wife.

  8. 1stPetrvs3:10 says:

    Ted, please don’t remove ‘down’ votes on posts. We noticed this occurred after Disappointed was banned. I’m not bringing this up to confront you, but it isn’t right, period.