The Christian Case Against Gun Control

This is a discussion on The Christian Case Against Gun Control within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; By David Yeagley April 7, 2004 Most people can’t imagine Christ with a weapon. Therefore, it doesn’t seem right that a Christian should have ...

Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: The Christian Case Against Gun Control

  1. #1
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004

    The Christian Case Against Gun Control

    By David Yeagley
    April 7, 2004

    Most people can’t imagine Christ with a weapon. Therefore, it doesn’t seem right that a Christian should have one. Leftists and their anti-gun laws seem more Christian in their attitude toward guns. But early American Christians would call them cowards, unworthy of the Christian commonwealth.

    In 1619, the colony of Virginia had statutes that not only required everyone to attend church on Sunday, but “all such as bear arms shall bring their pieces, swords, powder and shot” or be subject to a three-shilling fine. That same statute was renewed in 1632, and again in 1738.

    Connecticut law in 1636 declared that the militia leader of each settlement must have “two pounds of gunpowder and 20 bullets” in his home, and must make sure the other men’s arms were serviceable. A year later, 1637, a fine of five shillings was imposed on anyone failing to meet the law. In 1650, Connecticut required every man above the age of sixteen to possess “a good musket or other gun, fit for service.”

    Evidently early American Christians saw the weapon, the firearm, the gun, as an essential element of Christian deportment.

    Why? Their social establishments were on a frontier with many enemies, both European and native.

    American Indians were a constant threat (since the early Americans staked themselves out on the Indian homeland). They’d certainly better be prepared to defend themselves against the righteous resistance of Indians.

    England itself was always a menace to the colonies. The Pilgrims and Puritans came to the new land to be free from the repressions of abused monarchy, and oppressions of ecclesiastical authority of both Rome and the Church of England.

    The colonists were prepared to fight, with arms, for every breath they drew.

    To the early Americans, a gun was as sacred as the Bible. In fact, in many early homesteads and cabins, the gun was displayed over the family hearth, just above the Bible itself. The gun was a tool of freedom. The gun was an absolute necessity.

    The early laws of America are very clear about this. The people were responsible for their own defense. At that time, there was no concept of a professional army, created and paid to defend the colonies. The idea that a standing army would one day exist was never thought of as a reason to revise the Constitution, and disarm the population.

    The fact that America does have a professional army now does not mean that it is a sin for the people to have their own weapons. On the contrary, public disarmament is insulting to the very core of American ideologies of freedom and individual responsibility.

    Cora Weiss detests such American ideologies. Weiss, career peacenik of world renown, and president of the UN affiliate The Hague Appeal for Peace, said to the UN in June, 2000, “There are only three documents that you need…to be an informed, effective member of an organized civil society: The Charter of the United Nations, the International Declaration of Human Rights, and The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century.” (Notice she doesn’t reference the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States.)

    Of course, these tyrannical world order sentiments eschew the thought that civilians should have weapons. The globalists could never wreak their fascist will on an armed populace.

    They want everyone to surrender his weapon, voluntarily, in the name of peace. Like the peace the UN created in Rwanda in 1994 when they disarmed the Tutsis, and then supported the government genocide. Then the lying peaceniks blamed the United States, naturally. But they’ll never live down the personal testimonies of Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire—who exposed them all as the manipulative mass murderers they are.

    Demicide is always preceded by public disarmament. Ask the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, or the Khmer Rouge. For that matter, ask the ancient Philistines. They once even confiscated the sharpening tools from the Israelites, “lest the Hebrew make swords or spears.” (I Samuel 13:19. See also Artisans of Exodus.)

    But the leftists will never be able to talk Christian Americans out of their guns unless they first remove American history from public knowledge, unless they erase the story of America’s Christian founders.

    Take it from a Comanche: turning your weapon over to someone else means only one thing – surrender. It has never meant anything else. It means you submit to a greater power. Do you really want to give government – any government – that power? It’s a poor gamble; take it from an Indian.
    Dr. David A. Yeagley is a published scholar, professionally recorded composer, and an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Liberal Studies. He\'s on the speakers list of Young America\'s Foundation. E-mail him at View his website at

  2. Remove Ads


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Similar Threads

  1. The Case AGAINST Gun Control
    By Jetpilot007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 9th, 2009, 03:50 PM
  2. How many are something other than Christian?
    By gilraen in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 12:34 AM
  3. Christian Gun Debate?
    By broknindarkagain in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 1st, 2007, 01:25 AM