Connect with us

The Right to Self-Defense

2nd Amend.

The Right to Self-Defense

In all the noise caused by the Obama administration’s direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.

To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty — the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government — that the big-government crowd fears the most.

Let’s be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.


  • pikemaster1

    My right to self defense is what type of firearm I hold in my RIGHT Hand ! God bless

  • colsooonscoorner

    Found a site that Covers the Dick Act Theu are not permitted by law to make any laws against the 2nd Amendment rights. It’s a 1902 law http://www.civilrightstaskforce.infoguncontarolforbidden.htm Sure is an eye opener to anti gun folks

  • Terry Adams

    anti gun folks will lie steal and cheat to get what they want.. but they should look out because it may cost them more than they may want to pay

  • George Washington

    God bless you and thanks for standing up for what is right.

  • CaptTurbo

    Very good article except for the part about the projectiles being of steel. They were and still largely are made of lead.

    • gutterfalcon

      They are trying to make them switch to steel though. Lead-= Lead poisoning, seriously…..Like they did with Duck shells.

  • Darius the Mede

    It’s amazing that the Obaminator doesn’t worry about the twns of thousands of “unborn” children that his policies are responsible for murdering. He doesn’t want us to be able to defend ourselves either. The second amendment was put in the Constitution for a specific reason–so that the American citizen would have the right gear to rebel against a tyrannical government that had ceased to be responsive to the needs of the citizens. Don’t ever forget that an “unarmed American” is a subject, not a citizen.

  • CARL

    >>> THE NEWS IS THAT THERE ARE 30,000 ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS , SO ” WE THE PEOPLE ” ONLY NEED 30,000 SHOTS TO ELIMINATE THEM . THERE ARE PROBABLY 21,.000,000 AMERICANS WHO ARE WELL ARMED , READY WILLING AND ABLE TO DEFEND FREEDOM , SO WE OUTNUMBER THEM BY A HUGE MARGIN .
    ” DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF ”
    ” IF THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS , GIVE THEM YOUR BULLETS “.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    The Second Amendment right will never protect us from eventual gun confiscation. Think about it: the amendment that contains the language “shall not be infringed” is the most infringed, licensed, and limited of all twenty seven.

    Instead of constitutional rights (which are optional), we need to be looking to God-expected responsibilities (which are non-optional–such as 1 Timothy 5:8–the most neglected and yet powerful Biblical admonition on bearing arms).

    For more, see “You Can’t Win Bringing a Knife [the Second Amendment] to a Gunfight.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to the title. Then read “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights.”

    • Davy Crockett

      The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights,

      Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men’s imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

      “Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “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.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

      Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14, Mat. 7:7-8). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Any rights as sons of God (I prefer to look at them at gifts, which puts the emphasis on God instead of ourselves) has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, which, for the most part, are both antithetical and hostile to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality, as I demonstrate by comparing the two in “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Book Page and click on the top entry.

        • Davy Crockett

          Lets examine his response folks. I put forth detailed arguments with scriptural backing. His response: no proof for his position and his opinion that I am wrong.

          Which one would you believe? Detailed work with scripture versus “no he is wrong!”

      • T. Edward Price

        Mr. Weiland is absolutely correct. We need preachers who will preach the Gospel of Christ, not the gospel of the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who bases his argument for gun ownership on the 2nd Amendment is proverbially building a house on sand, instead of on the rock of Scripture. If one is not a Christian, the point is moot. But if one is a Christian, the hope for protection of gun ownership lies with God’s word. The 2nd Amendment is not the strongest protector of gun ownership. Rights “guaranteed ” by the 2nd Amendment are only as good as the amendment itself. The same government that gave you the 2nd Amendment could eventually take it away by the repeal process or by Supreme Court judicial decree. Then what? This is where the debate over “rights” vs. responsibilities comes into play. “Rights” always offer the OPTION whether or not to exercise said rights. On the other hand, God-ordained RESPONSIBILITIES offer no such choice. There is no OPT-OUT button to push. It is the responsibility of EVERY Christian MAN to be armed, and sufficiently trained, in order to always be at the ready, in defense of self, family, community, and nation. Regardless the outcome of the push for ever more draconian gun laws, up to and including the possible banning of ALL privately held firearms, it is still the DUTY of Christian men to maintain arms. Most of today’s weak-kneed lily-livered, effeminate, so-called Christian males would agree with the popular phrase WWJD
        ( What Would Jesus Do). But they usually don’t know the answer:

        Luke 22:36 –“And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword (or 1911 .45, or Glock 23, or Benelli 12 Gauge, or M4 Carbine, or Savage .338 Lapua) is to sell his coat and buy one.”

        And David, since you champion humanistic “rights”, over God-MANDATED responsibilities, please let me know if you ever decide to opt-out of your RESPONSIBILITY to protect yourself and family. Just give me a call, and I will do it for you, without hesitation.
        I’m just two hours away. I DO take my Christian RESPONSIBILITIES seriously.
        That means protecting even you and your family, if necessary.

        I would strongly suggest anyone interested in a Christian perspective on the
        RESPONSIBILITY to be armed and trained to check the sites Ted Weiland mentions
        above.

        Stay safe, keep your powder dry, and your magazines fully charged.

        • Davy Crockett

          Do you believe in the doctrine of Freewill?

          • T. Edward Price

            I believe exactly what Scripture teaches. All COMMANDS imply a choice. Thou shall or thou shall not obviously means one can CHOOSE to obey and be blessed, or disobey and be judged guilty. All PROPHECY would indicate predestination, i.e., the outcome having been predetermined by Yahweh. The correct answer is that the Bible teaches BOTH!

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100000153153484/ Robert Alexander

    The essence of this debate is TRUTH or delusion on ones heart. It’s ALL about equity people and loving truth and putting that into practice.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

More in 2nd Amend.

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

To Top
STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become a Patriot Outdoor News insider.

Send this to friend