Fischer: Second Amendment Based on Jesus

Noted constitutional scholar Bryan Fischer delivered one of his usual diatribes, claiming that the Second Amendment is all based on the teachings of Jesus. This must be right before Jesus delivered the King James version of the Constitution to George Washington at Mt. Sinai.


"Your interpretation might be correct but if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past ..."

McInness Aims Vile, Misogynist Insult at ..."
"Oh I know, I was on that thread but gave up after comments got to ..."

McInness Aims Vile, Misogynist Insult at ..."
"Off-topic, does anyone else find that when writing comments on Patheos, certain random Words get ..."

McInness Aims Vile, Misogynist Insult at ..."
"Just on the "enforced monogamy" thing, I was wondering if people have actually got the ..."

McInness Aims Vile, Misogynist Insult at ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sastra

    This is bizarre. Does this ‘scholar’ think that the concept of self-defense originated in the New Testament? And how pray tell does he manage to fit this with the “turn the other cheek” advice in another part of the story?

    The Constitution was written using language. The Bible also uses language. You can’t find a firmer ground for direct connection than that.

  • I think he refers to the story of when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus and Peter shot the ear off of one using his AR-15.

  • Zugswang

    I read that headline, and immediately thought of this.

    Clearly, there is no bottom to that hole of stupid he’s busily digging.

  • I can’t help wondering how long before Fischer and his ilk present a King James version of the Constitution, not only in King James English but with biblical references.

  • Zugswang: broken link.

    Re: the OP

    I believe Fischer’s reasoning can be summed up as “Becuase Jesus, that’s why!”

  • Mr Ed

    Blessed are those who shoot for they shall have undo influence in elections.

    If Jesus talked about guns a good 1200 years before gun powder made it to Europe is there anything else in the bible about future tech? Did he say anything about phasers, lightsabers or anti-matter bombs? Why does the prince of peace spend so much time talking about weapons?

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne


    Is that supposed to be link?

  • Owlmirror

    This is bizarre. Does this ‘scholar’ think that the concept of self-defense originated in the New Testament? And how pray tell does he manage to fit this with the “turn the other cheek” advice in another part of the story?

    Oh, Sastra. I think you underestimate how easy it is to find everything and its opposite somewhere in the bible.

    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 is to sell his coat and buy one.

    There you go. A commandment to bear arms.

  • matty1

    And how pray tell does he manage to fit this with the “turn the other cheek” advice in another part of the story?

    He simply takes that dish off his tray when he goes up to the cashier then complains that the people who did choose to eat it are cafeteria Christians.

  • cactuswren


    This whole concept of using a weapon for self defense is rooted in the teaching of Christ! There was a time, the night he was betrayed, he told his disciples, “Look, I’m gonna be numbered with the transgressors. You’re identified with me, so you are gonna be numbered with the transgressors. You are gonna be thought of, regarded as a criminal. There may be a time when you will have to defend yourself with lethal force! If you’d have a sword,” he says, “my recommendation” — Jesus Christ said this, to his own disciples — “my recommendation to you, if you don’t have a sword, if you don’t have a weapon of lethal force that you can use in self defense, sell your cloak and go buy one!” That wasn’t an offensive weapon. Jesus wasn’t tellin’ ’em, whyn’t you get this weapon so you can go rip off the Nazareth Seven-Eleven, or so you can go to war in my name. This is for self-protection. Now our Second Amendment is rooted in the teaching of Jesus Christ. We’ve got a legal principle there that is rooted in the teaching of Christ. It’s hard to get much more legitimate than that.

  • Blessed is he with an AK, for no one shall cut in front of him in line.

    Blessed is he who has a sawed-off shotgun, for no one shall trespass on his property.

    Blessed is he who has a “peace-maker,” for those who can count will make his day.

    And if a man stikes you, shoot him down.

    And if a man steals from you, shoot him down.

    And if you live in Florida, and you don’t like a person for any reason, shoot him down and claim self defense.

    And if you live in Reno, you can watch him die.

    Do these things in remembrance of me.

  • Zugswang

    Dammit. This is what I meant to link to:

    Now it’s not as funny. 😛

  • Jesus: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword! …Because guns haven’t been invented yet.”

  • bobo

    He might be right!

    There is proof of what he says!

    In this image, we see Jesus with the constitution:

  • Abby Normal

    Drat, I used to have a gun, but I turned it into a ploughshare, a tiny little ploughshare. Christ is going to be so disappointed in me.

  • Ellie

    If Fischer is right (and I suppose that might conceivably happen sometime) and Jesus was talking about everyone buying a weapon for self defense, why then, when the disciples take him seriously and say, “Look! We’ve got two swords right here,” does he say, “That’s enough?” Why doesn’t he say, “You better go out and buy 10 more right away?” Probably because Fischer’s talent for Biblical exegesis is on the same level as his knowledge of American history. He does love to talk about weapons, though, doesn’t he?

  • Obviously. The proof is in the Holy Hand Grenade.

  • I spend a fair amount of time trading insults with some gunzloonz. The overriding “truth” for that particular group of moronz (one widely held by their fellow moronz) is that “Sane and sensible controls on firearms ownership” really means, “We’re gonna TAKE ALLAYER GUNZ!!”. This particular meme has been pretty much their default position for quite some time.

    These particular people think that Trayvon Martin deserved to die. They think that the shooter who killed a teen-ager (firing 8 or 9 shots into a car with multiple passengers–because their music was “too loud”) was within his rights and standing his ground, in a variety store parking lot. They think that shooting people for what they consider “threatening” behavior (including speech, apparently) is just fine.

    I HAVE mentioned that legislators should taking steps to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to deny things like carry and concealed carry permits to people that are fucking crazy. It occurs to me that they KNOW that they’re fucking crazy and that’s why they’re afraid. Sigh.

  • caseloweraz

    Genesis 27:3 — “Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison…”

    2 Kings 11:8 — “And ye shall compass the king round about, every man with his weapons in his hand: and he that cometh within the ranges, let him be slain: and be ye with the king as he goeth out and as he cometh in.”

  • gshevlin

    I think it must be one of the Missing Commandments (written on that stone tablet that Mel Brooks broke)

    “Yeah verily, a well-armed tribe being essential to the safety of the Wilderness and the Chosen Ones, the people of the tribe shall have the ability to carry weapons at all times”

  • Larry

    Blessed is he with an AK, for no one shall cut in front of him in line.

    Book of Winchester, Verse 30, Line 06

  • kagekiri

    The fundie defense of weapons is framed this way, last I checked (I think most should recognize the verses/parts of the Bible they’re pulled from, sorry, don’t feel like looking it up):

    “Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but slapping is just an insult, not potential bodily harm, so defending yourself against violence is still on the table”

    “Jesus told Simon Peter not to kill anyone the night of his apprehension only because he was intentionally going to the cross”

    “God expects you to defend your family/possessions/life as they’re what he gave you. Thus, you fight for your life or to defend the lives of others.” (this can be gleaned in sermons from Israel’s history, or from various Psalms/Proverbs about tending to sheep and talking about how shepherds like David fought off predators).

    “Martyrs have to die for their religion, so dying another way/for another reason is a waste.” (to counter the whole “dying for God is best!” crap in the New Testament, along with the disciples pretty much never using violence, and Jesus never inciting violence against horrible oppressors like the Romans)

    “Thou shalt not kill meant murder, and killing in war/self-defense isn’t murder.”

    So yeah, that’s how they cherry pick and rationalize it if they’re pro-gun. I’m a former pro-gun fundie, so these are at least beliefs I know some of them hold, as I held most of them.

  • CJO

    We’ve got a legal principle there that is rooted in the teaching of Christ. It’s hard to get much more legitimate than that.

    Of course the whole thing is just silly. But actually, dude, in a secular society, it’s hard to get less legitimate than that as a justification for a legal principle. A small thing, but just another example of how warped and contrary to basic, accepted fact this dominionist worldview is.

  • kyoseki

    The Jesus loving gun crowd always resort to Luke 22:36, but it’s a very confusing passage.

    36 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. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

    38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

    “That’s enough!” he replied.

    (exit, stage right)

    Essentially Jesus says “if you don’t own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”, then IMMEDIATELY the apostles go “look, we have two swords” and Jesus says “that’s enough”.

    Enough for what? Nobody’s left the fucking room to go buy a sword yet, and two swords for 13 people? I’ve no idea what two is enough for but it’s definitely not enough for self defense.

    I see no logical way to reconcile the teachings of Jesus (which are almost entirely rooted in the idea that the world is about to end, so don’t obsess over dumb shit in what is basically an ephemeral reality) with the idea of self defense.

    I mean seriously, what’s the reasoning here? “I believe that as soon as I die, I will be sent to a place of eternal bliss, but if any of you fuckers try to send me there a minute too soon, I’ll blow your fucking head off” ??

    How does that make the slightest bit of sense?

  • Pingback: mode()