Does The Bible Say Anything About Guns or Gun Rights?

Does The Bible Say Anything About Guns or Gun Rights? February 22, 2018
"How do you know that he isn't mentally ill? Has he been checked by a ..."

How Do You Know When It’s ..."
"Well, the Westminster Confession says this"... it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in ..."

How Do You Know When It’s ..."
"What would you say to someone who told you that God spoke to them audibly ..."

How Do You Know When It’s ..."
"I pray for his many victims."

Whatever Happened To Integrity?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • newenglandsun

    Slide 2 talks drunk driving and asks about cars. It would be more proper to talk drugs. We actually did ban drugs once…the results were not good.

    • Jack Wellman

      That’s a better example, you’re right. Thank you.

    • David Hill

      There is a right to bear arms… there is no right to drive, it is considered a priviledge.

  • CruisingTroll


    Most private citizens do not have the means, money, or ability to purchase automatic weapons anyway, so the vast majority of Americans own what is legal for them to own, and that is semi-automatics weapons.

    The only reason for this is because of government regulations, nothing else. The manufacturing cost of an automatic AK-47, AR-15/M-16, FLN, Galil or any of the myriad of other weapons that are manufactured in both forms is maybe 5% higher than the cost of the semi-automatic version.

    Obviously, “bump stocks” and other automatic weapons that are capable of mass murder are not what the founders of this nation had in mind when they added the Second Amendment because they didn’t even exist.
    This contributes absolutely nothing. What we do know is that when the Constitution was ratified iprivate citizens could and did own cannon, the most advanced weaponry of the day. Yes, full blown artillery pieces, capable of blowing a building apart, occupied or not. Capable of killing dozens in a single shot. In short, the citizenry had weaponry equivalent to the government’s. Since the Constitution offers no explicit guidance on the matter, we are left with the principles as applied at the time as well as this core Constitutional principle. The Federal gov’t can do nothing that it is not explicitly authorized to do. Nowhere is it authorized to regulate firearms, if anything, the 2nd Amendment is a pretty clear indicator that the entire field is off limits. IF, as the Founders believed, the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was as a curb on government misbehavior, then the idea that the citizenry should be massively limited in lethal capacity compared to the government is a hard one to sell. Keep in mind that the Founders lived in a different era, with a different mindset. They, as were all of their society, far less “shocked” by death than is ours. They also were far more confident of their final destination. They also had a much simpler approach to justice. The Florida shooter would have already been hanged by now.

    Returning to the Bible, I would venture that from God’s perspective, an equally dim view of “weapons that are capable of mass murder” in the hands of private citizens OR government is the case. It is clear though, given the prevalence of weaponry throughout the Old Testament and also their appearance in the New that God is far more concerned about the heart, soul and motivation of the one with the weapon than he is with the weapon itself.

    Grace and peace, CT

    • Daniel C Driver

      You can say something similar about having freedom of religion. It was in reference to denominations of religious beliefs, not false religions that don’t have Jesus as the center and their savior. Furthermore, the separation of church and state letter (or clause) was so the US government and administration could not choose a national denomination of the christian church.

  • ravitchn

    Good question because it highlights the fact that the bible is out of date on most things.

    • Jack Wellman

      Ex 20:14 will never be outdated!

      • James Billman

        Exodus 21certainly is outdated. Unless selling your daughter into slavery is relevant. pff

        • Daniel C Driver

          Human (and child) traffickings are still going on in this modern age. Therefore, Exodus 21 is still relevant.

      • James Billman

        Exodus 21:17, aka the tenth commandment, groups one’s wife along with a man’s other possessions such as his slaves and chattel.

        • Bert

          Lutherans and Catholics divide the 10th commandment to read: (9) neither shall you desire your neighbors wife; (10) neither shall you covet thy neighbors goods, taken from Deut. 5:6-21.

          The Jewish equivalent reads: You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

          Now do you feel better?

  • Markus R

    The Bible establishes the inherent worth and dignity of man, addresses the right to lethal defense in some circumstance and gives ample examples. At the same time Christians are to be law-abiding citizens even under a tyrannical government that would deny those rights. Rulers are clearly accountable to God and are to rule accordingly.

    But this discussion is a bit of a straw man. The problem in this nation is not the existence or possession of guns. It is the denigration of human worth. And sans a revival and repentance, it is clear that a more tyrannical government will result. As humans behave more like animals, our government will behave accordingly.

  • Kyra Lynne

    Our country does not have a gun violence issue btw. The only problem we have is the kind of people who are carrying these days.

  • JesusIsFakeNews

    If only Christians folllowed their lord and savior but instead they’d rather be republicans. Jesus condemned Peter for using his sword in self defense saying “he that lives by the sword will die by the sword” he also said to “turn the other cheek” in place of eye for an eye, he also said to love, forgive, and show mercy to your enemies.

    In other words Jesus told his disciples to be loving pacifists.

    • Kyra Lynne

      People who choose to protect themselves are not “living by the sword.” I don’t know about y’all, but I’m a Christian, not a quaker lol.

      • JesusIsFakeNews

        Take it up with your bible sis. I quoted it. You gave your opinion.

        • Kyra Lynne

          The Bible also gives examples of people protecting themselves and their families.

          • JesusIsFakeNews

            I noticed you ignored your Lord and savior’s teachings I referenced. Remember he will deny you before his daddy if you deny his teachings.

          • Kyra Lynne

            Funny thing for you to say, the dude with “Jesusisfakenews” as your usename lol. What would you know about it?

          • Jim

            Thank you Princess. you beat me to it. I was just getting ready to point that out to him.

        • Deacon Bil Carter

          Quoting the Bible is not the same as understanding it. The unity of Scripture is more important that citing chapter and verse. Anyone can find a verse that appears to support their own personal viewpoint.

        • Daniel C Driver

          You only quoted a portion of the passage. A half truth is a whole lie.

      • kyuss

        are you really so dense that you don’t realize that Quakers were christians?

    • Tiny J

      He also said it was more important to have a sword (a weapon exclusively for human vs. human violence) than it was to have a cloak.

      • JesusIsFakeNews


      • Darryl Willis

        Yes, he said that right before he said “Don’t use it.” Jesus was speaking metaphorically in this text and he wasn’t talking about self-defense. “Lord, here are two swords!” Hmmm. So you’re going to take on the entire 12th Legion with two swords? “That’s enough!” Is that a statement saying two swords are enough or “Yeesch, guys–that’s enough! You’ve missed the point again!”?

        • Tiny J

          He told his disciple to put it back on his belt. He didn’t tell him to get rid of it, or that the human killing tool was unnecessary. And no, no one missed the point He was trying to make that swords are necessary, but don’t stress out about it too much (when He said 2/12 was enough).

    • Deacon Bil Carter

      Jesus did not command anyone to be pacifists. Pacifists reject violence at all costs, even when someone is threatening their life. To “turn the other cheek” simply means to offset aggression with a peaceful response. The aggression referred to is a slap. That is a lot different than facing someone intent on killing you or someone else. In that case, there is no scriptural prohibition against deadly force.

      • Darryl Willis

        Actually I believe it is a backhand by a Roman soldier. And you are essentially correct: nonviolence is not the same thing as pacifism. I’d repaint the scenario: taking that hit–being knocked to the ground, getting back up and intentionally turning your cheek is anything but pacifist. It is confrontive. Allowing someone to harm you is not the same thing as being a doormat without any strength. Spreading your arms to embrace the wild animal in the Forum or to allow the Roman soldier to nail you to that cross is not pacifism. All the same, these actions of the early Christians were not deadly force in self-defense, either.

    • Daniel C Driver

      Peter did not use the sword in self defense. He used it to try and stop the Romans from taking Jesus away. You need to read the outlying verses, before you come to a fanatical conclusion.

    • David Hill

      Didn’t Jesus tell his followers to buy a sword if they did not have one? Luke 22:36-38

  • tovlogos

    Amen Jack — A few thoughts — The first thing I notice is the mistranslation of the 6th commandment,
    which has been taken as truth; whereas, as you pointed out, Thou shall not murder, is correct…
    It is interesting how this sets the stage for humanity to consider — not to mention, blood has continued to soak the earth after the Fall.
    I also find Luke 4:28–30 interesting, Jesus clearly avoided death on several occasions — until His time…
    So, much for Christians standing in docility while any and everyone who wants to tee off on them, can.

    It was not immediately apparent that Peter was carrying a weapon/sword as Jesus went to Golgotha,
    until he used it “foolishly”. Otherwise we may have never known he was carrying…Clearly, the sword was not the point;
    and Jesus was walking with him, with no mention of the weapon.

    No question about the fact that God wants more than anything an adherence to Matthew 22:37–40; but that is the theological reality
    that continually escapes this world — until the Time.

  • Gregory Peterson

    A difference between deaths involving drivers and cars, and deaths involving shooters and assault type rifles is that very few drivers are using their cars as weapons (though some do).

    • Angry ForeFather

      Umm how many muslims are driving rental vehicles and stolen vehicles into crowds of people?

      • Gregory Peterson

        I didn’t say that it never happens…just that it seldom happens. Unlike the vehicles, the guns used in mass shootings are solely designed to efficiently kill people.

        • Angry ForeFather

          Well not really. An AR-15 is just like any other hunting rifle. It only looks tactical and does not have a wooden stock. If you look at any sporting goods store almost all rifles except for the bolt actions are semi auto. In addidtion almost all shotguns nowadays are also semi.

          Truthfully the AR rifle fires a small round, it is overly complex, prone to misfiring due to carbon build up on the firing pin on the bolt carrier and has heat issues. Since the gun was designed to not be converted into fully automatic you see bump stocks, which really are stupid in my opinion. The accuracy goes to crap as the whole rifle is rockin and rolling while your holding it. With the heat issues because of the gas tube they had to convert the higher end ARs to a piston based system to keep the gun from over heating.

          I collect and have dozens of rifles and got rid of my ARs as i do not find them to be good rifles. Rifles like HK make etc are much better, easier to work on snd have much fewer parts. They also do not use the little 5.56mm round the AR uses but use a 308 round which is like a civilian 30-06 round.

          I never understood people obsession with the AR besides the fact that everyone has one. If people knew their weapons, a semi 12ga would be much more efficient for mass shootings and many other rifles are much better. So in a way let them focus on that crap AR rifle.

          People may not like what I said about the rifle, but it is true. The AR really is an overly complex, small round, heat sensitive rifle.

          • Gregory Peterson

            Being a veteran and a Westerner who grew up hunting, my beef is with rapid fire guns and handguns. Those aren’t sporting and few civilians actually need them for self-defense.

            In any case, I think people should show that they have a gun safe before they’re allowed to by firearms.

          • Angry ForeFather

            Agreed, as that is a responsible thing to do. Even our elders kept them in a case that locked. Back then they were wood and glass though.

            I too am a veteran. 11x and loath the M4. HKs are much better weapons in my opinion. Hell even the scar17s is a much better rifle than an M4 and ARs are even worse. Never understood why everyone likes that rifle?

          • DugDanger

            When, and only when. You can take the guns from the criminals, should you even consider “amending” the 2nd Ammendment.which of course will never be done, because it will upset the Democratic voters….

          • Gregory Peterson

            I would be happy amending the 2nd Amendment, if the wording is good.

          • Otto Tellick

            The AR-15 is unlike “any other hunting rifle” in that it fires high-velocity rounds, which cause considerably greater damage to body and organ tissue, yielding much more severe injuries that are more often lethal, compared to typical firearms (using lower velocity ammunition).

          • Angry ForeFather

            Lol whatever f@g a 308 would leave a barn door in your f@ggot asss. A 5.56mm round is shiit compared to that. Hence why 18x moved to the scar 17s.

            Sincerely hang yourself you twink mother fukcer.

          • Otto Tellick

            You show such exemplary behavior… You must be one of those True Christians! How many people have you killed?

          • Angry ForeFather

            No Christian here and you never served so you have no room to talk, twink. Now do the world a favor and hang yourself and save some a bullet later.

          • Chuck Bryant

            The epitome of the “polite society” ammosexuals rant and rave about

          • Angry ForeFather

            And don’t post some f@ggy NUT post and muzzle velocity doesn’t mean shiit when it comes to damage. Which is why the military is obsoleting the round.

  • gene poole

    I used to conduct an interesting experiment regarding high capacity firearms while teaching a law class years ago. I showed my students two wildly-colored toy cap revolvers and said some time today, without warning, i would produce the revovlers and start shooting. I told them no fudging, if I pointed at the chest or head and shot, your were down. They could run out the back door or try to rush me as long as it was safe.
    Long story short, they knew it would happen, they knew no one would get hurt, there were no surprises. Every single time it was a bloody massacre. Every time, with 2 simple low capacity toy cap revolvers. I even reduced the capacity from 8 to 6 shots, nothing changed. I even did it it with one revolver. Still a massacre.
    Hard as it is to understand for most of you, per an ABC news article interviewing law enforcement gun crime experts they ALL said the AR wasn’t chosen becasue of lethality, it was because of copycats (per people caught in the act).
    It’s a dark heart in a sick society that causes problems. I’m still alive and others are still alive because I had quick access to an evil, legally-owned hi-cap firearm (HK51).
    Pity some of your weren’t there to talk the bad guys to death.

  • Darryl Willis

    I’m a little confused. You seem to use “automatic” and “semi-automatic” almost interchangably. Yet you point out that most Americans cannot purchase automatic weapons so the vast majority own what is legal for them to own (i.e., semi-automatic). So your question “Should certain automatic weapons only be in the hands of the military and law enforcement?” is a little confusing to me.

    As to the assertion that the founding fathers did not have automatic weapons in mind is obvious–but it is also somewhat disingenuous. What they had available was the current military grade firearms available at that time. What they were demanding was the right for citizens to be able to be armed with the latest weaponry available–they were all military grade. Given the context of the time I think it is safe to say the leaders of the colonies in the 1700s would have promoted the ability to own even fully automatic weapons if they had been available. Why? Because the point was to be able to rise up against an authoritarian form of government and the ability to repel invaders.

    Of course, we do not face the same issues today–so if the Founding Fathers were alive today they might feel differently about the second amendment–but there is no real way to actually know that.

    The most pertinent question though: should Christians want to own weapons that are designed for the taking of human life?

    • Jack Wellman

      Thank you Mr. Willis. A semi-automatic weapon could be a pistol or repeating rifle, so it’s less capable of rapid fire. A machine gun is automatic weapon their access should certainly be restricted. Does this help sir? I’m sorry I caused any confusion.

  • NathanMichael

    Maybe a good point of conversation would be comparing the second amendment to the words and actions of Jesus, the apostles, and the early church, early church martyrs. The point that I find most disturbing in this conversation is an assumption that the 2nd amendment is somehow ordained by God as a Godly way of living in line with His kingdom. The 2nd amendment is a human construct by a human governmental system, all of which systems John in Revelation had no nice words to describe (something about a beast acting in a beastly manner). Our major error is the same error that John in Revelation was trying to confront – confusing the kingdoms of this world for the kingdom of God. We are citizens of God’s kingdom who are present and ‘doing business’ (so to speak) in the kingdoms of this world. We must act as citizens of His kingdom while living within the kingdoms of this world. To join worldly kingdoms in their ways in opposition to King Jesus is to forsake the Lamb for the beast.

    I believe this is the key issue as we talk about guns in America. We uphold the 2nd amendment (worldly kingdom ideal) over the leadership of king Jesus. The 2nd amendment as is commonly understood in America is about 1) defence against tyrannical government to the point of revolutionary war 2) self defence with a lethal weapon, willing to kill those who threaten you. How did Jesus handle both of these points? Jesus leads his kingdom in a different direction than the kingdoms of this world that rule and live by the sword.

    • Bill Carsley

      You are correct, Michael, in my opinion. I believe the best we can do as Christians, in trying to promote good public policy, is to keep “God given rights” out of the conversation. We need to appeal to common sense when seeking to understand what kind of limitations may be appropriate regarding Second Amendment rights. Personally, I do not intend to use lethal force against any other human being since I’m convinced it violates the example and teaching of Jesus and the apostles – it is contrary to the principles of the Kingdom of God.

  • Charlie Sutton

    I began reading the article thinking that the author might have something to say that would be thoughtful, analytical, and helpful. I got halfway through the second page and stopped. If someone is going to talk about guns, a position of ignorance is not a good way to begin. While it is possible for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon, it is an extremely difficult thing to do legally. One must be licensed as a firearms dealer to start with, with all the background checks that entails, and then go on to purchase several more expensive special licenses and pass several more background checks. Once all that is done, the person must find an automatic weapon for sale, and there are not many; the 1986 firearms law prohibits any automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. The cost of buying one of the automatic weapons that qualifies is in the five figures. And then once one has an automatic weapon, it can only be stored and fired at a recognized gun range.
    Yes, bump stocks and other devices that make a semi-automatic weapon fire almost as if it were an automatic weapon do exist. The also make it hard to keep the weapon aimed. But even with such devices, one would find it quite difficult to fire “hundreds of rounds” in a matter of seconds. It is impractical to have a magazine larger than 45 rounds, and few are larger than 30. They are bulky and oddly shaped, and it is not that easy to carry a large number of them. Changing a magazine is fairly quick, but it still takes time.
    I was born in 1946. In my boyhood, one could order deer rifles from the Sears and Roebuck catalogue, or pick up a .22 or even larger rifle at a hardware store. Handguns were a bit harder to come by, at least in the East, but were still easy to get. Then in the late 1960’s, “situational ethics” began to rise, and the culture in general began to abandon the Judeo-Christian mindset, although that trend had begun some fifty or sixty years earlier in the intellectual realm. No-fault divorce and pre-marital sex began to expand rapidly. The results of these changes in society has not been good, especially when the “trust your feelings” movement took hold and it became almost imperative to be driven by one’s emotions. I could go on, but the end result is not so much that we have some nasty weaponry out there (and we do), but we have many more nasty people out there as well, and little in place to help them.
    The solution to the problem of mass shootings is not to disarm Christians, but to do the hard, patient work of restoring sanity to a culture that has nothing to offer except fame, wealth, and power as a reason to live.

    • Jim

      I so wish I could give you a million thumbs up Charlie.

      • Charlie Sutton


  • As you say, the bible says nothing directly on this topic. One’s whole approach to this, from a Christian perspective, is a topic in theological ethics. However, Christians differ in their approaches and views on theological ethics.

    (1). What role does the bible play in theological ethics compared to reason, experience and church tradition and how are these related to Jesus Christ?

    (2). What role does biblical hermeneutics play in one’s approach to theological ethics?

    (3). What is the relation between the OT and NT and within the NT to the theology and ethics of Jesus and the theologies and ethics of his disciples?

    (4). Some Christian groups are largely pacifist (e.g. Anabaptists and Quakers). Others support the just taking up of arms in self defence.

    Many Christians, today, do not support the genocides that are commanded in the OT. They consider these to be highly immoral. Yet some Christians try to defend such behaviour because of their erroneous view of verbal-plenary inspiration

  • Jacob

    lol…this all over the place post is the worst defense of gun ownership I have ever wasted my time reading….I think I may have destroyed dozens of brain cell’s…

  • David Hill

    Interesting… what does the Bible say about guns. So, are Christians going to impose their understanding of the Bible on others? Okay… will we do the same with marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, to name a few?