Gun Rights: Where the Candidates Stand

A growing number of people today are lobbying the government to issue controls/bans on the right of individuals to possess firearms, arguing that this will reduce the number of violent crimes committed (e.g., school shootings). Just this past week President Obama issued his latest round of executive actions on gun control:

However, such legislation directly violates the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment. Though its explanation of the source of our rights should reference God, this short video provides an excellent explanation of the Second Amendment and why it must be defended:


Most importantly, attacks on gun rights also encroach on an individual’s Biblical right to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In His covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:6–7), God allowed for the use of forceful defense against violent aggression because it is necessary to protect our God-given rights. This right to defense clearly applies to defending one’s own family (Genesis 14:14; Nehemiah 4:14), property (Exodus 22:2; Nehemiah 4:14; Luke 11:21), and person (Luke 22:36–38). A common misunderstanding is that Jesus commanded His disciples to not defend themselves in Matthew 5:38–39 but to instead “turn the other cheek.” However, the Greek word used here for “smite” refers to a sharp slap given in insult, not a violent attack. Therefore, this passage is referring to accepting defaming persecution with grace and humility rather than returning evil for evil; it is not condemning the use of just force to check/deter violent acts of aggression.

It is therefore critical that Christians take a stand against gun control legislation because it (1) violates an unalienable right given in Scripture and puts the others at risk by reducing our ability to defend them; (2) violates the Constitution; (3) is based on a lie that guns kill people, when in reality it is people who kill other people; (4) creates over-dependence on government to protect and provide for us; and (5) paves the way for tyranny because it reduces the people’s ability to check oppressive governmental force.


So, where do the 2016 Presidential candidates stand on the gun rights? This article does an excellent job of summarizing their positions on this issue for us:


Please share your thoughts and comments with us!

In Christ – Samuel and Lydia


4 thoughts on “Gun Rights: Where the Candidates Stand

  1. Hey Friends!

    Hope you’re both doing well. I was wondering if you would elaborate a bit on two of your points in this post.

    First, you said the following in this blog post: “…attacks on gun rights also encroach on an individual’s Biblical right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.” You later confirmed/elaborated and claimed that “gun control legislation…violates an unalienable right from Scripture…”

    Can you offer a bit more explanation as to why any limitation on gun ownership rises to the level of un-biblical (sinful?) conduct? Does that mean that creating the license requirements for concealed-carry permits are “un-biblical”? What about multi-day waiting periods? Or the National Firearms Act (which has, rather successfully, outlawed actual automatic weapons, like those commonly called ‘machine guns’)? Just trying to understand your position there.

    Second, you said repeatedly in this blog post that “gun control legislation” violated the constitution. Can you clarify why you believe that to be the case? And, again, can you share how your analysis applies to some of the examples from my previous paragraph? Are each of those requirements unconstitutional?

    Having studied some of the most meaningful judicial decisions on the subject, I found Scalia’s 2008 decision in 2008 Heller decision to be one of the most activist and manipulative of any constitutional law decision I’ve studied. I am sure you both have studied this subject thoroughly — probably much more than I! — but I am confounded by how Scalia takes his preferred historical interpretation, molds it like clay to his ideological will, and calls the decision law. Are you depending that case in particular to claim that all gun control legislation violates the constitution?

    Always enjoy reading a different perspective! 🙂 Thanks for making the time to write.


  2. Ok well, I take a pretty literal reading of texts unless they clearly state otherwise. The text reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So I would say that pretty much any weapons, to include military grade, are immune to federal government regulation since the amendment is clearly geared towards military capability, not hunting or even personal protection. Of course, it is up to the states to regulate this freedom when someone shows that they are not able to handle it responsibly, like if they are displaying/using their weaponry in such a manner that it causes threats/disturbances to others on property not belonging to them. I will emphasize that such regulations have to take place at the state level as per this amendment. The federal government has no right to infringe on the weaponry rights of American citizens except on its own property. The Bill of Rights is simply clarifying what the original Constitution already says – namely that the powers not expressly given to the federal government in it are reserved to the states and the people. So just as murder should be punished at the state level, but not at the federal level, unsafe usage of weapons should be punished at the state level, not at the federal level.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s