Liberty University President Draws Concern After Telling Students: ‘We Could End Those Muslims’ With Guns

Falwell-compressedLYNCHBURG, Va. — The president of what is purportedly the largest Christian university in the world remains unremorseful after concerns were raised over the spirit of his comments about “ending Muslims” that he made to students and faculty at a convocation on Friday, which also drew applause from those gathered.

“I’ve always thought, if more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them,” Jerry Falwell, Jr. said on Friday to unreserved applause in speaking about Wednesday’s San Bernardino massacre.

“I just wanted to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course,” he said. “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”

The thousands present again applauded enthusiastically and cheered, with some smiling wide and one man in view of the camera giving the remarks a standing ovation.

Falwell told the Washington Post that his comments resulted in the most positive feedback he has ever received for a convocation.

“The support here on campus is almost universal,” he stated.

He went on to reTweet social media posts in support of his remarks, including one that read, “S*CK IT, Muslim extremists,” adding a link to the school’s gun course. The account of the original Tweeter is now unavailable.

  • Connect with Christian News

However, when some became aware of Falwell’s statements, they expressed concern about the spirit of his statements in killing Muslims.

“My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. Falwell’s rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals,” said Gov. Terry McAuliffe in a statement. “Those of us in leadership positions, whether in government or education, must take care to remember the tremendous harm that can result from reckless words.”

Some online commenters, while supporting the Second Amendment, also disagreed with how Falwell expressed his views.

“I think Falwell has made the situation more tense rather than less tense by his choice of language,” one wrote.

“I’m trying to imagine Jesus saying what Jerry Falwell Jr. said,” another stated. “I’m having trouble. I don’t think Jesus would be big on the tough talk or brag about the gun he’s carrying.”

Falwell told reporters that he doesn’t regret his statements per se, but would have inserted the word “extremists” to clarify.

“If I had to say what I said again, I’d say exactly the same thing,” he said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • gizmo23

    Sounds like he’s continuing where his dad left off. The cheering before he clarified is chilling. This is a Christian university?

    • The Skeptical Chymist

      No, it isn’t even a university. Any educational institution that doesn’t even offer a bachelor’s degree in physics doesn’t deserve to called a college, much less a university.

      • gizmo23

        Very true. I’m sure the no physics thing is in regard to students learning science, which many faithful think is evil

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Sounds about right.

      • BarkingDawg

        Physics is too close to evolution.

    • afchief

      What is wrong with carrying a gun? People can’t protect themselves? It is our God given right!!!

      • acontraryview

        Please cite where God provides a right to carry a gun.

        • afchief

          Oh please! All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

          Government does not grant rights as government never possessed them in the first place. Government may grant privileges but it may not infringe (under natural law) on rights.

          This is the foundational principle of America. It does not matter if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you to have one or more of your rights.

          There is no legitimate act, whether by Congress, law, the Constitution or any other means to deprive you of your natural rights, because you are endowed with them by virtue of being human.

          Government may disrespect those rights but it cannot change the fact that you have them, no matter how much disrespect it shows.

          No man can take or restrict that which was not his to bestow in the first place.

          If you don’t believe in this then you’re not an American, no matter where you were born. You do not share American values. You do not share the foundational beliefs that created and thus far have sustained this nation. You are a traitor to Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Washington and countless others. In advancing your views you are advocating violence against all in America, as the disrespecting of one’s natural rights is the initiation of force — the very definition of assault.

          If you are an elected official and take any position or advocate any law to constrain the ownership of small arms by the people, as defined in our Constitution, you are deserving of immediate impeachment along with both civil damages and criminal imprisonment under 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983 for each person who suffers harm, no matter the form or degree, as a consequence of what you advance.

          And this includes 0liar and all you liberals

          You either believe all of the above or you are a proponent of slavery, the premise that one man is owned by and exists with the permission of another.

          • gizmo23

            You rail about rights but would deny people, liberals, theirs. This sounds just like every dictator in history

          • afchief

            What rights? Homo marriage? Then have Congress amend the Constitution!!!!

          • gizmo23

            Congress and the states have that power, along with abortion amendments but as you point out people have rights to a representative government. Not enough people would support those amendments so the system works, live with it

          • afchief

            You got it wrong!!! We live in a Democracy where the majority votes for their interests. If people do not want homo marriage and overwhelmingly vote against it, then that is the law.

            The states already had in their constitutions (IAW the 10th amendment) that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is not a federal issue since it is not mentioned in the federal constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “We live in a Democracy”

            No, we do not. We live in a Constitutional Republic.

          • afchief

            Yes, we live in a republic and the majority still “rules”!!!

          • acontraryview

            No, the majority does not rule. What the majority decides must still be consistent with the protections provided by the Constitution. If it is not, it does not “rule”.

            So you are saying that if the majority of people in a state voted to ban gun ownership, then that would become the law in that state and there would be nothing that citizens of the state who disagreed with that ban could do about it, correct? They would not be able to challenge the law in court as a violation of the 2nd Amendment, correct?

          • afchief

            Why do I bother?????? When California passed Prop 8 it was consistent with the states and federal Constitution. A “activist federal judge” overruled it which is against the law of the land. Period!!! The people spoke and it became law!!!

            The people of any state cannot vote to ban guns. The federal Constitution would have to be amended first.

          • conet

            The US is a republic EXACTLY to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Even if the majority of people are backwards, knuckle-dragging primitivists who want to deny minorities equal protection under the law, the Constitution prohibits it.

          • afchief

            Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. If a bill is brought to a ballet and the majority of the people vote to approve it (Prop 8) in then becomes law. Period!

            Activist judges have NO authority to overturn a vote of the people. NONE!!!

          • acontraryview

            “When California passed Prop 8 it was consistent with the states and federal Constitution.”

            The judiciary disagreed.

            “A “activist federal judge” overruled it”

            What made the judge “activist”? Not only did one judge rule the law unconstitutional, the district court ruled it unconstitutional, and eventually the SCOTUS ruled such laws to be unconstitutional.

            “which is against the law of the land.”

            It is not “against the law of the land” for the federal judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of laws. It is one of their jobs.

            “The people spoke and it became law!!!”

            Yes, it did. Then that law was challenged in court and the judiciary ruled that such laws violated protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

            “The people of any state cannot vote to ban guns.”

            You are mistaken. Citizens on allowed to vote on any law they care to and to put any law they care to in place. Once the law is in place, it is subject to legal challenge in court, where the judiciary would rule on its constitutionality. In the case of a law banning gun ownership, the judiciary would most certainly rule that such a law violates the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment and the law would be ruled unenforceable. Thus overturning the “will of the people”.

          • afchief

            I tire easily of dealing with stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            December 8, 2015
            Time Magazine Declares: America No Longer a Republic
            By Tom Trinko

            As Lincoln pointed out, under the Constitution, the American government is “of the people, for the people, and by the people.” That’s why all laws are supposed to come from the people’s elected representatives. If laws don’t come from the Congress, the government is no longer of the people, but over the people.

            If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

            Hence, only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

            What Time is celebrating is precisely the unconstitutional experiment in judicial tyranny that Americans have been living under for more than 60 years.

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

            Similarly, the legalization of pornography – and the resulting exploitation of people as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved – and the transformation of the “justice” system from one that seeks to punish the guilty and free the innocent into one that cares only if minute procedural rules are followed, even if that means the guilty are freed to prey on the innocent, were not accomplished through the will of the people. They were accomplished by rich, mostly white, mostly male Supreme Court judges.

            Irrespective of one’s position on these issues, one has to recognize tyranny. Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune. But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court. Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.

            Liberals may not care, however, since they know that conservative judges will not abuse power the way liberal judges do, just as they don’t care that the Obama presidency is far more imperial than Nixon’s was. Sadly, far too many modern liberals are quite comfortable with justifying the means by the ends.

            Fortunately, there are few real “liberals” in America today, which is why Obama had to lie about Obamacare and Benghazi as well as his real vision for America in order to be elected. But we do need to educate the “low-information” voters who concentrate on the important things in life rather than the government.

            So tell your neighbors that the media and the Democrats are all for having a few rich, mostly white, mostly male lawyers decide the laws of this country, even if that means ignoring the votes of the American people. Ask them if they really want to live in a semi-monarchy where lawyers have the final say in defining what America is.

          • acontraryview

            Mr. Trinko is certainly entitled to his opinions. That does not, however, change the way in which our judicial system works, nor does it change that the judiciary is empowered to rule upon the constitutionality of laws.

            If you tire easily of dealing with stupidity, it must be tiring to be you.

          • afchief

            BYE!!! What this man said is TRUTH!!! You have NO idea how our Constitutional government works!!! NONE!!!!

            IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            You have shown time and again that you have no idea how our Constitution, nor our judicial system works. You are so misinformed that you actually think that the Constitution contains laws. You are so misinformed that you think we live in a pure democracy. You are so misinformed that you think the Constitution must be amended in order for a law to no longer be enforceable. You are so misinformed that you think only Congress can make laws.

            Did you not attend school in the US? Or did you simply not pay attention in school?

          • afchief

            Did I not say liberalism truly is a mental disorder? I sure did and your posts are proof!!!!!

            Bye! I just remembered that note to self!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “your posts are proof!!!!!”

            How so?

          • gizmo23

            Neither is abortion

          • afchief

            That’s right! In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t cite where God provides the right to bear arms. Got it. Thanks.

            “Government may grant privileges but it may not infringe (under natural law) on rights.”

            Government doesn’t operate under “natural law”. It operates under civil law.

            “It does not matter if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you to have one or more of your rights.”

            Oh, good. Then since equal treatment under the law is a right that all citizens have, you agree with the right of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage, regardless if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you have that right.

            “If you are an elected official and take any position or advocate any law to constrain the ownership of small arms by the people”

            Hand grenades are small. So I guess that making those illegal for citizens to own was grounds for impeachment and imprisonment, yes?

          • afchief

            The Bible tells us that Jesus said: A man who does not own a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Nowhere do I see the Bible saying that we should not protect ourselves from evil.

            “Oh, good. Then since equal treatment under the law is a right that all citizens have, you agree with the right of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage, regardless if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you have that right.”

            Then have Congress add an amendment to the Constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “Nowhere do I see the Bible saying that we should not protect ourselves from evil.”

            Nor did suggest that there was such a statement in the Bible. Based on Luke 22:36, God provides for the ownership of swords, not guns.

            “Then have Congress add an amendment to the Constitution.”

            The Constitution doesn’t cover marriage. it is a right that exists under the equal protection clause. So glad to see you support its legality since, as you said, “It does not matter if 51%, 66%, 75% or 99.999% of the people don’t want you to have one or more of your rights.”

          • afchief

            Note to self; do not converse with “mental disorders”!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Well I guess you won’t be talking to yourself any more.

          • William Quayd Escobedo

            Asked to cite the bible to support beliefs, does give one damn reference. Lets you know all you need to.

          • afchief

            A man who does not own a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            The equivalent of gun today. Self defense!!!!!

      • gizmo23

        Not a thing wrong with carrying a gun, although personally I think CCW is underhanded as I perfer to carry open.
        The chill comes to me that the crowd cheered before he clarified his statement. It sounded like he was saying shoot Muslims

        • afchief

          No, he was saying arm yourselves.

          “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government”.

          George Washington

  • Josey

    I don’t know what he is thinking but Mr. Falwell does not speak for me as a child of God and follower of Jesus Christ, this only throws fuel on the fire to speak rashly in this manner. Mr. Falwell as a professing minister of the gospel should have taken this opportunity to focus on teaching those students to put their trust in Christ and not to engage in rage antics, there are enough people angry these days, we don’t need more, perilous times call for sane people to lead.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      On this, I more or less agree with you.

    • acontraryview

      Agreed.

    • BarkingDawg

      “perilous times call for sane people to lead.”

      So I guess you won’t be voting GOP, then?

      • Josey

        I think insanity exists with both parties, not all are bad and not all are good either for instance I fully believe the present administration is delusional and I do not want to see this insanity to continue with hillary so there’s your answer.

    • afchief

      Josey, do you think it is wrong for Christians to protect themselves? There are Christians in the military who have died to make this country free and safe. Was that wrong? Jesus took a whip to the ones soiling the Temple and knocked over their stalls and tables. Is that somehow not violent and righteous anger in the defense of Religion?

      “No greater love exists than this, that one should lay down one’s life for his friends.” John 15:13

      And you would be laying down your life by running away? By NOT trying to stop the evil about to kill your friends? How would you stop the evil about to kill your friends without using violence yourself? I suppose you could create examples, but in too many cases the bad guy will need to bite the dust.

      The Church early on saw that pacifism would be a loser in the face of violent Germanic and Hunnic barbarians: the armies of the later Roman Empire undoubtedly contained many Christians. Christianity does not go out looking for a fight, but using violence in the defense of others or for self-defense is certainly allowed.

      • gizmo23

        You speak of the military in which many died setting up and protecting Muslim countries. You dishonor them by insulting the very people they died for

        • afchief

          What are you talking about???

          • gizmo23

            We spent lots of blood and money protecting Muslims and to have you discredit their honor by denying that same protection here is dispicable.
            It is spitting on American soldiers graves

          • afchief

            What Muslims are you talking about?

            All who take the Quran seriously are potential terrorists or terrorist supporters.

          • gizmo23

            So the ones we protected weren’t real Muslims I guess.
            You sir disgrace our military by saying or soldiers lives were lost in vain and wasted.
            I’d like you to say it to a family of a killed young person in battle

          • afchief

            Be specific! What Muslims are you talking about?

          • gizmo23

            Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Syria, and any under US law

          • afchief

            How am I dishonoring and insulting them?

          • afchief

            Waiting……………………………………

          • gizmo23

            Good day

          • gizmo23

            And Muslim soldiers in the US military. The muslims that have died fighting for the USA.
            Why do you seem to dislike the military so much?

          • afchief

            When I’m at Arlington National Cemetery why do I only see the Christian Cross and the Star of David on grave cites? I have YET to see a Muslim Crescent Moon there. How come?

            Our Muslim in Chief has said Islam has been a part of and contributed to America since our country began.

            Hmmm…..

      • William Quayd Escobedo

        Yeah, well those were believers he was admonishing…remember when they came to carry him off to his death and he scorned Peter for cutting of the ear of a roman soldier in self-defense? The fact that soldiers do it and claim to be Christian does not mean it is in line with the bible. It’s not. Time to stop lying to ourselves. All of the early Christians died williningly spreadin the bible. Jesus himself said not to fear those that can destroy flesh but can destroy both in hell. Paul said that the battle was not against flesh or blood, but spiritual principalities. Nothing in the new testament supports your narrative of justified violence and fears for your earthly life. If you choose to ignore this, fine. As someone who isn’t religious, I do, but you don’t get to play pretend with Christianity and do the opposite of what the venerated figurehead said and expect me to take you seriously. Yes, Churches who adapted the bible to usurp lands of foreigners used violence…but let’s talk about the bible. You know, that thing which is supposedly God’s word…and that verse says “lay down your life,” not “take the life of another.”

        • afchief

          So, if someone breaks into your house and threatens to cut off your wife’s and kid’s heads and you have the means to stop them, you will do nothing?

          If you see innocent people getting killed and going to hell and you have the means to stop them, you will do nothing?

          The very blanket of freedom you enjoy today was provided by Christians who went to war to die for you freedom and you would call them hypocrites?

          NO, it is YOU who are the hypocrite!!!!

          Nowhere do I see the Bible saying that we should not protect ourselves from evil.

          The Bible also tells us that Jesus said: A man who does not own a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Why? Let me help you, TO DEFEND HIMSELF!!!!!

          • William Quayd Escobedo

            Again, we aren’t talking about me. We are talking about the instructions given by your holy book. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”- Matthew 10:28

            “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”- Ephesians 6:12

            Col 3:1-4 (Wey) If, however, you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, enthroned at God’s right hand. Give your minds to the things that are above, not to the things that are on the earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ appears–He is our true Life–then you also will appear with Him in glory.

            Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?-Matthew 6:25

            1 Cor 7:32-35 (RSV) I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

            Again, this is all that need to be said. If you choose to ignore your own Holy book, it’s your choice to be a hypocrite. But yeah, you have an ambiguous quote about buying a sword (which, again, Jesus admonished Peter when he used on a Roman Soldier). But please feel free to disagree with the scriptures I provided.

            Why are you so intent on defending yourself when you and your whole family (certainly your children) would go to heaven. I mean, I care about defending my children, but I don’t believe that they will immediately be transported to a place of eternal bliss, so this makes sense given this is the only life we have because they will not get a second life. This makes no sense given your Christian worldview. Which is better, heaven or earth? In the light of scripture, heaven should be your concern. Again, choose to ignore if you want, but this disqualifies you as someone who takes the bible at its word.

          • afchief

            You have NO understanding of the Word of God and trying to explain scripture to an unbeliever is pointless.

            The Word of God deals with the heart. First you have to give you life to Jesus so He can give you understanding of His Word!!!!

            1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

          • William Quayd Escobedo

            Okay, well all of my argument came from bible verses, so if that upsets you, your problem is with your holy book, not me. You can claim I don’t understand the bible, but I quoted the bible and explained its relevance to the topic which you didn’t rebut. I think probably the problem is that you don’t understand your own holy book or logic.

          • afchief

            Buy the book!

            Rev. Schenck went on to say, “The best people to give moral advice on guns or any other issue are church leaders, and they’ve been conspicuously silent on the question of Christians arming up in fear. I appeal to pastors and other church leaders to speak out clearly, prayerfully, and biblically on the Christ-like approach to guns, fear, and even love of enemy. I appeal to Christians not to look to secular sources for their most important moral decisions. We must turn to God in prayer, search the Scriptures for wisdom, and look to Christ as our only model for dealing with evil. Pastors can help us find a better way in these trying times; it’s time for them to do so.”

            So, the next time a Christian family is being hacked to death by drug-crazed killers or a Christian woman is being brutally raped or a Christian man is being violently accosted, they are supposed to “turn to God in prayer” and “search the Scriptures for wisdom,” Mr. Schenck?

            I’m sorry, Rev. Schenck, when that violent gang begins attacking my family, they will be met with more than a prayer and a Bible: they will be met with the slug from a .45 pistol–and if I’m able to get to it, with 00 Buckshot from a 12 gauge shotgun.

            But, unfortunately, Rev. Schenck seems to speak for the majority of America’s pastors and churches. All over the country, pastors are teaching their people to be good little slaves and turn in their guns if government should require it–just like pastors did in Nazi Germany.

            And, by the way, I seem to recall that Jesus didn’t just “pray and search the Scriptures” when he confronted those moneychangers. He took a whip and beat the living tar out of them. He also bluntly instructed His disciples to buy a sword–even if they had to sell clothes in order to obtain the money to make the purchase. (Luke 22:36) In this passage, Jesus made the sword a higher priority than clothing. That certainly sounds to me like Jesus affirmed the principle that more guns (a Roman sword being the First Century equivalent) IS the answer.

            And, for that matter, I HAVE “searched the Scriptures for wisdom,” Mr. Schenck: that’s how my Christian attorney son and I came to write a book entitled “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.”

            In “To Keep or Not To Keep,” we prove from the Scriptures that self-defense is a God-given duty–a Natural right–and that nowhere does the Bible teach Christians to surrender their means of self-defense to any civil government. Furthermore, I suggest that any Christian who attends a church where the pastor urges his flock to surrender their guns IMMEDIATELY leave that church and find a church that has a Biblical pastor.

            Our book is written primarily for Christians. It is not so much a political treatise as it is a Scriptural treatise. Christians simply MUST be educated as to their God-given duty of self-defense. I beseech readers to buy a copy for themselves and for their Christian friends and pastors.

            Order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.”

            With all due respect to the Rev. Schencks of the world, should this president decide to try and confiscate the guns of the American people, tens of millions of us will respond as did our Christian forebears: MOLON LABE, Mr. Obama.

            P.S. Again, order our book “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.”

            © 2015 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

          • William Quayd Escobedo

            Well, we’ll just set aside the fact that churches exchange money for goods all the time now. They usually sell books the pastor has written which would be the actions being admonished in the verse you described. They also hold events that involve gambling or exchanging market goods. Additionally, there is a LARGE chasm of a difference between what Jesus did in that verse and self-defense. What Jesus did was assault by definition, and I am CERTAIN no civilized Christian would have the balls to go to a church where they sell things and gamble and whip everyone there until they all leave. We are talking about your actions when someone assaults YOU. Again, you can seek your answers outside of scripture, which apart from the irrelevant and ambiguous scriptures you shared, was mostly the case. You criticized the words of man. I happen to agree with you that an individual DOES have a right to protect themselves and their family from physical harm. But my point is that this is not support by the bible. Instead of criticizing what other pastors said (men), criticize the verses I shared from the bible, the supposed premise of all truth…

          • afchief

            I do not discuss bible verses with non-christian. You have NO idea what the word of God is saying.

          • William Quayd Escobedo

            Curious that your inability to justify your beliefs with the bible coincide with your refusal to discuss it further.

      • Josey

        Absolutely No, I don’t think it’s wrong for anyone to defend themselves and my response to Mr.Falwell isn’t so much about the 2nd amendment than it is about using this opportunity to preach trust in Christ more than trust in your own self, it’s about faith. I support the 2nd amendment and the first amendment which he has a right to his opinion the same as I do. But he has been given a responsibility over these students in a way that we have not been given and I don’t see where making statements such as we can get those muslims is appropriate.
        And no I am not in agreement with Islam, I hate that religion because it I believe it to be false and leading people down the wrong road and away from Christ who is our only way to salvation. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

        I grew up where guns are shot at an early age, I think that is great to teach the young ones how to properly shoot but a lot of kids especially in liberal states are not taught and perhaps this school having a program to teach them how to shoot is a good thing, everyone should learn how to shoot and remain calm in certain situations that are chaotic which further makes me wonder about this school’s gun training class if the leader of the school is riling students up with such statements, not to mention they also should be taught what taking another life will mean to them something I have considered myself as to what I would or wouldn’t do as a child of God.

        And as far as Jesus saying “no greater love exists than this, that one should lay down one’s life for his friends.” Jesus absolutely did that on the cross and he didn’t allow Peter who reacted impulsively by cutting the ear off that man to defend Him for such was the reason of His coming to the Earth.
        Peter temporarily lost all sight of everything Christ had been telling them as to why He came to do the will of God in laying down His life and every apostle also laid down their lives as well for the furtherance of the gospel except for John in which they tried to boil him but God saved him for His purposes.
        I just believe we as a Nation should get back to repentance and faith in God and Mr. Falwell as a minister has a responsibility to Christ first and so do I and I don’t want to just react anymore but want to seek God for wisdom and then act according to His will for me.
        The statements I read in this article that Mr. Falwell made to those kids seemed to me to have stirred them up towards being armed instead of stirred up toward Christ which should be our first priority as Christ’s disciples or else my life with God doesn’t mean a hill of beans in the light of eternity. We are to seek peace with all men when possible but I would absolutely defend others with whatever means I could as I felt led by God not led by my fears but do you really believe that these statements help keep you armed or that Mr. Falwell in making such rash and angry statements helps?
        It makes it worse by provoking fear in the students and a fearful person topped with anger is dangerous, imo.
        Anyway, I have some thinking and praying to do on this topic, it certainly has me rethinking some things and seeking the Lord about what He wants me to do and how I should be reacting to the chaos going on in the world today in light of how I am suppose to act in accordance with God’s will for my life. These are perilous times for sure and we are being tested as in no other time, I want my faith in Christ to endure forever above all else! sorry so long, thks and God bless.

  • Nidalap

    Right or wrong, making it known that a group of people are walking around armed WILL make it less likely that they’ll be targeted by most would-be mass shooters. They tend to target victim-rich areas where they can kill the most people before being stopped themselves, i.e. gun-free zones…

    • Becky

      Very true.

    • BarkingDawg

      It will make it that much more likely that someone is going to shoot someone else.

      • afchief

        Only if that person is a liberal or Muslim! The criminals in our prisons are 99% liberal.

        • gizmo23

          Rediculous

          • afchief

            Truth!

          • acontraryview

            Basis?

          • afchief

            Confessions of a Public Defender

            Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

            Still liberal after all these years.

            [Editor’s Note: This is just one of thirteen essays in our newly-released collection of first-hand reports about the reality of race, Face to Face with Race.]

            I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 percent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

            I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

          • acontraryview

            That does not provide factual backup for your claim of “The criminals in our prisons are 99% liberal.”

            Try again.

          • gizmo23

            He won’t. His history is one of violence and bigotry

          • afchief

            The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • gizmo23

            So you admit that my description of you is correct. Why do you feel the need to be a bigot and violent

          • afchief

            A bigot to whom? Violent to whom?

          • afchief

            Do you really think that there are more conservatives in prison than liberals? Do I really have to add them up for you? Tell me you can think logically?

          • SashaC

            Translation: I have no factual backup.

          • afchief

            Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats

            By PAUL BEDARD (@SECRETSBEDARD) • 1/1/14 12:00 AM

            ShareTweetRedditDiggMailPrintMore

            A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release.

            “Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

            The authors, professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one. In New York, for example, 61.5 percent of convicts are Democrats, just 9 percent Republican. They also cited a study that found 73 percent of convicts who turn out for presidential elections would vote Democrat.

          • SashaC

            That still doesn’t back up your claim that 99% of prisoners are liberal. In fact, it refutes it. Thanks for that, I suppose.

            Perhaps you shouldn’t be questioning the logic of others. Apparently you aren’t qualified to do so.

          • afchief

            Ok, around 98%

          • acontraryview

            You made the 99% claim. If you can’t back it up, then you can’t.

          • afchief

            The liberal media HIDES the exact numbers. It is quite obvious who is in our prisons!!!

            Only a brain dead liberal cannot see it!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Again, if you can’t provide a basis for your claim, then you can’t. No surprise given your penchant for making claims that have no basis in fact.

          • afchief

            Let me prove my point!!! Do you believe the unemployment rate is 5%?

            Let’s see if you have any rational and logical reasoning!!!!

          • acontraryview

            How is the unemployment rate related to your claim?

          • afchief

            My claim that the liberal media LIES!!!! They “fudge” numbers!!!!!

    • afchief

      Yep! What you said!

    • gizmo23

      So far very few seem to have cared if they survived after committing their act

      • Nidalap

        Which is why the “They tend to target victim-rich areas where they can kill the most people before being stopped themselves”. (^_^)

  • Budlorance

    Could’ve said it better but he said it the way he said it. He gets to do that. Just like everyone else can say it the way they want to say it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with expressing that you think it’s a good idea to be prepared to defend yourself or those around you if evil presents itself.

  • BarkingDawg

    This is a great idea because 20 year olds have the wisdom and experience to make quick and correct decisions in stressful and chaotic situations.

    /snark

    • Nidalap

      Which is why they populate the military…

      /anti-snark (^_^)

      • BarkingDawg

        Really? The military is all 20 year olds?

        How many 20 year old generals are there?

        • Nidalap

          Why, all of them of course! Haven’t you ever heard of the clone wars? 🙂

      • gizmo23

        I don’t think in most states a 20 year old can get a CCW or even own a handgun

      • gizmo23

        The military is highly controlled, intense training and no concealed carry is allowed. Maybe that is the way it should be on the outside?

        • Nidalap

          Ah! The old 1930’s Germany answer! Would-be dictators everywhere are big fans! 🙂

          • gizmo23

            How so?

          • Nidalap

            Well, you seem to want the general populace disarmed, intensely trained(?), and highly controlled, so…

          • gizmo23

            No I don’t but there is no similarly between private gun ownership and military ownership of firearms. Soldiers do not have access to weapons at all times, civilians do

          • Nidalap

            ::Shrugs:: That’s by law. Don’t like it? Change it by the approved process. Can’t pull that off? Well, there’s always your choice of Communist utopias where you can live among the happy, disarmed workers…

          • gizmo23

            Good day sir

          • Nidalap

            You too! Don’t take any wooden nickels! 🙂

          • afchief

            Truth always baffles liberals!

          • afchief

            You are exactly right!! Think about the 2nd amendment for a second. Why would a government have to put in writing that it’s army can have guns? Does anyone realize how stupid this thought process is????This is the classic Liberal lie, when talking about our Right To Bear Arms, is that they will say, “don’t worry, no one is trying to take away your right to go hunting”. They choose that language very carefully and intentionally because they are trying to reduce the Second Amendment to say it applies to hunting and target practice. It doesn’t. The Second Amendment exists because our Founding Fathers knew very clearly that the day might come when Americans would need to defend themselves from internal enemies like a government that was turning into a dictatorship. As Adolf Hitler rose to power in Nazi Germany, he took away guns from the common people. So did Stalin and every other dictator that rose to control their nation. Unarmed people cannot defend and protect themselves. Thomas Jefferson said this about what to do if America ever moved away from the Constitution:

            “THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, LAYING ITS FOUNDATION ON SUCH PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.” – THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, JULY 4, 1776

    • afchief

      Really? If someone is shooting at you, you do not think a 20 year old has enough wisdom or experience to shoot back?

      You must have been raised in a liberal home!!! LOL!

      • gizmo23

        Do they have the wisdom to buy alcohol also? Why not give every 20 year old a gun and end all crime, especially in inner cities?

        • afchief

          The legal age for alcohol is 21. My 15 year old son knows how to shoot and handle a gun. You liberals must live in la la land. Did you grow up playing computer games and watching TV and not know what an honest days work is. Typical liberals……a bunch of pansies!!!

          Our kids grew up hunting, fishing, and leaning what hard work is. They KNOW how to handle guns. They not how to make good decisions.

          I know liberals can’t make good decisions because it is a mental disorder!!!

          • gizmo23

            My kids learned to shoot very young also. Why do you feel the need to insult everyone? The legal age for gun ownership is 21.
            You believe in law but only when it suits you I guess

          • afchief

            Why do you frequent Christians web sites with you godless ways?

            And you are wrong on gun age.

            Minimum Age for Gun Possession: Federal law prohibits, with certain exceptions*, the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18.11 Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.

          • gizmo23

            Not in my state

          • afchief

            Federal law in this area distinguishes between long guns (rifles and shotguns) and handguns, and between gun possession and gun sales. Federal law also distinguishes between licensed and unlicensed gun sellers.

            Minimum Age for Gun Sales and Transfers:

            Under federal law – Handguns Long Guns (Rifles and Shotguns)

            Licensed firearms dealers Dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.8 Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18.9

            Unlicensed persons Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions*.10 Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age.

  • Michael C

    Offering a challenge to terrorists is probably not the wisest idea when thousands of parents have entrusted you with the care and safety of their children.

  • acontraryview

    Irresponsible.

  • 201821208_456512019 :)

    www dot thereligionofpeace dot com/quran/023-violence dot htm

  • William Quayd Escobedo

    Because clearly the answer, according the bible is guns…

    • Nidalap

      ::Psst! This is the part where you educate us all on what your much better answer is!:: (^_^)

      • William Quayd Escobedo

        My better answer to what?

  • afchief

    Please read…

    I, a legal law abiding citizen of The United States of America, am calling for the arrest and trial of Barack Hussein Obama for high treason, under Article 3 of the United States Constitution for aiding and giving comfort to our enemies… OBAMA FORGOT ABOUT THIS LAW……Islam, by law, is prohibited from US immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today. Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States, but this law is being ignored by the White House.Islamic immigration to the US would be prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who attest that the Koran is their life’s guiding principal subscribe to submission to Islam and its form of government. Now the political correct crowd would say that Islamists cannot be prohibited from entering the US because Islam is a religion. Whether it is a religion is immaterial because the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with any “organization” that advocates the overthrow of our government are prohibited The White House (Official), United States Congress. Call this#202-224-2341>8:30 am est.M-F be nice, tell them why you think Obama should be arrested”.. and Impeached for Treason.

    If you agree, please copy and repost!!!

  • Cady555

    Police officers with hundreds of hours of training make poor snap decisions and kill innocent, unarmed people. The average civilian with nothing more than a permit will not be able to react wisely. Innocent people are going to die. Who is pro life for them?

  • Bob267

    Falwell Jr. is a no good filthy REPUBLICAN conservative right-wing maggot just like his father!! May you drown in your own throw up you no good BIGOT FALWELL!!!!

  • Bob267

    a. Falwell Jr. is a no good filthy REPUBLICAN conservative right-wing maggot just like his father!! May you drown in your own throw up you no good BIGOT FALWELL!!!!

  • peanut butter

    If Lolo Lynch doesn’t lock HIM up, then we are ALL safe. Her statements can’t stop free speech, even if he didn’t clarify it with ‘extremists’.