Posted in self-defense

Those “things” that go BANG! when you pull the Trigger and the Progressives that Hate them: A Question of Self-Defense

“[The Lord God] trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend even the strongest bow. You give me your protective shield; your willingness to help enables me to prevail. You widen my path; my feet do not slip. I chase my enemies and destroy them; I do not turn back until I wipe them out. I wipe them out and beat them to death; they cannot get up; they fall at my feet. You give me strength for battle; you make my foes kneel before me. You make my enemies retreat; I destroy those who hate me. They cry out, but there is no one to help them. I grind them as fine as the dust of the ground; I crush them like clay in the streets” (2Samuel 22:35-43; NET).

You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun, when you’re the one creating danger, when you’re the one provoking other people.” –Thomas Binger, Assistant DA of Kenosha County Wisconsin.1

INTRODUCTION:

Originally, I posted an article entitled “Guns and the Progressives that Hate them.” The subtitle had the phrase: “A question of self-defense.” At the time I realized that it was far too long for a blog post, but I made an error in judgment and published it anyway. I have since deleted that post, having decided to disseminate that content into smaller articles to be consumed at your leisure. This will be the first where I attempt to deal with the argument presented by Thomas Binger (cited above). When I first heard his comments, I laughed. However, I was surprised to learn that many people share his convictions. Many young people. Many are disciples (by-products) of the public school system. Many who have gone off to a four-year liberal arts college or university and are still suffering from sophomore syndrome.2

The question of self-defense, in particular, “armed” self-defense, is one of contention in Christian and non-Christian circles. There is intramural debate within the Christian community as to whether someone who claims to be a child of God, a servant of Jesus Christ, ought to involve themselves in areas that promote violence. This is not new. Historically it has been a debate among those who bear the name of Christ. In a forthcoming article, I will highlight one such example, but for the moment we are going to weigh Binger’s opinion (and those who share his views) in light of a biblical worldview.

Binger’s Statement under Review; a Sampling from Two Founding Father’s

“You lose you’re right to self-defense when you are the one who brought the gun, when you’re the one creating danger, when you’re the one provoking other people.”—Thomas Binger

Let me wrap my head around this statement: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun?” Interesting. I’m not sure on what grounds such a claim is made? But it is an interesting one. Scratch that. It is more than interesting, I would argue that the comment is very telling. Binger, like so many progressives in our nation, hates guns. Scratch that. That isn’t accurate. They don’t hate guns. Many progressives have security measures in place with real guns being used by those guarding their lives. I wouldn’t be surprised if Binger ain’t3 the same sort of fellow. So, the hate isn’t towards the guns but rather, you or I or any Joe Schmoe off the street having one. And while having one is bad enough, it’s not just possessing one that drives them crazy but the willingness on our part to use them if the circumstances call for it.

No such circumstance ever exists in the mind of those that hate armed Americans. Again, not every “armed American,” but only those unsanctioned by the progressive elite. You see, progressives value the protection of firearms4, but they detest the average citizen in our Democratic-Republic5 bearing them. Oh how far we have drifted from our proverbial roots. For it was the intention of those that helped form this nation that the common folk would not be unarmed but armed; they would not be prevented from protecting their public liberty but would be expected to do so at all costs.

As James Madison stated before the congressional house on June 8, 1789,

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country….”6

Also witnessed by the pen of Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824,

“The constitution of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent… that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.”7

Properly defined and understood…

What does it mean to be armed? It means to carry a weapon or something that may be used as a weapon providing the user security in a time of need. What can be used as a weapon? Pretty much anything if the user knows how to wield it effectively. Does being armed mean that you are provoking other people or creating danger? Is being armed a gateway towards the road of violence? To the progressive mind, it is…supposedly, anyway.

In fact, to the mind of a progressive, there is no such thing as an individual right to bear arms. Let alone, guns. The very idea that individuals like you and me would not only own such a weapon but attempt to use it effectively is beyond preposterous. Contrary to such sentiments, though, the true meaning of the second amendment of the Bill of Rights integrated into the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees individuals the affirmation and protection of bearing arms; including, arms such as guns.

Speaking on the legal commentaries of the period at our nation’s founding, David Barton writes,

“As will be demonstrated, the Second Amendment was to protect what was frequently called ‘the first law of nature’—the right of self-protection…an inalienable right—a right guaranteed to every citizen individually.”8

People may contest the rights that we have recognized9 in our nation’s Constitution. Even those who now serve as elected officials, lawyers, judges, police officers, and professing legal experts as the collegiate level may question whether such rights may or may not be amended or removed, but the fact remains that such rights are by divine providence alone. Meaning no other governing body has the right to infringe upon them. Furthermore, such attempts may be resisted and ignored by the surrounding populace, and if the governing body over us continues, they may be replaced!10

A Brief look at 2Samuel 22:35-43

This is a song composed by David, the second king of Israel. Many of the lines of this song will be noted in various other Psalms (e.g., Psa 18 & 144). As may be guessed I have a reason for citing this particular song (see above). The content and the language will be viewed by many in our culture as inflammatory, offensive and downright mean. No doubt there will be some among the jelly-fish crowd (Evangelly’s to be specific) that will express varying responses ranging from embarrassment to denial. Such individuals will attempt to pacify the masses by saying “that’s in the Old Testament,” or “that is not reflective of the love of God and His grace demonstrated in the New Testament,” or, they’ll use the favored, “the language is poetic…it’s figurative and not to be taken literally.” Hogwash!

David’s words are penned for us in the OT, that is true, but they are as relevant now as they were back then. They do demonstrate God’s love and grace. Grace is seen in the life of David as a redeemed man, a man of God. Love is seen in the life of David and his actions for He is not only a product of God’s love (in being His child) but also because David shows a true hatred for evil.

David claimed that God prepared him for battle. He pointed to God’s providential action as the reason for his victory over his enemies. He understood that you cannot negotiate with evil, nor is it possible to have peace with those who want to harm you. The only recourse left is to fight back. This song is not sung by an aggressor, but by a defender. True David was armed, but he would not have used his weapons of warfare, he would not have pursued his enemies and vanquished them, had they left him alone. In the words of Rambo, “they drew first-blood.” Nor was this vengeance. David sought peace, even with his enemies, as his two encounters with Saul, his father-in-law and the first, king of Israel demonstrate (cf. 1Sam 24.1-12; 26.9-20).

This song proves a few things. God does not hate all violence and neither should Christians. God does not detest bearing arms nor training for battle, and neither should Christians. God moved David to write this song for it honors the Lord of glory, and Christians need to learn to do the same. Hating evil, and when pressed, vanquishing it is a holy endeavor. I could offer further qualifications, but if you’ve failed to understand my words to this point, further qualification would be an utter waste of my time, and yours.

A couple of things to be noted in closing…

The entirety of this post is in the question of self-defense. Thomas Binger says of Kyle Rittenhouse that taking a gun into a situation voids the argument of self-defense. Apparently to progressives like Binger bringing a gun incites violence. I believe that bringing a gun into a situation does the opposite unless you’re plain nuts. I see a person wielding a gun and my thoughts go to extreme caution, not violence. In that type of scenario, I want to avoid violence at all costs. The gun acts as a deterrent. Progressives don’t like that argument, they vehemently deny it, but having watched the videos of Kenosha on August 25, 2020, I saw the opposite of what Binger argued for in his attempted prosecution of Rittenhouse.

When the crowd witnessed Kyle with a gun the majority stayed back. The only ones attacking him seemed to think this kid was an easy victim. They were aggressive when they thought Rittenhouse was vulnerable. When he attempted to flee they attacked. When he turned his back or his gun was in a seemingly harmless position like when he was on the ground after being struck by a skateboard in the head, others saw an opportunity to attack weak prey. It was only after his gun was raised, and when he fired shots with intent that the overconfident crowd backed off.

Mob mentality is like that. They get into a frenzy when they see easy targets, but run for the hills when the threat to their safety becomes real. Their safety would never have been in question had they left the boy alone. Had they not been there rioting there would not have been a need for armed citizens to protect what hired officers and elected officials refused to do.

The intent behind the second amendment to our Federal Constitution is just that. An armed citizenry is meant to be a deterrent to evil. Whether that evil is from vicious, wicked neighbors or tyrannical despots. Armed citizens are not authorized by the 2nd Amendment to use deadly force as aggressors, but only as defenders.

This is a biblical teaching. The Christian faith upholds and protects the right to bear arms against evil. Primarily the use of force is to be exercised by those in the executive branch at all three levels (local, state and federal). God had established the civil magistrate as the judges who wield the sword, not in vain (Rom 13.4). They have been established as authorities over citizens in whom they have been called to serve, to execute God’s vengeance against evil, and at the same time promote the good among the people. Self-defense falls under the category of self-government. A true category of authority but severely limited in its function and territory. It is limited to self and personal property. It is limited to the preservation of life in extreme circumstances. It is not to be used for vigilante justice or in the way that anarchists like ANTIFA or BLM have exercised it in the public sector in recent years.

What I mean is this. If an attacker assails me as I’m walking down the street, then I’m authorized to use force to stop the attacker. If it requires me to use deadly force because no other alternative presents itself, then so be it…but that is in extreme circumstances, NOT the norm. The same goes for my wife and children. You break into my home at night you better have your life in order (odds are you don’t or why else break into my home?) because if God gives you into my hands at that moment I will use such force necessary to send you to Him. The same may be said with my property, although there is a limitation on how much force is allowed in that type of situation. As one former deputy sheriff told me, “If someone is attempting to steal your property, say like your car, you have the right to drag that individual out of it and beat them into submission so that the authorities can arrest them when they arrive.” If I can avoid getting physical I will, but if no other recourse is left to me, then I will do what my God-given rights allow…and nothing more.

When a person complains that my weapon of deterrence is bigger than my attacker, all they prove in that moment is that they prefer weak victims over strong defenders. All comments made by progressive individuals like Binger prove is that they prefer United States citizens to be weak victims. That way, we are easier to control and enslave.

ENDNOTES:

1Quoted in R. Cort Kirkwood, “Prosecutor: If You Have a Gun and Your Attacker Doesn’t, You ‘Lose the Right of Self-Defense,'” The New American, November 16, 2021, accessed 12/16/2021, https://thenewamerican.com/prosecutor-if-you-have-a-gun-and-your-attacker-doesnt-you-lose-the-right-of-self-defense/.

2In our four-year tier system of education “sophomore” is a second year student. Historically, however, the word refers to someone who is “conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature.” Greek: sophos (wisdom); moros (moron).

3Yeah, I used “ain’t” (are-not), but I did so on purpose. Sometimes you just need to be transparent with people and rip off the covering that shrouds who you are. I’m an average American that loves my country, the freedom that God has granted me (along with the breath in my lungs), and hates fakey, breaky hearts. And sometimes, I like using that one word that my English teachers hated when I was a kid. It’s fun. It rolls off the tongue easily enough. And now I’m finished with my lame explanation. Thanks for reading (lol).

4Not only do these people not want you to have guns, but they don’t want you to have the same access to police that they do. The “Defund the Police” movement is one such example. It is not as if progressives want “no police,” rather they want police that supports them; police that do their bidding. Just like Brad Lander of NYC who wants to defund the New York City Police Department. He has his own private police (New York cops that he accepts), but he doesn’t want other New Yorkers to have the same privilege. Why? Well…because it’s racist. See: Matt McNulty, “Incoming NYC comptroller Brad Lander requests a NYPD security detail—despite calling for force to have $1B slashed from its budget,” Daily Mail, Updated 29, December 2021, accessed 12/30/2021, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10351439/NYC-comptroller-NYPD-security-despite-vocal-defund-police-advocate.html.

5Sorry folks the United States of America is not a “democracy,” but a representative republic via democratic procession.

6“A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875,” Of Debates in Congress: Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789, page 451, from The Library of Congress, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227. (accessed 12/16/2021).

7“Image 2 of Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824,” from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.054_0553_0558/?sp=2. (accessed 12/16/2021). Emphasis mine.

8David Barton, The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Protection (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2000), Kindle Edition, loc 50.

9Notice I used the term “recognized” not granted. Our rights are granted by God alone; no other.

10Such a clause is noted in the state of Ohio’s Constitution. See Article 1.2 under the Heading Bill of Rights. It states, “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they deem it necessary….”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.