Gun Control and the Right to Bear Arms — Good Faith Debates

The issue of gun control and 2nd Amendment rights is one of the most intractable, polarizing topics in contemporary America. Because it is such a partisan issue, many Christians naturally view the topic through that lens. But is there a Christian lens through which to evaluate the debate? If Christian ethics are brought to bear on the issue, what is the more biblical position? More restrictive gun control or more individual freedom to bear arms?

0:00 Introduction
00:25 Bob Thune Opening Argument
11:00 Andrew Wilson Opening Argument
21:27 Turning The Other Cheek
25:38 The Right To Bear Arms
30:39 Gun Restrictions
36:34 Gun Violence Statistics
43:39 Self-Defense
46:34 Weapons and The Early Christianity
49:45 Conclusion

These and other related questions are addressed in this debate between Bob Thune and Andrew Wilson. Thune and Wilson share their respective arguments and engage in a discussion moderated by Jim Davis, teaching pastor at Orlando Grace Church.

This debate is part of TGC’s “Good Faith Debates” series. When we keep the gospel central, we can disagree on lesser but still important matters in good faith. In The Good Faith Debates, we hope to model this—showing that it’s possible for two Christians united around the gospel to engage in charitable conversation even amid substantive disagreement.

#christianity #bible #gospel #guncontrol #weapons #ar15

[oldmovieman]

The right to bear arms is a direct extension of the right to life. You cannot claim to have a right to your life if you do not have the ability to defend it.

[loganbrantley]

The second amendment is not about self defense its the 4th check and balance of the government system.

[zacharycutts]

Andrew Wilson makes some terrible arguments in this "debate". Saying that Peter trying to stop Jesus from being crucified is equivalent to saving people from a gunman is foolish.

[leonscott]

The saddest thing about American Christians is that we are having a discussion about what type of guns Christians can have rather than what strategy we will use to minister to those who are actively trying to take our lives. Jesus CLEARLY did not start an armed crusade during his ministry. American Christians are terrified of earthly death yet are the least persecuted Christians in human history. That's concerning. In fact you'll find that the most persecuted Christians usually have the most peaceful and self sacrificial theological responses to violence. And the safest and wealthiest Christians tend to have the most hawkish theology when it comes to violence. 😂 Why?

Well I think it's obvious. When you are sheltered from TRUE war and violence, we tend to romantisize the idea of violent heroize in a naive way. When you actually live in a war zone, you see violence for what it is.... Which is a senseless aimless cycle of human depravity and trauma and gut spilling horror.... Christians that live in perpetual violence tend to rightly hold a non-violence theology. Christians that live comfortable peaceful lives, like suburban American Christians, tend to warp the broader cultural violent heroism trends of our time into scripture to justify being armed and being ready for a war or fight that never really comes. I garentee you that if you are a born again temple of Christ, the moment you experience humans blowing each others brains out of their skulls, you will instantly drop whatever just war theory you previously held.

[blef]

The statement (paraphrasing) "the reduction of guns would reduce the taking of innocent lives", is not accurate as many of those shot were shot in self-defense, meaning they were not innocent. Taking guns from people who use them to defend others or themselves is tragic. People who have guns and use them to commit crimes will not care if there are any bans or restrictions, they will find a way to get one and will have no resistance if we take away guns from those who would use them to defend against them.

[johnbeale]

Using Australia as an example for gun control is foolish. Do we want our government to do what the Australian government did over the last year.? The US government must instead deal biblically with murderers, rapists, etc. by implementing stronger death penalty usage.

[GreaterThanALL]

Long guns of any description are vastly outpaced in terms of homicide by simply no weapons hands/fists/feet. What they are used for are overwhelmingly shooting animal flesh, paper and steel.

[prairiebaptistnoblesville]

Neither man fully understands the details of the gun debate in America. Bob Thune has a better grasp of the theological, but he still hasn't done his homework fully of the details of American gun culture. The terms Andrew Wilson uses (conflating assault rifles, machine guns, and AR15s) are muddled, at best. Bob doesn't notice this and, therefore, cannot make a really well-reasoned rebuttal. The vast majority of gun violence in America has to do more with drugs and the moral breakdown of Judeo-Christian foundations of this culture rather than the existence of semi-auto weapons. Neither man seems to grasp this truth, and the debate was disappointing as a result.

[GreaterThanALL]

I wonder if the anti gun presenter knows what homicides are? Homicides are also legal uses of firearms as a justified shooting and as a result the attacker dies.

[jvlp]

The TRUTH of the matter of the 2nd Amendment of 1791 A.D. was that it has a 2-part CLAUSES, namely the PREFATORY CLAUSE, separated by a comma (, ), then followed by the OPERATIVE CLAUSE... the Operative Clause can not stand alone without answering a reasonable reason/purpose that correlates with the Prefatory Clause...

Let us analyze the 2nd Amendment Clauses...
Prefatory Clause:... "A well-regulated MILITIA (Civilian Military) being necessary to the SECURITY of a Free State" (, )
Operative Clause:... "The right of the people to carry and bear arms (weaponry) shall not be infringed (removed/banned)."

Analysis:... The operative clause can not stand alone clearly without answering reasonably which correlates with the Prefatory Clause on why the people need the right to carry and bear Arms?... There must be a reason/s that only the Prefatory Clause could clearly answer and justify...

Now, if the purpose/reason is all about "SELF-DEFENSE"... protection for themselves and their families...

Then, the Prefatory Clause should correlate and say like this... "A well-regulated SELF-DEFENSE ARMS, being necessary for the LIFE'S PRESERVATION of a Free State" (, ) ... then, the Operative Clause is clearly justified.

But unfortunately, that was not what the Prefatory Clause was written by the FOREFATHERS of this Nation... Facts and Truth, Historically and Rhetorically Speaking...

[JEANEREANO]

Such a relief, an actual debate ! Except ... it is pretty mute over all, because an AR is not a military rifle. It is the brand name of said rifle like a Winchester. Also, the people were the militia early in our history and the debate is whether or not we still
should be. Our Founders knew Governments get all cocky and heady.

[mrich]

The debate is not about guns, it is about who controls them. “170, 000, 000 people have been murdered by governments from 1914 to 1990.” - RJ Rummel in Death by Government
Choose wisely.

[cbrooks]

I always thought the right the keep and bear "arms" meant small arms -- that is, rifles and handguns. Then I learned that at the time civilians could own cannons and warships. Now I'm not so sure.

[peterkozushko]

Great debate, but Bob Thune dropped the ball on the Exodus quote (22:2). It's not permitting killing for self-defense in any situation but only if done in the night. In verse 3 its says the defender is guilty of bloodshed if they kill the intruder after sunrise.

[Asedge]

It is an interesting move leaving the comment section open on these videos. Because any conversation that happens here is going to be far from a "good faith debate."

[loganhurley]

This was interesting to watch as a former college debater (with some solid success) and a former college debate coach. This was really really well done and I hope and am praying that this will be a helpful model.

I think I would have liked a brief introduction of the speakers, the opening speech coming right after the music was a bit confusing. I could also want another set of speeches for rebuttal, to let the speakers really respond directly to the arguments being made. For example, I would have liked to hear the second speaker say, "He said that we have an obligation to defend the lives of our neighors, so if the statistics show that favoring restraints saves lives, by his logic we should favor gun control." And other applications and clash like that.

Of course, maybe that would have made the videos too long or edged out some of the really really excellent discussion that went on. And the discussion was so good that I would hate to have lost any of it.

[cbrooks]

Any argument that starts with gun deaths in the US vs UK/Australia or "look at what we accomplished with gun control elsewhere" MUST address the difference in gun deaths between the US and UK/Australia BEFORE they instituted gun control. Why was there such a stark difference and how would you address that violence?

[GreaterThanALL]

Why does the anti gun guy mention machine guns with AR-15s. It seems he is clueless that AR-15s are semi automatic only and are entirely ignorant of American gun law in this regard.

[schmeltzer]

I appreciated the discussion, but I am convinced Wilson and the pacifist interpretation in general rests on a faulty covenant theology. He applies the standard of personal conduct for the church to scenarios it does not address, and ignores the passages that do. The Noahic Covenant still applies, the government must still wield the sword, and the right to self defense is still in effect.

[Jimyjonescones]

One of the biggest disservices so many gun control activist do is give statistics without context. So many of those stats are MUCH more complex then what’s put on. Like accidental discharges, suicides, self defense, etc .
Another point I remember is a quote that’s kinda says, IF you knew a person was coming to kill (on purpose) would you rather have a better weapon or worse one then that attacker???