Survey: Most Evangelical Leaders Want More Gun Control

Like Us

More than 70 percent of respondents to an NAE poll said more gun regulations are needed.

In the wake of last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, supporters of tighter gun restrictions have already introduced bills in the new Congress, and according to the December Evangelical Leaders Survey, most evangelical leaders agree that more regulations are needed. When asked whether the government should increase gun regulations, 73 percent said it should.

“Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives,” said Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). “The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children.”

Favoring stricter gun laws is Bill Lenz, Senior Pastor of Christ the Rock Community Church. “Most of my experience with guns has been as a hunter in the great Wisconsin outdoors. I do not believe that guns are the heart of the problem, but there should be strong regulations on who can bear arms,” he said. “The easy access to guns has undoubtedly contributed to horrible tragedies. There are multiple ways to address our current problem, and greater gun regulations are one of them.”

In addition to who should be able to buy weapons, leaders like William Hamel, President of the Evangelical Free Church of America, also argued for restrictions on the type of weapons that can be purchased and on gun sales. He said, “I see no argument for military type assault weapons and clips that hold over 10 shells. I also believe we have to close the gun show loophole and improve our procedures for gun purchase approvals. None of these violates the Second Amendment.”

Public support for stricter gun laws has risen since the Newtown, Conn., shooting, according to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed said they backed tougher restrictions, which is an increase from 43 percent in October 2011.

Phil Whipple, Bishop of the United Brethren in Christ, warned that gun restrictions aren’t enough. “I would not oppose a ban on assault weapons. However I don’t see this as an action that would eradicate the kinds of violent acts that occurred in Newtown.”

The 27 percent of evangelical leaders who do not support increased gun regulations see other methods as better solutions to mass shootings, including enforcement of current gun laws, mental health system reform, regulation of video games and movies that desensitize people to violence, and spiritual renewal.

One leader said, “We have a spiritual need in our country that will not be solved by emotionally initiated gun laws.”

The Evangelical Leaders Survey is a monthly poll of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Evangelicals. They include the CEOs of denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations including missions, universities, publishers and churches.

Please Note: We reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, uncivil and off-topic. Read a detailed description of our Comments Policy.
  • Mike Sullivan

    This does not surprise me at all. Look at the current state of the church. If they cant uphold the gospel, why would we expect them to uphold the constitution? They have become followers of everything but the truth. Lemmings!

    Lemming a Noun:

    Any of various small, thickset rodents, especially of the genusLemmus, inhabiting northern regions and known for periodic mass migrations that sometimes end in drowning.

    • Fernando Villegas

      I’m with you on upholding the gospel, but the Christian Church has no obligation to uphold the U. S. Constitution. And there is no Biblical right to bear arms.

      • Stan

        It is the law of the land, and the Bible says we are subject to the government and the laws of the land! Check Paul’s teachings on the subject

        • Fernando Villegas

          I have checked Paul’s teachings on the subject. Please don’t be condescending, it does not lead to constructive conversation.

          There is a difference between being subject to the government and to its laws on the one hand, and enforcing laws on the other hand. As Christians, we are obligated to be subject to the laws of the land where they do not conflict with expressed word of God. And as private citizens, surely we have the privilege and opportunity to support and uphold laws that reflect morality.

          But, the Church has no obligation to uphold or enforce any secular law. Especially considering the fact that, as I said, there is no Biblical right to bear arms.

          • Stan

            What Biblical reference for your personal addon do you have? Answer none!

          • Fernando Villegas

            I don’t know what a “personal addon” is? Could you define, please?

            As far as Biblical references, my point has been simply (a) that there is no Scriptural obligation for the church to uphold or enforce secular laws (be subject to, yes; upholding or enforcing, no), and (b) that there is no Biblical right to bear arms. If you believe otherwise, the burden of proof falls on you.

            So, the question for you then is this:

            1. What Biblical reference(s) supports the idea that the Christian church has an obligation to enforce and uphold secular laws of a secular nation?

            2. What Biblical reference(s) supports the ideas that humans have an inherent right to bear arms?

            If there are such references, I’m more than happy to hear them.

          • quest

            You don’t know your bible, God furnished his people with weapons, “assault weapons” throughout the old testament.

          • Fernando Villegas

            With all due respect, I have been reading and studying the Bible my entire life. I know it quite well, thank you very much.

            God also commanded the Israelites to commit genocide. Now, God is sovereign, and I do not pretend to question his command. Nor do I criticize the Israelites for obeying. But I highly doubt anyone would use that fact to justify committing genocide today, even if one claimed it was commanded by God!

            Descriptive passages from Scripture, especially from the OT, of people using weapons, even at the command of God, do *not* translate to a universal right to bear arms.

          • notaboutus

            How about Mark 12:17, where it says, “…give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s”?

            Also, quest is right in his/her reply to you. Weaponry of all types has been part of civilization since the time of Genesis (remember Cain and Abel?) and has been used not only for hunting, but also for protection.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Again, that passage is referring to submission, not upholding and enforcing.

            See above for my response to quest.

            And, yes, I remember Cain and Abel. You might want to use a better example, though, because:

            1. The Bible does not specify that Cain used a weapon to kill Abel, and…

            2. Even if Cain *did* use a weapon, that was not a *good* thing!

  • Fernando Villegas

    As this country debates stricter gun control, it would be good to evaluate whether we are enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Because enacting new laws is irrelevant if the current ones aren’t being enforced!

    • Pastor Mike

      LOok to our own government. Can you say Fast and Furious? Our own federal government broke multiple federal laws and people are dying all over the place because of it and there are several hundred of the weapons they put in the hands of Mexican drug cartel thugs that will likely never be found. Let’s start prosecuting there.

      • Fernando Villegas

        That’s certainly not a bad idea!

    • notaboutus

      And yet you are agreeing with the position taken in the article that we need more gun control laws.

      • Fernando Villegas

        Ummm…no, I’ve never said that we need more gun control laws. I *do* believe that we need a serious national discussion on gun control, and part of that discussion involves whether or not we are enforcing existing laws.

        Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the issue are less interested in a serious discussion, and more interested in hijacking the issue to advance their own political agendas.

        • notaboutus

          I am not the one who is proposing the banning of guns and trampling on the constitution to advance a political agenda. I am simply reacting to those that are – such as President Obama who recently used a photo op with children to justify his unconstitutional position on the 2nd amendment. It was repulsive to watch.

          I am a Christian first, but I am also an American and, as such, I am concerned about those who seek to encroach on and limit the freedoms we enjoy in this country – in this case, the 2nd amendment. We’ve had enough discussion on gun control in my view over the years and most people want the government to just butt out and let us exercise our constitutional rights as American citizens to legally own guns for both recreational and protection purposes.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Fair enough.

            But there is obviously a significant portion of the population that feels we need to continue this conversation. What about them? Should they just “sit down and shut up” just because, in *your* view, we’ve had enough discussion? Should we stop trying to reach a consensus just because *you’ve* made up your mind, already?

  • Stan

    Guns do not kill people, the people holding them do…it is not different than a motor vehicle..if a mentally deranged person wants to kill a bunch of people they can use anything…so quit blaming guns…the nut cases in Colorado and CT were apparently on psychiatric prescription drugs so blame the drug companies for peddling these drugs which blow the minds of patients and cause them to do this heinous acts, and even commit one ever mentions these drug companies..The other thing, you cannot legislate smarts…the mother of the latest killer, knew he had a mental problem but gave him access to the guns and ammunition she owned and had purchased..this is not very smart on her part…time for a concerned to smarten up and realize the real underlying causes of such violence..of course the violent garbage on TV, and the violent video games are also a major cause of the problem.

    • Fernando Villegas

      You make some very good points, but I would like to clarify one point. You wrote: “it is not different than a motor vehicle.” Actually, there *is* a fundamental difference between the two.

      Now, I do agree with you that guns are inherently morally neutral. It is the motive and intent of the person using the gun that determines whether it’s use is right or wrong. And I also agree that people can kill with a car, or a knife or baseball bat or rock or etc., as easily as they can with a gun.

      The difference, however, is that a gun is specifically designed for the purpose of killing, or at the least, incapacitating. When a person kills with a gun, the gun was used for the purpose it was specifically designed to be used for. The same cannot be said, obviously, for a car or a baseball bat or a rock or for a host of other things that can be used to kill.

      Now, as you said, there’s a lot more involved than simply the guns. So any response that focuses on guns alone is insufficient to address the real problem.

      Nevertheless, I have often heard the argument comparing guns to cars in that both can be used to kill. But that comparison contains a logical flaw that weakens the overall argument.

      • Pastor Mike

        Fernando, would you feel better if we compared rocks? The issue is that the issue is NOT the choice of weapon. Guns are not the problem. The guy in China on the same day as Sandy Hook used a knife. I guess his victims should feel better? NOT

        • Fernando Villegas

          The comparison breaks down with rocks, as well. And for the same reason: again, rocks are not designed to kill or incapacitate. Guns are.

          If ya’ll want to keep using the comparison, go right ahead. But it’s a flawed argument.

          My point here is not whether or not guns are the problem. The real problems are much deeper.

          My point is simply that if you want to win the national debate, it’d be a good idea not to use flawed arguments.

        • John K

          If the killer in Newtown has used rocks, its a pretty fair guess that he would not have killed 26 … just sayin’..

          • Pastor Mike

            I think you missed the point. It is NOT the gun that is the problem. Weapons are weapons. The issue SHOULD BE the sinful heart of man. That’s what we NEED to focus our attention as should our leaders. Once the guns are gone (will NEVER happen except from the hands of law abiding citizens – the criminals and despots will still have them) then sinful evil people will still find a way to work evil!

          • John K

            I don’t think I missed MY point at all. First..No one in Government is advocating all guns to be removed from American citizens. This is a typical scare tactic by the far right. Second..I don’t care how many times someone says to me that guns don’t kill people, guns DO kill people. And the easiest way to kill a mass of people in this country is with a semi-automatic assault rifle with a large clip. You are right about the sinful heart of man. What do you suggest? Do we make it mandatory for all Americans to go to church and repent their sins? Like I said I don’t have the answer. I do believe that God does and I will continue to pray that something good comes from the horrific lack of concern for the human life.

          • Fernando Villegas

            This does not have to be an either-or situation. We can address *both* the deeper issue of the sinful heart of man, *and* responsible gun control that preserves our Second Amendment rights. There is not reason to create a false dichotomy.

          • notaboutus

            And if the killer in Newtown did use rocks, I’m sure the brilliant politicians in DC would try and regulate those too.

  • Elliott

    Just remember laws only work on law abiding people. Murder is against the law, but that does not stop a murder from doing it. By making it harder for those who follow the law to get a weapon it does not decrease the crime rate with these weapons, but only makes it harder for a law abiding citizen to defend themselves. We must be careful on what laws we allow to be passed. I truly believe that God was involed in the creation of this country, and i fought in the USMC to keep it a under God.
    Thank You.

    • Fernando Villegas

      Elliott, thank you very much for your service to our country. We owe you a debt of gratitude that could never be repaid!

      • Julio Rodriguez


    • Eddie

      I do agree!

    • Pastor Rick


  • fireproof37

    This is crazy, they would set back in a free society and let their rights be taken away by Jesus-hating and Bible-despising secularists. Gun control only works in the minds of liberals and on the law-biding citizen–and there is not one conversation about the real issue, the depravity of man. It is one thing to live in a society where you expect to be treated as a second-class citizen and possibly even lose your life, it’s another to watch it happening in a free society and just not care. Public education has really done it’s job, neuter the male and make a bunch of govt followers.

  • Guest

    Lot of going back and fourth here on Gun control how about these to chew on:

    Exodus 22:2-3
    2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

    “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.

    We must also consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Lk. 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then
    of a military rifle today.

    While Christ told Peter to “put your sword (John 18) in its place,” He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

    A related and even broader concept is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself’” (Lk.
    10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good
    Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging
    victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored
    the victim’s plight were not acting as neighbors to him.

    -From various sources-

    • joanneludos

      Sorry hit post in mid typing and cannot delete

  • joanneludos

    Lot of going back and fourth here on Gun control how about these to chew on:

    Exodus 22:2-3
    2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is
    struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if
    it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

    “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.

    We must also consider what Christ told His disciples in His last
    hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take
    it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his
    garment and buy one” (Lk. 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the
    finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the
    equivalent then
    of a military rifle today.

    While Christ told Peter to “put your sword (John 18) in its place,”
    He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have
    contradicted what He had told the disciples only hours before. Peter’s
    sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not
    needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

    A related and even broader concept is found in the parable of the
    Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all
    the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: “‘You shall love the
    Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your
    strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself’” (Lk.
    10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good
    Samaritan (Lk. 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging
    victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored
    the victim’s plight were not acting as neighbors to him.

    -From various sources-

    Now do I believe that the church should get involved in secular law, yup to a point. e.g. abortion, rights that affect the church and so on. So I guess you can argue that it is OK for leaders to voice their opinion on the subject (Heck it is their right). But what I object to is how the polls tone will reflect on the Christian community. As the left side will take it and say see the right wing christian conservative want our newly appointed dictator to over step his authority.

    As a 25 year retired Infantry Veteran, NRA Instructor I love my King (the true King) my country, I firmly believe it is my duty as a husband, father, to protect my family and days of the sword are gone and my new sword is a firearm and this administration is trying to strip that from me.

    As I said in the start something to chew on and a different point of view, then the tone this thread has taken.

    Thank you

    • Pastor Mike

      I firmly agree. As far as secular law and government I believe it is right for Christians to be involved in all areas. We may not be of this world but we are in it, for a purpose.

    • Tua

      No 2nd amendment, no 1st amendment. I further agree, NO KING BUT JESUS. Thank you for your service to our Country and to your family.

    • Vic Zoe Warren

      It is very dishonest to take any scripture, old, or new testament example, and use it to justify distorting the entire character of Jesus. The character of Jesus is what we are after- not the character of (at this point in the narrative) unbelieving Peter. Satan had just entered into Peter, through his unbelief.

      With that said, we should do the last thing that Jesus commanded concerning it. If you look at the life and ministry of all of the Apostles and the early disciples you will find that they agree. They lived with a forbearance of arms. As is the admonition of Paul, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1

      And Jesus did not command that the disciples not have a sword, but He did make clear, “for all they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matthew 26:52

      So my admonition to this cloud of witnesses is: DO NOT TAKE the sword and choose Jesus’ words over every philosophy, or interpretation, that departs from them.

  • NaNTHuel

    Bein sur, I desire more control with My Gun… but not that which is sportif fun… but that Of The Humane… I can lay lw with a Bullet that would Be Rabid and some say diseaesed…What care You walks of Glades and the Byways…. do You steal His Gun and that serpents may even strike against Him. I wonder as to where is The crime Rate and What ever could there Be a Law. Yes It starts with You… More control to guns given that You can find any Man in controll these Days…but I am sure You may find sums O them. Can You trust a Baptist wiTH A Gun… could not trust an eVangelical with a Gun because The Baptist will bring another to Drink Your Beer.

  • Pastor_mac

    Again with the hunting story. The second amendment states no laws infringing on gun ownership. The guns are for our protection from a government gone rouge. Which isn’t too far away. Remember gun control is just another baby step to no freedoms.

    • Fernando Villegas

      That’s a fair point, but in the event that our government were to “go rogue”, do you really believe that the guns owned by the private sector–even if there were no gun control–would stand a chance against the US military?

      • John Oscar

        You are assuming every person in the military would forget their oath is to defend the constitution and follow those illegal orders. You’d have as much a civil war in the military as you would the rest of the country.

        • Fernando Villegas

          To be honest, it’s not actually a scenario that I worry about too much, since it is a very unlikely scenario to begin with.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Fernando, are you COINTELPRO ?

          • Fernando Villegas

            Well, if I was, I really couldn’t tell you, now could I? ;)

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            No, but you could shoot me.

          • Fernando Villegas

            ;) Lucky for you, I’m not!

      • Fredrico


        • Fernando Villegas

          Well, you’re awfully optimistic, then!

      • Donnie

        Is this an argument for gun control Fernando? It seems to me that what you are saying is that we need more powerful weapons to withstand the full force of a oppressive government and its military. Are you advocating rebellion or civil war by conceding the validity of Pastor mac’s point?

        • Fernando Villegas

          Not at all. I’m simply pointing out the weakness of the argument that “guns are for our protection from a government gone rogue.”

          It is far more likely that we as a free and democratic society can prevent the formation of an oppressive government in the first place, by taking our civic responsibilities seriously; and far less likely that should we produce an oppressive government, we’d have a legitimate chance at withstanding it.

          • Tom

            Fernando……your last paragraph bothers me. If you don’t think we are losing our liberty’s over the past 4 years, I don’t think you are being realistic. Look what happened and who voted in the last election. This administration is going all out for a Socialistic government in THIS country, trying to get everyone to rely on the government for food, healthcare, etc. They want you totally dependent on them…….which is the step toward losing all rights, since THE GOVERNMENT will control you. Welfare, free “obama phones” and many other “give aways”…. Many people who probably haven’t voted much in their life times, came out to vote in the last election……because they didn’t want to lose all the “free stuff” they were getting. We are having a huge problem stopping those types from voting into office, the people who are more than happy to head us towards a socialist government…….this country is losing the middle class, on a daily basis…..soon, you will either be “rich”…..or “poor”…..nothing in between.

          • Fernando Villegas

            I don’t know why my last paragraph would bother you, since there I describe the solution to your worries: taking our civic responsibilities seriously.
            If you don’t think we’ve been losing liberties long before President Obama was sworn into office four years ago, maybe you’re the one who’s not being realistic! Are you not aware of how many liberties were taken away by the Bush administration in its War on Terror?

            Whether we elect conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, to public office is irrelevant. None who hold political power, regardless of ideology, is immune from the real and powerful temptation to use the government to expand their own personal power.

            That is why we as citizens must take our civic responsibility seriously. The government, ultimately, is “We the People”; and it is “We the People” who must hold those who serve in government accountable. If we do so, we can prevent the formation of an oppressive government in the first place.

            If we are *not* responsible enough to prevent the formation of an oppressive government, what makes us think we’d have a good chance (even with access to guns) to protect ourselves from this monster that we ourselves have created?

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            There are numerous ways and the Declaration of Independence gives reasons and guidance. The process begins with each person.Christianity is a force not to be taken lightly,
            if God be for us who can be against us?Israeli’s today fight against impossible odds, I have seen our Marines fight against impossible odds, and Christianity has survived against 2000 years of impossible odds.Altogether, the Jews have survived over 4000 years of impossible odds, does that tell you anything? They are as endangered as Christians are. The thing is, we don’t have to win, we just have to tarry or fight until our Lord comes.In the middle east both Arabs and Israeli’s can tell you about angelic intervention on behalf of Israeli soldiers. There is no question that there would be even greater inervention here at home. All wars since World War I has seen increasingly greater angelic interventions. Beyond that the government has specific weaknesses than can be exploited. When the government moves into fully automated warfare, they
            will have eliminated one of those weaknesses but pick up several more.To fight a monster one must know the nature of the monster add to that the determination of an armed
            and committed enemy from within and a parity is reached. There will be no parity if government legislates rules concerning arms ownership. Strategically if they can enforce such laws they will have weakened the people. Through the strength and determination of the people they would have a difficult time wearing us down much further, they also
            have to endure public backlashes which can be extreme. Government would then be forced into their own underground bunkers in a push button offensive, the question for them is what will be waiting for them when they want to come back out after many years.They have already calculated the realities and prepared for it. It is now a matter of time
            and effort on our behalf, the less time the greater the effort. At least their bunkers will save considerable time in entombment.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Government legislates rules concerning free speech. If we recognize that the First Amendment has limits, why is the idea that the Second Amendment also has limits so difficult for some to believe?

            I’m not talking about getting rid of the Second Amendment, here. I’m talking about the importance of having a serious national discussion as a free society concerning how to exercise the rights of the Second Amendment in a responsible manner.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            The problem with your statement is that the only thing that the government is allowed to legislate is that which, we the people want them to legislate. The government was set up to carry out the will of the people, not what the government determines is good for the people. We appoint the government to be our voices, if we sing in tenor, they must sing in tenor, if we trill our Rs, they must trill Rs. It is when they are not faithful to the people and embrace their own powers that the will of the people get lost, add to that manipulations and thievery from the treasure of the United States the people and government become very uncomfortable bedfellows and one or the other must be kicked out
            of bed.Knowing this ahead of time, due to the trust of the people, the government prepares to kick the people out of bed.This is when government goes rogue. It is a violation of
            the peoples trust and when the people wake up seeing the government in a kicking posture, they become defensive and beyond mere suspicion.The government then begins to limit the people beyond the people’s ability to demand servitude, in the interest of “we the people’.The government then begins to mock the people and converts”we the people”
            to “wee wee on the people. Regarding the rights of the people being limited, those limitations came as an after thought, not while the ammendments were being signed, the forethought of the forefathers knew, how they would start change and did not make public such notes before the signing. With afterthought the forethoughts were carried out
            so that it began limitations on those freedoms. Basically, the Christian populace were sold a bill of goods. An examination of the Masonic Constitutions and other Masonic
            documents is quite revealing with regatds to why so many Masons were involved in the founding of this country. Their interest was to hijack this country from straightforward
            Christian control and bring it to within the control of Masonry for Masonic purposes. Further investigation reveals Royal intrigue and a picture of the intent of the British Crown
            to gain posession of the whole world so “the sun will never set on the British Crown”—-forever! Every occultic phenomena that has occurred in America, started out in England or Europe, then came here.England literally owns Europe and always has, when the extended royal family included kings and queens in the European countries.It further extends to Russia.England owns the banks that are now our federal reserve and they own most of the lending international banks. Our IRS is not a federal government entity but is a
            debt collecting entity owned by the federal reserve banks.Presently England is the head of the inner circle of the Bilderberg group. What is in store for America is a a hybrid form of Monarchial communism.Korea practices something similiar and those people are required to worship their leader as a God. North Korea, that is. Every communist or socialist country ever in existence since the early 1900’s has been nothing but experiments engineered at Oxford University, where Rhodes scholars go. Cecil Rhodes left his fortune to those that would learn to advance socialism of which communism is at the extreme end.Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and so are many in the government
            today. Karl Marx was a Jew, from a converted protestant family of Jews with rabbinical roots. He was also a native of England and is buried there.He was also a 32d degree
            Mason and he despised the Christian faith, he disliked the American people with a passion because they believed in being armed, arms and religion were the two enemies of
            socialism in all the models he created.Albert Pike, Aleister Crowley, Albert Mackey were 32d and 33rd degree Masons that announced Lucifer was God. There are records that
            are extant that show these men knew in the 1800’s what would transpire in America and the world in the 1900’s. Everything happened just as it was planned. The Royals of
            England are Masons of the highest degree but understate the fact by wearing ornaments of much lower degrees. Yes our government has been rogue and Woodrow Wilson
            acknowledged his part in it before he died, with regrets.He too was a 33rd degree Mason.Masonry is throughout our political structure and represents a controlling power over politicians who are Masons, carrying it’s directives out through them. The wars and the depressions of last century were known in the century before. Obama is a 33rd degree,
            interestingly the late Yassir Arafat was a 33rd degree, Benjamin Netanyahu is a 33rd degree, Jimmy Carter is a 33rd degree and so were the past presidents of Egypt, so is
            Putin. All Arab nations and socialist/communist nations are headed by 33rd degree masons with few exceptions.Every english speaking country is actively socialist. The
            infrastructure in America is complete. Now socialism is being introduced as freedom for the working class and a war between classes is being waged. Look up Karl
            Marx on wikipedia and any of the topics I discuss on the same, to save you time and see for yourself. Work the links provided. Youtube will give you fast Masonic information.
            My studies started before computers were in the hands of Joe Blow.With all this said, you know my stance. The gospel is in danger and so is every Christian in America and
            worldwide. The persecutions have begun long ago and are at an unprecedented high, throughout the world and it has reared it’s ugly head here.Protect the gospel and be not
            ignorant of the wiles of the adversary, the time to pronounce the Gospel to every soul is now.Prepare for the inevitable and these days are spoken of in scripture.Blessings…

          • Fernando Villegas

            “The problem with your statement is that the only thing that the
            government is allowed to legislate is that which, we the people want
            them to legislate. The government was set up to carry out the will of
            the people, not what the government determines is good for the people.”

            There’s no problem at all, because my statement does not contradict yours. In fact, I agree with you. Government derives its authority from we the people. Hence, the reason why I keep emphasizing the need for the discussion.

            As for the rest of what you wrote, I can’t really comment. I don’t put too much stock in conspiracy theories. Even if they’re true, there’s nothing I can do about it. I try to focus on my ministry the best I can, and trust that God is in control of the rest.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Fernando, this is not a conspiracy theory, this comes from personal knowledge and involvement. I started making observations when I became a victim of military corruption, after which, through a series of unfortunate circumstances in civilian life, I personally witnessed corruption in very high places in the government.Having had training in
            combat intelligence, I learned the kind of things to observe for the sake of larger intelligence operations and what to parse out to who.Obviously, counter responses and counter
            insurgency were planned using the intelligence data gathered from the field.These same techniques can be applied in civilian life and point to directions that are presently
            active.With enough intelligence, it is not to difficult to detect activity and interpret it. Furthermore, the use of interrogation techniques can be applied without the interrogated realizing they are being interrogated. It is not difficult to gain or confirm information, the problem is time in processing. The question is always can we learn enough to base action in time.Disinformation delays, hence, my dislike for it. Dissemination of information is touch and go with the regular populace, however, there are others who have uncovered similiar things and trumpet them loudly. I attempt to make my Christian brothers and sisters aware how thick the atmosphere is and to prepare to invest in their future security, ever how they desire to do it is up to them.I call for unity in the church based on our ability to agree that regardless of how we believe we must work together to
            oppose any threat to the gospel, our faith and our livelihoods.A watchman who sees a danger coming and does not warn the people is in danger himself.It does not hurt to prepare or call others to preparation in uncertain times.Those who do not prepare and know they could have do not deserve the better things that come from preparation in
            the day they are needed.Even if one does not believe in rogue government existing, other things can transpire of major concern. Put it into consideration, you have sheep to
            care for. God be with you and bless you!

          • Pastor Carl

            Fernando, America is not a democratic society! That is a major problem with people who fail to study our history! America is a “Constitutional Republic!” Our Founding Fathers stated that, “Our form of government would not work for a Godless society!”

            In democratic rule, everyone gets to vote for whatever it wants. In a family that would look like this; mom, dad and four children, mom and dad want the family to have a healthy dinner complete with broccoli. The children want cookies and ice cream they vote…majority rule…no veggies or anything else that is healthy.

            Constitutional Republic, we don’t get to vote for everything that we want. We have a Constitution that marks the borders, limits, parameters and helps us to eat out veggies!
            Blessing Bro

          • Fernando Villegas

            Well, if you want to get technical, the best definition is that we are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic. But since I’m not inclined to write “constitutionally limited representative democratic republic” every time I refer to our form of government (nor, I would guess, are most people on this forum), I prefer to use the shorthand “democratic society.” Although, I would not be averse to using the shorthand “republican society”, instead.

            In fact, historically, the terms “democracy” and “republic” were interchangeable. The distinction was made by Madison and others in the effort to “sell” the Constitution. And long after the Constitution was ratified, Madison himself acknowledged that the terms could, in fact, be used interchangeably.

            And you’re right. Failing to study our history *is* a major problem!

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            They were not interchangeable at anytime in history. The ancient greeks expounded on what a democracy was while the ancient romans expounded on a republic. Two different critters.We didn’t need Madison’s definition.Our government was designed to have independent departments subject to majority rule of a then Christian majority by unanymity.
            At the founding there were no other religions present other than Christianity.No moslems, no buddhists, no nothing. Immigration was an extension of Christian charity from a Christian nation.The prerequisites were that immigrants had to denounce the beliefs of their former countries and honor the Christian way of life, to which opportunities wereavailed for conversion, which was almostbalways done. Masonic influence created a separatist atmosphere that encouraged immigrants to maintain the faiths they wrre formerly required to abandon in their renunciations. The separation of church and state came directly from the Constitutions of Freemasonry. Interestingly it was included in the
            communist soviet constitution as well. Marx was a 32 degree mason.Masonry, occultism and communist doctrines came together to at a point of convergence and began alienating Americans from their rights little by little in an effort to establish a new world order and that is why we see the same problems worldwide, in every country.Masons
            invented our constitution and patterned it after masonic constitution! promoting our constitution as a christian document while fooling non-masonis christians, only then was it ratified with christian approval. Our constitution was based on deception but the declaration of Independence gives us remedies, even though it too was greatly affected by
            Masons. Their is also a Royal monarchy factor involved and likely the chief beneficiary of all these adversarial efforts.

          • Fernando Villegas

            The point is that there is no purely democratic, nor any purely republican, form of national government anywhere on earth.

            We are a republic because we are governed by representatives. We are a democracy because we elect those representatives by majority votes. Our form of government contains aspects of both.

            And as far as being used interchangeably, here is one example from Madison, in 1821: “The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican (democratic) constitutions.”

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            While you are here discussing points of democracy or republican governments, this discussion comes too late to be practical. A new form of government is taking over and regardless of a democratic republic or a republican democracy or any individual forms thereof, such arguments merit no significance in the change that is coming. From an academic standpoint, Madison does not satisfy the demands of the argument.From a cynical standpoint Madison was a dupe. From a patriotic standpoint Madison was a good
            president that I don’t recall seeing his own hyphenations within his statements. From a Spiritual standpoint I thank God that Madison could only do minimal harm to the aims
            of christianity and minimal advancement of masonry. From a knuckleheads viewpoint, three Nyucks for Madison.What we formerly were has little weight to what we’ve become!
            Read my note to you below.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            The atmosphere now is steaming towards dissembly of federal government and is spreading very fast. Secessionism and or all out rebellion is likely to produce some major
            influence or results toward a change in government or complete dissembly.It can be done and is a very realistic possibility.

      • Tom

        Fernando…….I have a friend who was in the FBI…..I posed a question to him a couple of years ago, asking what the people he worked with thought of what was happening in our country. He said that many were very unhappy with what is going on and that if there was a huge revolt, most of these agencies, FBI, CIA and others, probably wouldn’t “hold together” …..because of the actions of this administration.

        • Fernando Villegas

          I’m quite certain that there is a significant portion of those who work in the FBI, CIA, and other such agencies who were equally unhappy with the actions of the Bush administration.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Tom is correct, in that a growing majority of potential dissension is a direct result of Obama, far less than in the Bush administration. It is more of a problem of abuse and ineptness. Furthermore, we are learning more from these departments in covert ways and some outright openly about the aims of the administration.Bush and Obama work for
            the same bosses anyway, and those bosses ain’t us.It is a matter of two different ways of getting the same job done for the same boss.What we are seeing is unprecedented in
            American history.Not even the Civil War had the ground swell we are currently witnessing, eventually if government doesn’t change the pregnant volcano will blow.My intelligence tells me the government is monopolizing long term storage meats. What little is out on the markets is not fit for human consumption. Massive ammunition purchases and mass construction of underhround facilities combined with supplies too last many years, is where this stuff is being trucked too.This is well documented.
            Official government documents and directives also anticipate armed insurrection sometime before the year 2020. Younwill see massive amounts of soldiers leaving the military and a greater dependence on the high tech automated weapons of wars. Drones are now being observed here in america flying over neighborhoods. A number of police departments have been given drones.The list of activities go on and on, and all instigated or established by federal government while people aren’t looking or being made aware
            by news sources.Obama just took American dissatisfaction to a much higher level than any previous administration.

          • Fernando Villegas

            If you say so.

            I can’t really argue for or against if you offer no evidence to evaluate your claims.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Then you must have your head in the sand, for the information is current and widely available and is easily documentable.Much has been spoken about these things in the public arena. Evidence is all around you. Look a little harder, you will find it. It is not my job to make it any easier for you being an opponent in debate but you can evaluate easily obtaiable evidence via internet.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Evidence that is easily obtainable via the internet can also be easily fabricated via the internet.

            Haven’t you seen the commercial where the lady says, “They can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true”? And everyone watching the commercial knows she is extremely naive?

            “It is not my job to make it any easier for you being an opponent in debate.” Actually, in any debate, it *is* one’s job to back up their arguments with some sort of evidence. Otherwise, people can just make up random assertions, and when challenged, simply say, “Look it up! It’s not my job to do it for you!”

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Fernando, a discerning person can see through fabrications. Random assertions are unlikely when complete scenarios are drawn. There is that which is self evident and those things that have internal evidence as any critical scholar knows.I essentially do not have the time to point directions as I write in many forums and have numerous responses to make, not being neglectful of those who question or challenge. I also must take time out for my studies and prayers.I am actually spread very thin and all I offer is free. I cannot
            make merchandise of my efforts. I have a sleep disorder thanks to the military and so I get very little sleep and what sleep I get is spotted. The VA has been working on the
            problem that I have had since the early 70’s in the Marines.Healthwise, there are too many things that have gone wrong and are going wrong, having been on the brink of death
            several times with a foreshortened life span. Again all military connected.. So I do things with urgency nknowing the temporal nature of my existence, intimately. Bless you and Love…

      • Christian Marine Veteran

        Between that and the connections that the public has with the rest of the world, yes! Much of what the public knows regarding the military , is propaganda they want you to believe, this includes you. I , as a veteran have seen many things the public doesn’t know about. The problem the military has is that regardless of what they have there is a veteran that knows all about it, it’s weaknesses and strengths.This ways heavily in the public favor and opens the door for sabotage.The American war machine has considerable difficulty with motivated, dedicated and committed opposition.Veterans are a valuable public asset in a time of civil strife or war, they will not lay back idly and the adversary has already factored that in.Unconventional war creates unpredictable results, a dirty little secret the pentagon does not wznt you to know. The American people are reknowned for ingenuity especially in times that are difficult and our warriors are second to none, these two facts weigh very heavily against opposition.Yes, we can do it. The US Military will completely downsize and use toys almost exclusively with heavy dependence on unmanned air assaults but as they say, what goes up must come down, if not now, then later, better to be later than never.Clay
        targets with a brain and that shoot back, sounds like high tech fun. Can you imagine automatic or semi-automatic weapons fire with specialized projectiles and large magazines
        nailing those bad boys? Wonder what you would bet on, a mongoose or a habu snake?

        • Fernando Villegas

          Fair enough. You’re more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so I’ll take you at your word.

          Still, like I said, the probability of the government going rogue is so small, I don’t see the point in continuing to argue about it. So I won’t anymore.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            I would recalculate the probabilities, if I were you..Read my last note to you at the bottom of this page and you may just want to recalculate such probabilities. Don’t be caught asleep!

      • Pator Doug

        Just basing my answer on the number of “legal” hunting weapons used under “legal” hunting licenses in America every year, there are more than 65 MILLION trained sharpshooters which is vastly more than most all presently standing armies in the world combined…not to mention that ine the last two years alone, there were enough weapons sold to private individuals in America to outfit the Armies of China and India. So, the question is not “would we stand a chance”, the real question is “will we seize the day”?

        • Fernando Villegas

          Fine, everyone, I concede that point. In the extremely unlikely and improbable event of our government “going rogue,” I feel much better! Can we move on, now?

    • Dave T


    • Raven

      “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” 1 Peter 2:17
      “Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”” Matthew 26:52
      “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39

      For what I can tell, plotting to fight a government you disagree with doesn’t much fit those commands.

      • Pastor Carl

        Raven, with your thinking we would have never had an American Revolution! Remember that the Kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force…On earth as it is in heaven…Things here on earth are not like in Heaven yet! We have laws, law enforcement officers, courts, etc. so to deter crime and bring justice when a crime has been perpetrated against…

        Jesus was headed to Calvary and Peter had no clue or desire for Jesus to die on the cross. It was Jesus who asked the Disciples if they had a sword…
        If someone gets raped, robbed, or murdered I want us good guys to be able to bring the guilty party to justice!

      • Vic Zoe Warren

        Raven. If you keep Jesus’ words you will be rejected by men who keep their interpretations and philosophies, but we do not live to please men, but to please God. And we forbear arms as the church of the Anointed, because we are the Anointed. Being willing to give your life is far different than making preparations to take lives by amassing military grade assault weapons, so your conclusions are correct. The American church has many of the wrong spokespeople and it is made evident through the judgement of God: the words of Jesus. “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” – John 12:48

        Lastly, in order to rightly fight the US government the American people would need access to weapons of mass destruction. Which would mean that a tragedy that killed twenty plus children and adults in Newtown, would have been the entire school and the surrounding city block of the school in Newtown. The fear of God drives out the lusts and fear of man. The fear and lusts of man exist where there is no fear of God.

  • Dan

    I find it interesting when reading published percentages without the data on how the survey was structured. I can structure a survey with the right bias to say virtually anything I want. Maybe we should spend more time praying and educating people on self control not gun control. Tools are just tools… it is he or she who wields the tool that uses it for good or evil. If I want to get a job done I will find the tool one way or another. To think a person so bent on evil can be stopped from getting the tools they need to do a job is… well good luck with that.

    I also find it interesting there are dozens of rural evangelic leaders I know and not a single one was included in the collection of the data from this survey. I am one of those rural evangelical leaders and find the stats in this article suspect.

    • Jack Forbes

      Dan I was thinking along the same lines. I don’t buy this story at all. Sure there some evangelicals that favor gun control, but 70%. This is pure propaganda

      • Pastor Mike

        I must agree. One of my professors in college statistics said, “Tell me the answer you want and I will design the questions and tell you who to ask in order to get the result.” For many of us the national leadership of our denominations is not the sole spokesperson for us.

    • Kiley Sekulich

      I agree completely. The Gallup poll mentioned here is the second poll Gallup has done on the issue this month. The first showed 61% against stricter gun laws and only 38% for it. Polling is the easiest way to corrupt data in order to have the numbers go in the direction the “researcher” wants. All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. especially those that require you to believe that a 1,000 person poll is adequate representation of the US population.

  • Mack Neff

    Absolutely opposed to the message of this article. Any effort to support gun control confuses the audience as to the real cause of the problem. As long as America is intent on driving God out of the equation, they will not understand the results of the calculation. The heart is deceitful, and desperately wicked…. not the gun.

    • Fernando Villegas

      As I mentioned in a earlier post, any solution to the problem that focuses on gun control alone misses the point. The real problems go much deeper.

      Having said that, any solution that does not address gun control *at all* is inadequate. Rights are not absolute. To take an extreme example, the right to bear arms does not give me the right to acquire nuclear arms. There needs to be a responsible discussion on how to regulate arms in a way that, nevertheless, protects the second amendment.

      Unfortunately, it appears that most people on both sides of the issue are more concerned with advancing their own political agendas than with engaging the other side in a responsible discussion.

      • Pastor Carl

        Fernando, the Constitution wasn’t restricting the size or kind of a weapon that the people could own! I prefer that the good guys have the best weapons. The Tyranny of the government against the people was one of the main reasons that our Founding Fathers understood the need for the second amendment. They knew that arms (weapons) would evolve!

        • Fernando Villegas

          Actually, the specific wording of the final draft of the Second Amendment was so that southern states could preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government.

          And again, if you really believe that the Constitution does not restrict the size or kind of weapon that people can own, does that mean that all Americans have the right to acquire nuclear arms? Or what about age restrictions: should 14-year-olds have the right to buy guns? I go to these extremes in order to prove the principle that all rights necessarily have limits. Unlimited rights necessarily lead to anarchy.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Fernando, you no nothing about American history regarding the slavery issue, I have studied and researched it out and I live in the south. And your ignorance of constitutional history is merely a parroting of revisionist hogwash. Take the time to study as I have and learn the truth with an unbiased heart. Your extremes are definitely just that, as I was growing up I knew eight year olds that owned b.b. guns, pellet rifles and .22 rimfire rifles who were very responsible with these weapons and grew up to be very fine and responsible men. Christians do not go around killing in mass shootings. The demented mass shooters are products of liberal upbringings or influences. A conservative
            christian boy, I know I could train to be responsible and he should be able to own his own rifle. A product of liberal upbringing, I wouldn’t even train in that there is usually little discipline there to work with and someone is likely to get shot. This nation has always had a primarily conservative history and I could point out specific periods where when it wasn’t liberals were behind it and trouble always ensued on a large scale. I have lived a large portion of this history and am an eyewitness to how things once were, I have also studied history in an unbiased manner, with no dogs in the race.Your nuclear example is another showing of ridiculousness in that no one would use nuclear arms to solve tyrannical problems of a nation other than a liberal. Who else would be so stupid as to use nuclear weapons in defense of their country, in their own country?Please find some decent sense somewhere and consider your soul, for I see danger.

            any slaves in the north at the time of the signing of the constitution, both the north and the south supported the slaves and cared for them. The rebellious and the criminally minded slaves were the ones that recieved punishment. If they were not treated well they far outnumbered the owners by multitudes and could have easily overtaken them.Many slaves were skilled warriors from Africa. When two tribes fought and one was defeated, the winning tribe took the spoils and what humans they wanted and could support, the rest they sold to moslem Arab slave traders who were completely inhumane in their treatments. These Arab slave traders sold and traded these slaves to anyone who could use them or wanted

            them. Had they remained in their own country or in Arab hands, they would likely have been killed.The new world offered them an opportunity to live, work and proliferate.Many
            adopted the Christian faith and were content.This is where the old negro spiritual songs came from.When they were emancipated after the civil war, most chose to stay with
            their former masters and sought their care in return for work, food, shelter, clothing and small wages. Relationships became very close between former master and former slaves and their families. When many of the former masters died, they willed tracts of farmland and homes to these families. This accounts for the start of widespread land ownership by black people in the South. When carpetbaggers from the north got involved (forerunners of present day liberals) the ku klux klan rose up. This then started

            a new chapter in racial differences that did not exist until instigators began bringing trouble. Today many white folk in the south have family reunions that include black members of the ir family that came up from illicit affairs between white and black. Many reunions exist based on the adoption of last name only without illicit affairs ever having taken place.

          • Fernando Villegas

            You’re taking this much too personally for us to be able to have a serious discussion, so we’ll just leave it at that. My sincere apologies for having offended you.

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            I never take anything personal except my faith, other than that I am just a meek and humble warrior. Your apologies are accepted but not necessary for no offense was taken. I apologize if you felt I was overly aggressive or if I might have said something that offended you or your feelings. So please for the sake of us both, don’t take anything personal
            yourself, I’m a nice guy once you get to know me . I , like you contend for those things I value and I do have a low tolerance for propaganda and disinformation. The truth is what
            interests me and anything less disturbs me, that simple, it is an exercise in discernment badly needed by one whose discernment needs exercise.Ultimately the truth wins and
            we both can celebrate. A forum is a way of one person testing truth against another persons truth, ultimately they both uncover the truth. Comprende? Bless you brother…

          • Fernando Villegas

            Fair enough.

            And certainly, propaganda and disinformation is a bad thing. But I would simply caution you that sometimes, we are too quick to judge an opposing view as propaganda and disinformation, when all it is is just a different point of view.

            It is very easy to scan someone’s post, pick up some “code words”, and then think to oneself, “Oh, I’ve heard this all before, already; I’ve got this guy figured out.” But that is not helpful to constructive conversation. I’ve had people make all sorts of assumptions about me (that I’m a liberal, that I’m for more gun control, that I don’t believe teachers would be willing to carry arms to protect their students, etc.) that just aren’t true. And if one were to read what I write, and *only* what I write, one would see that there is nothing in what I’ve written that warrants such assumptions.

            But because I believe that our Constitutional rights have limits, and because I believe there is merit to a national discussion on how to exercise our rights responsibly while not infringing upon those rights, people assume, “Well, if you’re not on our side, you must be on our enemy’s side.”

            Well, maybe on not on *anyone’s* side. Maybe I have my own opinions. Maybe I think for myself.

            And maybe, if people want to have a conversation with me on this forum, they should stop trying to pigeonhole me and put me in their neat little categories, and just listen.

            So, I guess what I’m trying to say, to all of us here, is simply: Let’s have a little more patience with each other. Let’s really listen to each other and to what we are actually saying. And when someone disagrees with something we believe, let’s not just automatically assume that the *other* person is the one with the problem.

            May God bless you!

          • Bro Steve

            I wanna go to your church. It has to be really Christian!!!!!

          • Ricard

            Fernando, your history is inaccurate. The first gun control laws were to block freed slaves from having access to firearms. Guns make men free. It is hard to enslave a people who can fight back.

          • Fernando Villegas

            “I have studied and researched it out and I live in the south.”

            Hey, what a coincidence, me too!

            I guess it’s possible for two people to both study and research history, and to live in the south, and come to different conclusions!

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Unfortunately there is left coast south and the right coast south. I am two states south of DC. Are you lower or closer to the left?

          • Fernando Villegas

            I’m in Texas.

          • Bro Steve

            Very well worded and true

          • backupbassguy

            Christian Marine Veteran. I can’t help focusing on one thing here and that is the knowledge of the issues of slavery. I take great issue with saying to anyone that trading one life of slavery for another is an improvement. One could argue that the Africans preferred a warlike culture where their valor and skill determined their fate to live or die rather than that of unquestioning obedience to a person who thought it was their divine right to own them, whether that person was benevolent or not. I am not going to check back to this thread so I guess I am not open to discussion, but also being a product of the south, a student of history and descendant of soldiers and leaders on both sides of the war between the states, I have weighed this out and I am in disagreement with you on these issues. Thanks for your intentional handling of history and not simply an emotional rant. And thanks for your service to this great country we call home.

          • Bro Steve

            Many things that are considered basic rights for adults are withheld from children until they are mature enough to handle them.

          • Fernando Villegas

            My point exactly!

            So, we see that rights are not inherently unlimited. In this case, we as a society recognize that it is in our best interest to limit the right to bear arms to those who are old enough to have the maturity to exercise that right responsibly.

      • Christian Marine Veteran

        Rights are absolute if they are God given and where there is freedom there are rights that are every bit as absolute as freedom itself.Nothing will change that. Rights in an open society are only as good as their guarantors. When the guarantors no longer guarantee our rights, the guarantor must be replaced for the perpetuity of our rights. Consider Oliver
        Cromwell that had a very powerful King Charles beheaded and Cromwell became Lord Protector of Britain. Why, religious issues. The people were outmanned and outweaponed
        and old Oliver Cromwell, helping the Christian people defeated the vastly rich and influential King of England. I can give you numerous citations of those who dared to take the
        rights of the people away, and the people prevailed.

        • Fernando Villegas

          I’ve never said anything about taking away rights. I support the Second Amendment, and I think that that and the others in the Bill of Rights should be protected.

          All I’m saying is that along with rights come *responsibilities*, and that is not an issue that is often discussed. We need to exercise rights in a responsible manner, and we need to hold accountable those who do not do so.

          Allow me another, less extreme example:

          Say I was a journalist and I printed a story about someone that I knew for a fact was untrue. Would my right to free speech defend me?

          Of course not! Any reasonable person would tell me, “You’re right to free speech does not give you the right to write knowingly something false about someone.” Translation: Rights have limits, and I’m out of bounds!

          In fact, there are laws in place to hold people like me accountable for not exercising my First Amendment right in a responsible manner. They are called libel laws. Think of it as speech control!

          All I’m saying is that if we recognize this to be the case with our First Amendment rights, why is it so hard for some to recognize this to be the case with our Second Amendment rights, as well?!

          • Pastor Doug

            Making laws only affects the people willing to obey those laws. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet Chicago holds the highest gun-related murder rate in the entire country. Change won’t come from people being dragged before a judge’s bench, no, change in our country is only going to come from people getting back on their knees before the Throne of a Holy God and begging in repentance for His Forgiveness. Any other change is “Forward” down the slippery slope of no return.
            God help us all.

          • Fernando Villegas

            “Making laws only affects the people willing to obey those laws.”

            By that logic, why have *any* laws at all then?

            “change in our country is only going to come from people getting back on
            their knees before the Throne of a Holy God and begging in repentance
            for His Forgiveness.”

            I agree completely. But are you trying to say that, therefore, we shouldn’t have *any* laws regulating guns? And if so, then again, why have *any* laws at all?

            Can you not see how your arguments are logically inconsistent?

          • Fernando Villegas

            That’s like saying, “Making laws that prohibit one from breaking into people’s houses and stealing their stuff only affects people willing to obey those laws.” So, should we then repeal those laws, as well?

      • Ben

        You know Fernando if i disagree with you i am advancing my political agenda;

        Isn’t this a from of witch graft. I disagree with you. wha is a responsible discussion? anything that goes your way.Ben

        • Fernando Villegas

          Ummm…I didn’t quite get that…could you reword that again a little more clearly?

        • Bro Steve


          • Fernando Villegas

            Did you understand what he said? Because, seriously, I have no idea.

    • Dr Shirley Lynn


    • sistert

      You’re absolutely right.

    • Tim Dixon

      that is so true mack the pulpit should not be preaching obama control but christ thru his love we have a great hope but sin will destroy this nation if we refuse to here the truth and turn to these fables lets all return to the word of GOD!

    • Rick McCoy

      amen brother

    • Raven

      Yeah, I agree, people need God, definitely. But not everyone knows Him. To say that a WEAPON, which only is made to INFLICT INJURY OR DEATH isn’t also a problem is to be completely ignorant. Don’t make guns an idol, bro. You can live with more restricted access to guns. Can you live with a bullet in your heart or a bullet in your skull?

  • John K

    These gun control discussions always stir the emotions don’t they? What I continue to not hear is sadness for the children slaughtered in Newtown. Christian and secular articles are no different. What do we do to honor God by protecting his children…nothing? Not proposing the answer, just posing the question. God help us!

    • Pastor Mike

      The sadness is in all of us. We are discussing the issue of gun control.

      • John K

        Would we be having this discussion were it not for Newtown?

        • notaboutus

          Of course we would be having this discussion. We have been talking about it for years. The political left has been looking for an opportunity like this to push their anti-2nd amendment bilge on our country. Wake up!

          • John K

            So the political left has been looking for the slaughter of 20 small children and 6 adults, just so they can push their anti- 2nd amendment bilge on us all? Is this really how Jesus Christ sees us all? My hope lies in my Savior, not in my AK-47!

          • notaboutus

            Jesus is loving and wants all to come to repentance, but He also was not afraid to call out the leadership of His day on their hypocrisy. Check out how He dealt with the Pharisees in Matthew 12:33-35.

            You posed a question at the start of this thread, but you did not answer it, so I’m asking you now to answer the original question you posed. How do you think we should best protect our children? If you want to do away with guns, then what is the alternative? You asked for God’s help, so how do you believe God is guiding you to protect your own children (if you have any)?

          • John K

            The best and only way to protect the futures of our children is to bring them up in a God honoring fashion. To live our lives as Christ would have us live our lives and pray that they follow our lead. Yes I have children and grandchildren that I love dearly. Not once have I said that we should all give up our rights to bear arms. I don’t have the answer any more than anyone does. All things earthly are temporary. Our goal as Christians is to disciple with love so as to lead others to Christ. How do gun rights help us in any way to witness to others? How will an assault rifle lead someone to salvation? I will continue to pray for God to put His hand in the middle of what is happening in our country. That is the only hope I have. Go back a little ways to Matthew 12:25.

    • notaboutus

      I am both saddened and angry, John K, at the senseless shootings of these innocent children, but the solution is not to avoid the topic of gun control. What we have in our country now is the unconscionable use of a tragedy to push a political agenda, which is to direct the attention away from really addressing and solving the problem of gun violence and instead trying to gut the 2nd amendment and take away guns from law abiding citizens.

  • Brent Enloe

    stricter gun laws are not going to stop gun murders. banning guns are not going to stop gun murders… this article is deceptive and misleading.

    a gun is not evil. the person using the gun to commit murder is evil… stop blaming an object that cannot be held responsible for its action. only a human is held responsible for their actions before the Lord…

    on another note, anyone remember what Hitler did when he was in office? he didn’t come in as a raging, lunatic politician… he came in exactly like Obama, using children to push first for gun registration, then gun confiscation, then gun prohibition. these are all small steps to push us closer and closer to what Revelation 13 describes… a lot of you should be prepared.

    • Pastor Mike

      Yeah, the press conference left me with a very cold chill. I really studied WWII and saw those news reels and then the aftermath of the millions killed in the camps.

  • Preacher

    I truly believe that this would have to be a very liberal minded group of evangelicals to have received this type of backing. Government is infringing to much and no one christian of non christian would have a desire to the people of America lose their basic rights as American citizens gun control is just the first step in imprisoning and then removal of Americans freedoms

    • Pastor Mike


  • ro

    I am a pastor in one of the most liberal areas of the country (western WA), and I can assure you the majority of “evangelical leaders” here do NOT want more “gun control” as is being defined by the lawmakers.

  • Pastor Carl

    I am a Christian…follower
    of Jesus, the Messiah, and an Ordained Minister. I was not polled.
    I did not even here of such a poll (the need of more gun legislation) for
    “Evangelical Leaders.” I would like to voice my opinion…You
    cannot legislate a “Pure Heart”; laws never work for criminals.
    We need less “Gun Free Zones!” We need more “Good
    Guys” carrying “Guns!” Bad guys don’t want to die, so they
    choose places where good guys with guns are least likely to be to present to commit
    their crimes. Weapons are a deterrent
    for bad guys!
    Who are these Evangelical Leaders that want more gun legislation? I would like to see them make a public statement if they are real and not fictional characters. I am sure that those who follow and support them would want to know the views of their Evangelical Leaders. Count me, a proud Christian American, who supports our Constitution and the Second Amendment, our Right to Bear Arms, which states, “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.” Proposed September 25, 1789; ratified December 15, 1791, I served in the USAF to defend our rights!

    The Constitution doesn’t limit caliber, ammunition, or quantities nor does it limit the size of the weapons that a citizen may own or what it can destroy. The right to bear arms had much more to do protection than hunting! God bless America! 2 Chronicles 7:14!

    Great Grace and Favor,
    Pastor Carl

    • Fernando Villegas

      Given that logic, then, do you believe private citizens have a right to own nuclear arms?

      • Pastor Mike

        OK, let’s go to the outrageous. Of course the common citizen should not own a nuclear weapon, an aircraft carrier, a bomber, etc. The common “minute man” of that era did not have cannons either. But, the city/town did and those men were able to access and use it if need be. The weapons they had were to be of “military quality” and were to be carried by those citizens. I have no problem with an AR style rifle and multiple round magazines along with pistol grips, lights, lasers, etc.

        • Fernando Villegas

          “Of course the common citizen should not own a nuclear weapon, an aircraft carrier, a bomber, etc.”

          The reason I went to the extreme is to demonstrate that there are limits to the Second Amendment, as you acknowledge. Just as there are limits to the First Amendment (the most common example being that we do not have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater). My question was most directly a response to Pastor Carl’s claim that “[t]he Constitution doesn’t limit caliber, ammunition, or quantities nor
          does it limit the size of the weapons that a citizen may own or what it
          can destroy.”

          Well, as you and I agree, there *are* limits. With every right, there are responsible limits, though that is rarely acknowledged by many. Somewhere before you reach the extremes, such as nuclear arms, there are limits. And that is the purpose for the discussion of gun control–so that we as a free and democratic society can come to a consensus as to where those limits are.

          So, I don’t know if we need more gun control. Perhaps enforcing current laws would be sufficient. Perhaps not. Certainly enforcing current laws should be a higher priority than it is. But all of this is part of a discussion that this country so desperately needs, but few actually actually want!

      • Donnie

        In fact my friend, we are governed by the people (private citizens) who do have nuclear arms. For someone who wants to point out falacies of false equivocation, you seem to abuse the same falacies pretty often.

        • Fernando Villegas

          The people who have access to nuclear arms do not have private ownership of them. That’s what I’m trying to say.

      • Pastor Carl

        Fernando, as long as the people are in control of the government we do not need to own nuclear weapons however, I always want the good guys to have the weapons. Our founding fathers understood that weaponry would progress and evolve. The reason that they didn’t limit the private citizen, in anyway, the “Right to keep and bear arms,” was so that they could always be in the position to protect themselves. A government out of control was definitely in their thinking! Why do you think that Puritans want to leave England. Go take another look at pure-history unrevised!

        • Fernando Villegas

          Well, what if, as some on here fear, the government were to “go rogue”? What if the government *does* go out of control?

          Why, then the government would have access to nuclear weapons, as well as access to tanks, battleships, fighter jets, etc. But, hey, we’d still have our guns, right?

          How do you like our odds in *that* scenario?

          If you want to take your argument of an unlimited right to bear arms to its logical conclusion, you have to accept that citizens should have the right to privately own nuclear arms. Unlimited means unlimited! Unlimited does *not* mean “unlimited, except for nuclear arms.” That, by definition, is *not* unlimited!

    • notaboutus

      Exactly right Pastor Carl.

  • Andy

    Never got my survey.

  • Mike

    Dear brothers, what part of “…shall not be infringed…” do you not understand? I am a pastor as well as a law enforcement chaplain. I carry a weapon at all times and will continue to do so. My Glock has a 15-round magazine. Now I’m supposed to load it with just 10 rounds so that you will feel safer? Taking weapons away from good people will not stop the hideous evil perpetrated by evil people. It will only make it easier for them to pull it off with less fear of consequences.

    • Pastor Mike

      I firmly agree with you. This is just a power grab for liberals who want to take away from the law abiding citizens. Thank you for your mlitary and law enforcement service. YOu have a difficult but rewarding service to God and the rest of us.

  • Fernando Villegas

    Some people here seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of a *survey*.

    Here’s a definition: “A sampling, or partial collection, of facts, figures, or opinions taken and used to approximate or indicate what a complete collection and analysis might reveal.”

    The key words here are “sampling” and “partial collection”.

    The results of the survey, obviously, do not reflect the opinion of every single evangelical leader in the US.

    More to the point, the survey–by definition–does not need to collect the opinion of every single evangelical leader in the US in order to be accurate. No need to wonder if your copy of the survey perhaps got lost in the mail!

    Now, this is not to say that the results of the survey are in fact accurate. I don’t know whether they are they are or not.

    But, this *is* to say that the results of the survey are not necessarily *inaccurate* simply because one does not like the results, or because “everyone I know”–a statistically insignificant sample–does not agree with the results.

    Really, unless one has actually seen the raw data and knows how to interpret it, one really can’t make a case for its accuracy or lack thereof.

    • notaboutus

      Why then go to the trouble of reporting a survey if it is not accurate? Seems to me, then, that perhaps an agenda is being pushed instead of reporting the truth.

      • Fernando Villegas

        How do you *know* that the survey is not accurate?

  • Voise crying in the wilderness

    Our End has already been written( REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST ) and just like the Scriptures say man will turn away from ALMIGHTY GOD and do what is right in his own eyes calling evil good and good evil.Example : A- Criminals have more rights than Police Officers. B- The Gov. has so many laws in effect now that they could use to put anyone they wish away. C-The real convict who deserves death gets life with food, shelter and meds paid for by YOU. D- The Gov. don’t care about saving babies so they make it legal for any female to get an ABORTION and DEMAND that YOU pay for it. BUT on the other side of the stage they will use awful tragedy like Sandy Hook and use hurting parents and gather children on the stage and pat them on the head while saying ,We want to do whatever it takes to save our kids—When what they really want is to( disarm America )and have TOTAL CONTROL with NO protest. Just remember–JESUS IS STILL IN CONTROL–Even when the CROWD said CRUCIFY HIM–HE WAS STILL IN CONTROL.GOD says if your not for ME you are against ME. (JOHN 3:16-17 ) Your free to choose . Are the Born Again Christians a minority now????? Is the Great Falling Away in progress????? One thing is for SURE,GOD’S WORD WILL BE FULLFILLED with or without man’s approval or LAWS

  • mrova

    First things first. Thank you Elliott for your service!

    Back to the article. Nobody asked me. Laws and more gun laws, nor to laws in general do absolutely nothing for the criminal. I know that many do not understand that, but they really don’t.
    When I was a teenager, it was (still is) against the law to purchase and use drugs. I did it anyway. WAIT! Let’s make it illegal to get! Let’s put them drug sellers and abusers in jail! Didn’t matter. Got ‘em anyway.
    Alcohol? It’s against the law. Can’t buy it under a certain age. Oh sure, just ask me. But don’t forget now, it’s against the law!

    And speaking of alcohol, it seems gun fatalities get the most news coverage. Children dying and anyone for that matter is just plain horrific – it really is. But the media does all it can to whip us folks, their emotion, they’re now in a panic about gun control, as if that will actually stop criminals. Some folks just don’t get it! But let the THOUSANDS DIE annually due to drunk driving – and let the MANY MORE THOUSANDS die as a direct result of using/abusing alcohol – and NO ONE, NO, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON calls for more alcohol control or a ban on alcohol, not even a ban on certain kinds nor certain brands. Not one! THOUSANDS MORE die as a result of this poison, but what? No ban?

    • Fernando Villegas

      So, based on your logic, would you then propose to eliminate all laws that regulate drugs and alcohol?

      • Christian Marine Veteran

        Fernando, what planet did you come from?

        • Fernando Villegas

          The same one as you did. We may disagree, but I don’t think there is a need for insults.

          I have tried to be as respectful as possible whenever I post. I’m only human, and therefore sometimes I fail at that. But if I do, simply point it out, and I think I have demonstrated that I am more than happy to apologize.

          Also, I thank you for your service to our country. As I mentioned to another veteran on this post, we owe you a debt that can never be repaid.

          I am especially humbled when I think about the fact that you risked your life so that people like me, who may disagree with you on certain issues, can have the freedom to express our views, as well! And so, even though we do disagree, I have nothing but the deepest respect and appreciation for you. God bless you!!

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Fernando, I apparently overlooked this comment, but it shouldn’t matter being as how we are from the same planet. As you know I too have demonstrated apologies but if you will notice my note to you here was two days ago. But that you took it as an insult, again I apologize. I also sincerely thank you for your tribute, many good marines died in the
            belief that our freedoms needed protection. The degree of dedication of not only them but of all the armed forces is immense and servitude was a pinnacle of achievement. Many veterans todays and for ages passed have been abused by our government when it came time to dole out the appropriate benefits waiting up to as many as eighteen years in some cases making appeals. These things seldom hit the government controlled news. Because of this many veyerans lives are destroyed, not to mention the lives of their family members who go through pain and uncertainty with them.The government presently shows it’s appreciation by placing veterans on a potential terrorist list with Homeland Security. Interestingly, veterans would be the first to defend our citizens in an internal offensive waged by a rogue government..The government has already accounted for this.As things develope you are likely to see developements against veterans in terms of news. Crazed veterans will become a more frequent topic, nationwide.
            The purpose is to build a general paranoia against veterans and may become a part of the national conversation on gun control.Mental illness is likely to be the vehicle that will be used.Enjoy your freedoms while they last. God bless you and yours.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Our comments are so spread out, it’s difficult to track the timing of each one! Further, I didn’t follow this board too closely over the weekend, so most everything that you posted over the last two days, I read it just today.

            Suffice it to say, however, that I think both you and I have been able to state our perspectives as well as can be expected on this type of forum. And I imagine we probably agree on much more than it may have looked like initially. I think it is time for me to move on.

            I have enjoyed our conversation. And, again, I thank you for your service to our country. I’m sorry that our government has not treated you and others like you as you have deserved; and I imagine if I had walked in your shoes, I’d obviously understood your viewpoint more clearly. As I’m sure had you walked in my shoes, you’d have better understood mine.

            I guess, at the end of the day, the best we can do is have patience with each other, really listen to each other, empathize with each other, and remember that we as American have much more in common than what divides us!

            Blessings to you!

          • Christian Marine Veteran

            Blessings to you Fernando. I salute you, over and out!

    • Pastor Mike

      What is even scarier is the move to legalize all sorts of drugs. I work in health care and the reality of “medical marijuana” is wrong. To alleviate pain, suffering, nausea, glaucoma, etc. that is claimed for marijuana (from flawed biased studies) has no real basis in real science. It is a deception to make people feel sorry for those who want their brains numb.

  • Dr Shirley Lynn

    It is not the GUNS it is the HEART and I do not hear screaming about the millions we kill every year. We are so lost!! We need a heart change and guns will not solve the problems!

  • Citizen g

    Bad guys will never ever follow the rules.

  • Pastor Dave Deppisch

    What a crock– and if this survey had an ounce of truth– if it does that is– then no wonder Christianity in America is on the down slope thanks to a bunch of mamby pamby Lilly livered knee jerk bleeding heart liberal so called Christians. Grown a spine jellyfish!
    God gave America freedom and liberty not to be sold back into the bondage of socialism or communism or secular humanism.
    Notice the writer and respondents in the article never said anything about the violence of abortion which kills more children than guns, bombs, hammers, nukes, drunk drivers, etc. etc. etc…. and cheapens the sanctity of life.

  • Pastor B.

    Just like any other survey the numbers are flawed and cooked to read what the authors want them to read. No human life should ever be lost except to protect yourself or that of another. Taking a life is the last thing a normal and sane person would do under normal circumstances. Gun control is a false position for others, especially politicians to take away our personal freedoms and we loose more each day. The evangelicals are foolish and ignorant if they believe gun control is the answer. There are a number of things in play here, most of all our freedom and safety. Criminals and those with mental problems should never be allowed to have a weapon of any king, how do we do this correctly? That alone is the big problem. Protect our Constitutional rights and freedoms, all freedoms while we still have them. I am a pastor who believes in our Right to Bear Arms and a Patriot of our Great Nation. I leave it in God’s hands to guide this falsely misled nation. Praise God.
    One Pastor’s Opinion

  • Ronoutdoors

    No one surveyed me, and I’m not for gun control. When they outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.

  • David Miller

    Presidents and CEOs of denominations? Where’s the Pastors of these churches stand? Or the people in the pews?

  • notaboutus

    I am not a gun owner (and that may change now), but if the percentages in this article are to be believed, I would count myself as part of the 27% that do not support increased gun regulations and further believe that the other 73% who support more gun control are simply wrong. Gun regulations do not work, have never worked, and will not prevent future crimes. Criminals will always be able to get guns no matter how many gun laws we have and states like Connecticut (and now New York) that have the strictest gun laws also see the highest levels of gun crime.

    The only permanent solution is spiritual renewal as this article suggests, but as we all know, we live in a broken and fallen world where sin is rampant and evil people take lives with guns. I’m fairly certain that we are going to see more mass shootings down the road from deranged and delusional individuals, so to me it seems that we should have a better system of identifying these people through stricter background checks. However, taking guns away from law abiding people or restricting how much ammunition can be purchased for each gun is unconstitutional and will just make things worse as criminals will then know for certain that their victims will be unprotected. When are we as a country ever going to learn this lesson?

    Had the teachers in Connecticut been allowed to carry guns or had their been a presence of armed guards at the school, perhaps many lives could have been spared. Interesting to me that in the midst of the latest liberal push to get rid of guns and gut the 2nd amendment that most people want armed guards in schools.

    I think that carry and conceal should be the law of the land and let the criminals beware for a change.

    • Fernando Villegas

      “Had the teachers in Connecticut been allowed to carry guns or had their
      been a presence of armed guards at the school, perhaps many lives could
      have been spared.”


      Perhaps many *more* lives would’ve been lost. Who’s to say that in the heat of the moment, these armed teachers would not have shot innocent bystanders by accident? Guns are not cameras. It’s not as simple as, “Point at the bad guy and shoot.”

      Beware of unintended consequences. Were “carry and conceal” to be the law of the land, can you be sure that innocent lives would not be caught in the crossfire?

      • notaboutus

        We’ll never know now, will we Fernando? I would have no problem arming teachers in the schools who have a vested interest in the protection of the children they teach as well as their colleagues. I trust them to do the right thing – not the politicians who supposedly have our best interests in mind by seeking to disarm us.

        • Fernando Villegas

          No, nor can we ever know that if the teachers in Connecticut had been armed, many lives could’ve been spared. That’s why I said, “Or”. Both possibilities are, ultimately, pure speculation.

          And it’s not about not trusting teachers to do the right thing. That is a silly argument. Of course, teachers are going to *want* to do the right thing!

          But they are *teachers*. They are *not* security experts, and I happen to think it is unreasonable to expect them to carry that additional responsibility. I know teachers, and I know that most of them have plenty on their plates already without them having to add “amateur armed guard” to their already-long list of roles!

          • notaboutus

            I firmly agree with what Christian Marine Veteran has said in the several replies to your posts.

            The truly silly part of the whole gun argument is in the liberals continual efforts in trying to restrict them from law abiding citizens.

            I know a lot of teachers as well, and your argument that teachers wouldn’t be willing to take on the important responsibility of protecting themselves and their students is ludicrous – especially in light of the continuing gun violence that is rampant in the schools. I am not a teacher, but if I were, I would feel a lot safer with a gun in my possession and would be more than willing to use it if absolutely necessary. This is simple common sense. Stop muddying the waters.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Dude, if you’re going to keep replying to me, you’re going to need to start *reading* what I say, not just scanning it.

            Here’s what you wrote: “your argument that teachers wouldn’t be willing to take on the important responsibility of protecting themselves and their students is ludicrous.”

            Here’s what I actually wrote: “Of course, teachers are going to *want* to do the right thing!”

            Do you see how what you wrote is the opposite of what *I* wrote?

            It’s like me saying, “The sky is blue,” and you responding by saying, “Your argument that the sky is green is ludicrous!”

            You’re the one muddying up the waters by responding to things I’ve never said!

            So, again, to make it *very clear* to you, I do not believe that teachers would not be willing to take the responsibility of protecting their students by being armed.

            What I’m saying is that it is unfair of society to place that added burden upon them! They are *teachers*, and that should be their focus. They are *not* professional armed guards, and it is unreasonable for us to expect them to be so.

            As an illustration: My three year old son may be willing to carry a heavy suitcase for me, but if I know that he is not strong enough to carry it, it is unreasonable of me to expect him to do so, not matter how “willing” he may be.

            Another point…

            You wrote: “if I were [a teacher], I would feel a lot safer with a gun in my possession.” Is it possible that this would merely be a false sense of security?

            And if you were put in position where you had to use the gun, can you *guarantee* that you would not miss the shooter and accidentally hit an innocent bystander instead?

          • notaboutus

            I have fully read and understood what you have written not only in response to me but others as well (I especially like Christian Marine Veteran’s comments) and while we may agree on some parts of the gun control argument, we simply disagree on the substance of this argument as it pertains to arming teachers in schools.

            I never said that teachers should be “professional armed guards”. I am simply making that point that teachers should be allowed to carry guns and use them if necessary in order to protect themselves and their students.

            You talk about placing unrealistic expectations on our teachers. Well, you could say this about a lot of professions Fernando. There are lots of things we shouldn’t be expected to do, but we do them because we are trying to make responsible and sensible choices not only for ourselves, but also for our families and those around us as well.

            The world has changed a lot and things that were almost unheard of in generations past (such as mass shootings in schools) are now becoming fairly commonplace. I contend that it is not because of the availability of guns. Rather, it is due to the moral breakdown and systematic elimination of God from just about every element of our society. That discussion is for another day since we’re talking about gun control, but you get the point.

            With the exception of promises made in scripture, nothing is guaranteed in this life and I certainly entertain no notions of a “…false sense of security” in any way. We can’t even guarantee that we will take another breath and certainly no one can guarantee when they use a gun can that it will hit the intended target every single time. However, were the situation to arise where I would have to use a gun in the protection of myself and/or others, I’d take my chances that the training I would have received on how to properly use the gun would give me a far better chance than not of success against the intended individual(s).

            The bottom line for me is that teachers should have the choice of whether or not they want to protect themselves with guns and they shouldn’t be told by a bunch of government bureaucrats that they can’t. This is why the 2nd amendment is so important to me and why it needs to be protected from misguided, liberal politicians who are constructing more “feel-good” gun laws that do absolutely nothing to deal with the root causes of gun violence.

          • Fernando Villegas

            “I have fully read and understood what you have written.”

            How is that possible, when you claimed that I was in favor of more gun control, even though I’ve never made such a claim?

            How is that possible, when you claimed that I didn’t believe teachers would be willing to carry weapons in order to protect their students, even though I said the *exact* *opposite* *thing*?!

            Believe me. I know what I’ve written, and I know what I’ve meant to communicate. And there is *a lot* of what I’ve written that you have not understood at all.

            Now, let’s focus on this specific argument, arming teachers in schools:

            I recognize that you’ve never said that teachers should be professional armed guards. All *I’m* saying is that because teachers aren’t professional armed guards, I’m not sure it’s such a good idea to have them serve in that capacity.

            “[T]eachers should have the choice of whether or not they want to protect themselves with guns.” Fair enough. I’m not going to disagree with that specific point. I think that’s a legitimate discussion worth having.

            I will say that there is a difference between teachers having the choice of carrying guns while at school on the one hand, and “arming” all teachers in schools on the other hand. Most of what I’ve written on this thread is in response to the latter argument. If you have been making the former argument (giving teachers a choice) and not the latter one (arming all teachers), then I stand corrected, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you have been making both arguments, my response to the latter one stands.

            And just to be clear (again), I do support the Second Amendment and agree it should be protected, as should all of the others in the Bill of Rights.

          • notaboutus

            I think we’re talking in circles now and not getting anywhere, so i’ll try one last time to clarify my point of view on your latest response.

            I do think armed guards are a great idea in schools considering the time in which we live and recent polling is showing that this idea is gaining steam (much to the consternation of the president and liberal politicians, I would add). My child’s school has an armed guard and it is working just fine. It would not surprise me to see this happening in more and more schools down the road.

            I also think there’s nothing wrong with teachers being armed as well, but it should be their choice to do so as I stated before. Herein lies my concern and aggravation with the entire gun control argument in that politicians are seeking to take away the choice of whether or not we can own guns because they think they know better than we do how to protect ourselves.

            No one should be forced to either carry a gun or not carry a gun. It should be left up to the individual to make that decision because it is a constitutional right that all Americans have under the 2nd amendment (assuming the background check is satisfactory). Glad to hear that you agree that the 2nd amendment should be protected.

            I hope this clears things up. I know we disagree on other parts of the overall gun control argument, but i’ve enjoyed the discussion. May God bless you Fernando.

          • Fernando Villegas

            Fair enough, you’ve got a legitimate point. Just be careful with how you word things, though, because giving teachers a choice to carry guns and arming teachers are two different things.

            “Glad to hear that you agree that the 2nd amendment should be protected.”

            *Now* do you see why I said that you weren’t understanding a lot of what I was writing? I’ve only been saying exactly that for several days, now, and you’re just now recognizing it?

            It’s time for me to move on. It wish you the best.

      • Tod Thompson

        Where have you been? Conceal carry or open carry is the law in most states these days. I have yet to see the dire consequences. In fact, the same President and Congress who say it’s a bad idea send their kids to private schools that employ armed guards. The President’s kids have Secret Service on top of this. They should practice what they preach.

        • Fernando Villegas

          Do you really expect teachers to attain the same level of training as the Secret Service or professional armed guards?

        • notaboutus

          Exactly right Tod.

  • Donnie

    Its such a boring and pedestrian argument that most of us are weary of defending our God given rights as Americans. I dont care what a few “evangelical” pastors have to say about the 2nd Amendment and its pretty clear after reading the comments here, that my opinion is shared by many. I am a Christian AND i am an American! I place my ultimate hope in Christ but as an American I must understand that this government which is by the people, and the liberties it provides, hinges upon my diligence towards promoting and protecting its most valuable ideals.It is well known to those of us who love our country for what it has historically represented, that the military, the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, nor the whims of an emotional majority will protect liberty. We, the people, are the protectors of liberty from those more corruptible powers. Cultures are fallen and fickle, a military and its leaders can not be trusted, and elected leaders become power-driven dictators if they are not held in check by a well-armed and diligent citizenship. The checks and balances which are built into our great Constitutional Republic do not end with the people, they begin there. We hold our elected officials accountable first with the vote, next with our right to protest, finally at the end of a gun.George Washington called the 2nd Amendment the teeth of the Constitution and we are right to be skeptical of any attempt to dismantle it. It has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. That is a deflection of the argument. It has only to do with the phrase in the Declaration of Independence declaring our right to abolish any government which is destructive of our God given rights. Why dont people understand that these days?

    Unfortunately, the ideals which serve as the foundation and enduring support of that liberty have been lost. Morality has faded into relativism and the God Who endowed us with inalienable rights has been replaced with the idolatry of a security which government can provide. Let me ask you, if a young man comes to the realization that he is only the product of natural selection, he has no ultimate purpose, and there is no such thing as right and wrong other than that which he desires, why not kill, steal, and plunder? When our young people see dead children on the news and realize that there is actually no intrinsic value which can be placed on human life, why should they care? Finally, if the folks who claim to have the alternate answer to Darwinian naturalism and post-modern relativism, and stand opposed to the forces of evil are too busy infighting and too afraid of loosing their tax free status to preach the truth, why should anyone perceive we have the answer? Liberty fades in the evaporating vapor of holiness. We must hold on to our liberty but it will be like grasping at the wind if we do not rebuild its foundation constantly with each generation.

  • Cheryl

    remember Germany

  • Pastor Rick

    Let this person say, I do not agree with or want more gun control, it is not now, nor has it ever been shown to be an effective answer, but it is an infringement on the Second Amendment.

  • Kiley Sekulich

    Any argument that gun control works is easily disproved by Chicago. Strictest gun laws in the nation and almost 2400 shootings last year. There is also Washington, D.C. to consider. 30 years as the murder capitol and the year they remove the handgun ban they have their lowest murder rate since the 70’s. The problem is everyone is focusing on getting gun violence down rather than getting violence down in general. The violence problem lies with the people, not their weapon of choice.

    As far as the proposed gun laws not breaching the 2nd amendment is concerned, all of them are unconstitutional. The bill of rights was written and ratified in order to restrict the government from infringing on rights that the founding fathers considered to be God-given. The 2nd and 10th amendment make all federal restrictions on gun ownership illegal. If we start with so called “assault weapons”, where do we stop? Right now the only difference between “assault weapons” and any other semi automatic firearm is the scary looking stock.

  • wordman

    I really don’t know who was surveyed but i believe the government need to leave the guns alone. They take the guns first then they will try to take the bibles. Please remember that as they try to take our freedoms it will destroy america. This appear to be a real problem and we must not allow our freedoms to be taken


    Secular law discredits the moral guidance, commands and demands of God. While it is true many ‘christian’ follow the instruction of Jesus in “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword”, if they looked closer, and in earlier warning that same day, Jesus made sure that, to the point all His apostles had swords.
    The First Century Roman sword was the most efficient and lethal personal defense weapon in the world. Designed to kill swiftly and efficiently…and Jesus commanded His disciples to buy and carry, at least one a piece!(Luke 22:36)
    Jesus had so plainly commanded EACH MAN to arm himself, and was so emphatic of this command, that He told them if they could not afford to purchase a sword they were instructed to sell their clothes if necessary and buy one! ‘Living’ by the sword, was pure and simply Jesus telling them those that lived it stealing and hurting by means of the sword, murderers, rapists, molesters, thieves and personal gain, their actions would bring death and judgement, in this world, and in final judgement.
    In case anyone, of true value in real restitution, the government would be putting murderers, rapists and molesters to death…but it’s not about getting criminals off the streets or restitution for crimes and criminals, in is a power play to take away rights of protection, which Jesus even warned would happen, and many clergy today, are not of Biblical standing, and their words and actions prove that.
    Jesus said, “My people parish from lack of knowledge”…That is pretty obvious, in many pulpits and pews today alone.

  • Mar Komus

    “My kingdom is not of this world…”

  • Fernando Villegas

    To those who have been following some of my posts, allow me to offer some clarifications:

    I have argued that there is no Biblical right to bear arms, that descriptive passages from Scripture showing God’s people using weapons–even at God’s command–do not translate to a universal right to bear arms.

    This does *not* mean that I believe the use of weapons to be *unbiblical*.

    My own *personal* convictions, informed by Scripture, tend to lead me towards pacifism, although I am not a “pure” pacifist. But I have no desire whatsoever to impose those convictions on society as a whole.

    I recognize the right of a secular government to use armed force where necessary and appropriate. I do not expect a government who represents a wide variety of beliefs to impose on everyone the Biblical principle of “turning the other cheek!”

    And while I, personally, choose not to exercise my Second Amendment right, I do not condemn any Christian who *does* choose to exercise that right and who feels no conviction against exercising that right.

    My original point, in reply to the very first comment on this thread a few days ago, was simply: if there is no Biblical right to bear arms, then the Christian Church is under no obligation to try to defend or uphold such a right. But I respect those Christians who do so as private citizens.

    There are a lot of more important issues that *are* supported by Scripture, and these are the issues the Christian Church should focus on. I fear that a focus on upholding a right that does not appear in Scripture may distract us from the more important things God would have us do.

  • Rick McCoy

    Absolutely the stupidist and the most fraudilent thing you all have ever printed. I guarrantee more than 73% of evangelical leaders DON”T agree with this article. I never got my survey. Anyone else?

    • Tod Thompson

      The definition of “Evangelical” is pretty loose these days.

  • Julio Rodriguez

    Thi know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come, the worse is yet to come,and no amount of Gun Control is going to help! because evil people will become more evil, the problem is not the weapons but the evil people behing the weapons, the evil heart, of a Person, this is the problem, and only God can change the heart, if Man will ask,

  • George Carpenter

    I was never polled or asked my opinion about gun control. More gun control is certainly NOT the answer to the problem!

  • Josh G.

    Almost 100 comments on this article, yet ones on theological or pastoral issues get maybe one or two.

    I’m not a passifist, but please pastors, accurately represent Jesus in all things with your words & lives. Your allegiance is to Him alone, not a country or so-called right to bear arms. Frankly, that’s idolatry & many of you need to repent for caring more about this issue than the thousands of people dying every day in your country without knowing Christ or the salvation He gives.

    • Tod Thompson

      I largely agree with what you say, so don’t take this as a criticism, but I believe we can be loyal to Christ and also be loyal Americans and say the pledge. I believe we can revere the word of God and yet also admire the Constitution. We can share Christ with others and yet still take stands on issues like abortion, gun control, and imminent domain as private citizens. But as I said, I believe your warning about priorities is a good one.

  • Kenny

    Whoever did the polling to represent evangelicals forgot to poll the base. This article reeks in that it offers the view of a few people who are evidently not in the grass roots and who are out of touch. Too many people are dying because of guns, but are we so ignorant to think that the gun is reason for all these deaths?

    Have we gotten so idealistic that we think we can legislate evil away? How did God do with making a bunch of laws in the Old Testament? It didn’t work for Him, not because the laws were bad, but because the people failed in obedience, and the people failed in carrying out the punishment. Laws will guide us, but those who want to break the law will still do it.

    Let’s not forget the agenda of the liberals. Yes, I will bring up the topic of this socialistic president. He want to control the people. Give up your guns and we will be subject to the government no matter what they decide to do. Am I advocating violence? NO, but you can slap me around and I will try and stay calm. Slap my family around, and you have just kicked a sleeping bear. We have our guns for a reason, and it is to protect ourselves. It is given to us in the constitution written by men who feared God. These same men feared tyrants who would attempt to take away their freedoms and life. That is why they gave us the right to have our guns, and they did not limit the size or number of guns.

    Guns are not the problem. Let’s get our law and system of punishment in order and we will curb these killings. Media, stop glorifying killings. Judges and legislatures, let’s use the death penalty and speed up the justice system. Don’t be fooled by this president. He is out to control you.

  • Micky

    There should not be laws requiring mental health exams or the gov’t deciding if I can bear arms before purchasing a gun. A simple background check is all that is needed. Mental Health exams are going too far. We must be careful in how much power we give the gov’t to come into our lives. The framers knew the importance of gov’t staying out of our lives. Just watch Europe, China and other nations as more and more of gov’t came into their lives how much freedom they have. Religious freedom is part of that loss when gov’t enters too much in our lives. Americans have always had guns. So, what has changed? Something else has changed in our society that is shaping crazy people doing crazy, horrific acts. That needs to be changed. What do you suppose that was? Could it be when the gov’t came in and started telling us no prayer, no Nativity, no Christian faith in the schools or public marketplace of our society?

  • GregR

    Shouldn’t Christian leaders get their guidance from God and His Word? Did He tell us evil deeds are caused by weapons or the devil? If you believe gun control is the answer back it up with Scripture. When we focus on the weapon used we miss the root cause. We need to stop following the world’s lead and follow God’s lead. Focusing on the weapon used is just a distraction and will change nothing, we need to focus on fighting the evil just like He told us to do.

  • Pastor Tim

    Any effort to support gun control and try to elaberate on it, muddies the water and we have trouble seeing the real problem. Not only control guns but soon eliminate them. Then the next thing on the list eliminate our freedom to worship, and dont think that wont happen people all over this country have been trying to eliminate God from our lives and culture for years. As been mentioned by another the problem is deeper, so lets look beyond the surface and look at violent vidio games, TV shows that promote killing, and lets not forgrt the media that thrives on spreading these horable crimes in order to make a buck under the speech and a crazy idea that people want and need to know all about them. I think not. We must pray for this Nation and it leaders, they need the help of the risen Savior Jesus Christ.

  • Fred

    Since Newtown over 1000 people have died from gun violence – not from the government taking their freedom nor from the 2nd amendment being changed. No, it is from people being able to access a lethal killing tool. I’m always amazed at how people, and shockingly pastors, are more worried about their right to bear arms than in saving lives. The article may or may not be accurate but if we love life above rights then how wouldn’t the energy put into hanging on to rights be put into saving lives? I’m simply astounded at the lack of rationale comments. May God save us from ourselves.

    • Half_the_Man_I_Used_to_Be

      What’s the murder rate in Chicago and Mexico, where gun control is very strong?

      What’s the murder rate in Apostate Utah, where there are lots of guns and almost no real Christians?

  • Tom

    I just want to remind people, who apparently have forgotten……Tiennemen Square, in China. We watched what happens to a people, when they have nothing to protect themselves from government.

  • rcarfam

    I think this poll is SO not true! This is completly NOT what they would hear if the poll was taken in my town! Or any town other than a big city in America! Who done this poll and share the info?…

  • Ted

    Disagree, guns are not the problem. Guns don’t cause crime anymore than flies cause garbage. Criminals that use guns don’t follow the law anyway, why do people think they will if guns are outlawed?

  • Pastor Van

    Gun control is no more of an answer to senseless murder than spoon control is the answer to obesity! They shall fool even the elect!

  • Pastor Rich

    I am curious what the questions in this survey were, and what was the sampling. A capable surveyer can get any result they desire from a well worded survey. I looked at a “pro second ammendment” survey. I support the second ammendment, however, the question asked If I agreed that “the government should not infrenge on the rights of ANY citizen to own a firearm”. Note the word Any, If I agree with the statement, then I am saying that government should not keep violent criminals from firearms. If I disagree it can be said that I favor government regulation on all citizens. Both are incorrect statements. Surveys like this are inherently flawed and can project a false view of feelings. I am an Evangelical Pastor who served in the military for over 20 years. I live in a rural area in the eastern US and I can tell you for certain that 78% of the evangelical ministers here do not support more “Gun Control” . In addition, it is foolish to ban a Semi Automatic weapon just because of it’s appearance. Automatic Weapons were regulated many years ago and require background checks and a class 3 license. These are foolish restrictions based on what a weapon looks like. I have a shotgun, it has 2 stock options, one with a pistol grip, one without. The pistol grip makes it a “assault weapon”, this is how foolish these new proposals are. The problem in America is spiritual. The heart of America is flawed. And as ministers we are called to minister the the hearts and lives of people, that is where true change can be made.
    Finally, I personally object to Church Leadership publishing this article. I come on here to fead about ministry, not politics. I am extremely disappointed in this article and what it implies.

  • shane

    If you read the ideas of are founding fathers; they believed the citizens should have access to the same weapons the goverment does. How do you protect youself aganist a goverment that becomes hostile if you don’t have the means. In saying this, i pearsonally don’t want a tank or warhead, but any argument in favor of 2nd amnd. legislation is a stripping of our rights. Once rights begin to diminish, there is no stopping it. This is an important issue. Even if you are not pro gun…fight this with prayer and your “we the people” voice. Just my two cents. God Bless.

  • jrieds

    This quote in the article best describes the real problem. “We have a spiritual need in our country that will not be solved by emotionally initiated gun laws.” Focusing on gun laws is the primary solution our secular country has to offer. The solution is to get back to the Biblical principles this country was founded on.



    • Half_the_Man_I_Used_to_Be

      Can we ban the Caps Lock key?

  • david

    WHY dont these same leaders form a ALLEGIANCE and FORUM and sign a petition and COME OUT and make a PUBLIC STATEMENT! Their unsounded objection is powerless.

  • Jake

    Agree with the heart of wanting to protect the innocent. Background screen people to death, but don’t give up the freedom to own powerful weapons for those who are sane. However, I do not agree with the idea of giving the government more potentially tyranical control. It’s hard to protect yourself from potential governmental corruption when you’ve given them your leverage… I don’t think the founding fathers would have agreed with this. It’s too close to what our ancestors ran from. But I suppose the American ideals must die off a bit eventually before the end comes, it just depends on what side of gravity you want to be on.

  • Ben

    what about the 50million Babies that have been slaughter by trained assassins our doctors

    shouldn’t we out law scalpels. Mack Neff Amen. Ben

  • rhough

    I am not one who sees need for more laws… enforcement of the ones we have will be fine with me. The point of the Constitution is the response of self-governing people. I believe, for many, we have moved beyond being self governing. In this letter Adams declares point blank that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Let’s work on building one another up, then we will not see us tearing each other down. I do believe our commander and chief is purposely being divisive on this issue as well as most others which is not helping.

  • Gamer_Czar

    What makes you think that making a law is going to stop a crime from happening? We have laws against driving under the influence, stealing, rape, and murder, so why do those crimes still keep happening? If you make a law that keeps law-abiding people from having guns, do you think that will keep a non-law-abiding person from getting and using them? If someone wants to kill someone and doesn’t have a gun, then they will use something else. It is called evil. I am against laws that limit my ability to protect myself and my family from evil.

  • Bro Steve

    The only ones surveyed were the episcopal (no caps deliberate) pastors. They are for anything Obama (no caps deliberate) and the dumbocrats say

  • Edwin Valentin, Rev.

    I’m surprised and I disagree totally with the information in this article. Its anti-constitutional and not Biblical. Also its in line with the intentions of the far Left and purpose of United Nations to ban all weapons in America and only The Arm Forces to have weapons. If The First Amendment is vital to our way of life in America, so is the Second.
    Rev. Edwin Valentin

  • Fabio Sekoff

    Something is wrong with most of Evangelical leaders if they agree on suppressing the second amendment and that’s how the first amendment and God and the Bible is out of the Schools and the main stream because of so called Christian leaders, they know what’s really wrong with all the mass shooters and are afraid to address the problem directly because they know they have to oppose the Government and Education System and the Elite with their indulgences towards medicating and indoctrinating young and poor people starting with kids on Ritalin and unlimited access to Medicaid and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

  • Cbt_Engr

    The big problem with this entire article is that the majority of the people who are part of NAE are very liberal, both religiously and politically. The NAE, as an organization, works hard at being deceptive as to who they include in membership and what they really believe and practice. I was once involved in a denomination that is part of NAE. When we found out what NAE was really like, we left that denomination. I’ve personally met and talked with some of them, including Bill Hammel, mentioned above. They are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. So, it doesn’t surprise me at all that the majority of them are in favor of gun control. I would have expected the percentage to be much higher. They do not represent genuine, Biblical Christianity. Period. Anyone with brain cells that actually work already knows that the lack of enough gun control is not the problem and more gun control is not the solution. The problem is directly related to the lack of morality and integrity in our nation. So, the liberal idea is to blame and punish the honest, moral, hard-working citizens for the evil deeds of the dirtbags in our society. Like Sam Elliot said, that’s a special kind of stupid!


WATCH: Tom McDaniels: Death Words

“God has spoken life over you and not death over you.”