Christians and Guns

In this article, Carlo Stagnaro elucidates the morality of personal and collective self-defense, from a Roman Catholic perspective. He argues that the Bible, Christian tradition, and the example of Saints all support the right and duty of self-defense. Carlo Stagnaro is Fellow of International Policy Network (which is based in London), and is co-editor of the Italian libertarian magazine Enclave. In 2003 he was awarded the St. Gabriel Possenti Society Honor Medallion.

Christians and Guns

by Carlo Stagnaro article link

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.” (Matthew 10: 34)

“Hence it is evident that virtues perfect us so that we follow in due manner our natural inclinations, which belong to the natural right. Wherefore to every definite natural inclination there corresponds a special virtue. Now there is a special inclination of nature to remove harm, for which reason animals have the irascible power distinct from the concupiscible. Man resists harm by defending himself against wrongs, lest they be inflicted on him, or he avenges those which have already been inflicted on him, with the intention, not of harming, but of removing the harm done.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 108, 2)

I. INTRODUCTION

Many Christians believe that the faith in Jesus is incompatible with the use of lethal force, either for defensive or aggressive purposes. They also claim war is always wrong, and peace is a value in itself. Generally speaking, they condemn any form of reaction to aggression, both in the private (self defense) and the public (just war) sector. They also would make the use of guns by private citizens illegal, and usually support any form of gun control or even a ban on privately owned handguns. Finally, they believe guns are evil in themselves, no matter who the owner is, what her or his intentions are, and why she or he owns a gun.

In this Article I address the question of whether a Christian has the moral right to keep and bear arms and to use them for self defense. First of all, I briefly examine the Scriptures in order to find God’s and Christ’s statements concerning weapons. Then, I look at the Christian tradition, especially Roman Catholic tradition.

I do not make any utilitarian argument. My goal is not to show that freedom to own guns, as opposed to gun control, works. Rather, I make a moral case for private gun ownership. My main points will be the following:

Self defense is legitimate in the eyes of God, since it is a way to protect His gifts, including life, liberty, and property, against predators. Self defense is an individual’s right in general, but in particular cases it may even be a duty—when, for example, one is responsible for someone else’s life, liberty, and property. The same criteria by which it is possible to define individual self defense apply to a broader context—that is, “just war.”

One should recognize that violence does exist. Regardless of what Christians think or do, violence is a feature of human nature. And criminals, aggressors, and tyrants exist as well. So, asking whether self defense is legitimate is equal to asking what behavior Christians should adopt when faced with such violent types as criminals, aggressors, and tyrants.

Why does violence exist? Because of original sin. As a sinner, man can sometimes commit unjust acts. The first question, then, is whether sin depends on man, or if it depends on environment, so to speak. If the right answer is the latter, then gun control might be a sound, rational way to minimize the effects of aggressive violence, leave aside eliminating it. Unfortunately, as Andrew Sandlin puts it, “elimination of guns does not guarantee the elimination of the problems gun control supposedly solves. The problem is not six-shooters; the problem is sinners. Eliminating guns won’t solve that problem...The proximate (civil) solution to gun-related violence is stiffer (biblical) penalties for harming humans and property—whether by guns, knives, axes, spray paint, or computers. The ultimate solution to gun-related violence is the transformation of individuals by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”[i]

The Italian political scientist Gianfranco Miglio agreed on this, within a broader argument about the growth of government. His point was that certain Christians have lost the concept of sin (especially original sin), and therefore they tend to postulate no personal responsibility in crime:

“I can’t suffer, or understand, the ‘social Catholics.’ They seem to teach God how He should have made humans. They don’t admit men’s evilness: to them, the culprit is ‘the society’...They hate America, the free-market, the whole West that has been created by Christianity.”[ii] He added:

[R]adical democracy’s Christianity is to a certain extent merely formal: because here political postulates seem to be separated from the religious premises which generated them, and while the former are taken in, the latter are refused...And the largest most important principle, which was arbitrarily pulled away from the body of Christian politics, was the theory of sin. That—as surely more than one reader does already know—is not an arid topic of moral theology, but rather the precious premise of a realistic and, at the same time, refined interpretation of human nature and its free, eternal swinging between good and evil.[iii]

So, men can freely choose evil, and even be pleased with it. Evil is not merely a consequence of environment (or “things”), but a choice; it is inherent in the human soul—the “dark side of humanity” so to speak—and we will never be able to get rid of it, because we are made of good and evil. Eliminating the latter is not possible without eliminating the former—that is, destroying ourselves.

Neither God the Father nor Christ ever said that sin is about things. They, as well as all, the Saints, always pointed out that sin—and therefore Salvation—concerns what one does by virtue of one’s own free decisions, that is by one’s own will. Are people strong enough to own guns, and use them only for legitimate purposes? That is the problem. After all, there is no virtue in not committing a sin because you were forced to act in such a way. There is no virtue in not robbing what you cannot rob, and no virtue in not doing what it is impossible for you to do.

Moreover, if one believes in God, one also must believe there are some values of a superior order. One must believe that Truth (in capital letters) does exist, and that it is worthy fighting for, and even dying for. On the other hand, if one believes peace or non-violence is more important than Truth, one necessarily can not hold that Truth is really true. Therefore, one’s faith in God seems weaker than it should be.

One point should be made: My specific task in this essay is to deal with the question of whether a Christian has a right to keep and bear arms and, more generally, to defend himself or others against aggressive violence. However, I will often quote the theory of “just war.” The reason is that, until recently self-defense was held as an obvious prerogative of free individuals, including Christians. So much more speculation was dedicated to the harder problem of war than to the simpler issue of self-defense. Anyway, from the theory of just war it is possible to infer a theory of self-defense, while it would not be possible to reason the other way around.

In fact, when one recognizes a right of a community (say, to wage war), one must necessarily recognize that same right of individuals, because a community is no more than a sum of individuals, and communitarian rights are no more than the sum of individual rights within the community. For example, one may stand for private production of domestic security and foreign defense and, at the same time be anti-war; or one may criticize centralized law enforcement and, notwithstanding, support the right to keep and bear arms.[iv] But one may not stand for a heavily armed government and, at the same time, oppose private gun ownership! Of course one may well refuse this point, as many actually do; but in doing so, one crosses the border of orthodox Christianity, and it is not within the scope of this paper to give a universal answer to all of the objections against the right to self defense. I will deal only with the possible objections from a Christian (and especially Roman Catholic) point of view.

II. THE SCRIPTURES

In the Old Testament there is no evidence of God denying the right to use arms for self-defense. Indeed, many godly men own and use arms for legitimate purposes. The legitimacy of such purposes is often sanctioned by God Himself, who also orders His followers to wage war against pagans and other enemies of His.

The first case of homicide in the Bible is Cain killing Abel (Genesis 4).[v] He may well have used a knife or a rock or whatever. When faced with God, God banished him, and did nothing about the weapon used to murder Abel. “The point is,” says Larry Pratt, “the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon. God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer.”[vi]

In order to rescue Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, Abram took a sort of armed militia and attacked the kidnappers:

The victors seized all the possessions and food supplies of Sodom and Gomorrah and then went their way, taking with them Abram’s nephew Lot, who had been living in Sodom, as well as his possessions. A fugitive came and brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was camping at the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite, a kinsman of Eshcol and Aner; these were in league with Abram. When Abram heard that his nephew had been captured, he mustered three hundred and eighteen of his retainers, born in his house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. He and his party deployed against them at night, defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. He recovered all the possessions, besides bringing back his kinsman Lot and his possessions, along with the women and the other captives. (Genesis 14: 11-16).

We are shown told that violence may be a legitimate reaction, when it is the only way to establish justice and repair torts.

Educating Israel about wise and good behavior, God says also: “If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt” (Exodus 22: 1-2). This point is very clear. One may always react against aggression; one may also kill a predator, if he enters one’s house by night. Things are different if the sun has already risen. In fact, by night the householder cannot be sure the thief will not harm him or his loved ones; by day, instead, one may understand the real intentions of the felon and thus the defensive reaction may well be weighted accordingly.

A bit later, God adds: “You shall not wrong any widow or orphan. If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry. My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword; then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans” (Exodus 22: 21-23). It is God himself who advocates the right to defend the innocents; the unjust aggressor will pay for having violated God’s law.

“You shall not kill,” then, is to be intended as “You shall not murder.” In other words, the commandment does not apply when one kills in order to defend his life, the life of his loved ones, or his goods. Rather, a rational criterion to understand the commandment is what Murray N. Rothbard calls “the non aggression axiom”: “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.”[vii]

When the people of Israel lose their faith in God and begin worshipping other gods, they abandon arms: “New gods were their choice; then the war was at their gates. Not a shield could be seen, nor a lance, among forty thousand in Israel!” (Judges 5: 8). This seems to suggest that unarmed people are unwise and far from God.

Also, gun control is among the harms the King will inflict on Israel, if they choose to be subjects rather than free people:

The rights of the King who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot. He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers. He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will use your daughters as ointment-makers, as cooks, and as bakers. He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his officials. He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves. He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best oxen and your asses, and use them to do his work. He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves. When this takes place, you will complain against the King whom you have chosen, but on that day the Lord will not answer you. (1 Samuel 8: 11-18).

In 1 Samuel 13: 19-22 we are told that God’s people would have been better off if they had armed themselves:

Not a single smith was to be found in the whole land of Israel, for the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears.” All Israel, therefore, had to go down to the Philistines to sharpen their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles. The price for the plowshares and mattocks was two-thirds of a shekel, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the ox-goads. And so on the day of battle neither sword nor spear could be found in the possession of any of the soldiers with Saul or Jonathan. Only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.

While Israel abandons faith in God, God allows them to be disarmed by the Philistines.

Nehemiah goes even further, and provides an example of God-given right to keep and bear arms: “Neither I, nor my kinsmen, nor any of my attendants, nor any of the bodyguard that accompanied me took off his clothes; everyone kept his weapon at his right hand” (Nehemiah 4: 17).

In the words of Rev. Anthony Winfield, “The example of Nehemiah is a case study of how a person can totally trust in God for protection yet still be allowed to take reasonable precautions... Devout Jews and Christians are not unspiritual or lacking in faith if they choose to arm themselves. The story of Nehemiah is an irrefutable example of how one can indeed have faith in the God of protection yet simultaneously bear arms as an extra precaution.”[viii] Indeed, sometimes arming oneself may be a duty—because trusting in God but not providing any defense for oneself could be seen as an act of tempting Him.

In the Psalms and the Proverbs, we are given several indications that God does approve owning and using arms for legitimate purposes. The following list is only a brief selection of them:

Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalms 82: 3-4)

Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for battle, my fingers for war. (Psalms 144:1)

Let the faithful rejoice in their glory, cry out for joy at their banquet, With the praise of God in their mouths, and a two-edged sword in their hands, To bring retribution on the nations, punishment on the peoples, To bind their kings with chains, shackle their nobles with irons, To execute the judgments decreed for them-- such is the glory of all God’s faithful. (Psalms 149: 5-9)

Rescue those who are being dragged to death, and from those tottering to execution withdraw not. If you say, “I know not this man!” does not he who tests hearts perceive it? He who guards your life knows it, and he will repay each one according to his deeds. (Proverbs 24: 11-12)

Like a troubled fountain or a polluted spring is a just man who gives way before the wicked. (Proverbs 25: 26)

Ezekiel warns that “[I]f the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die” (Ezekiel 18: 24).

All in all, there is no evidence in the Old Testament that God dislikes arms; of course, while all references are to such arms as swords and axes, they should be regarded as general statements, since at that time there was no gun or rifle or modern weapon whatsoever. But God also seems to appreciate His people taking arms to defend themselves and to oppose God’s enemies.

One could argue that, while the Old Testament is some sort of warmonger’s textbook, the New Testament suggests a rather pacifist, weak, non-violent way of life. Actually, Jesus was peaceful rather than pacifist. He came on Earth and showed how the Son of God may suffer; yet He still remains the Son of God. In fact, one could cite the Sermon of the Mount, when Christ told: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” (Matthew 5: 38-39). The reference here is to Exodus 21: 23-25: “But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Jesus’ invitation to “turn the other cheek” can hardly be regarded as a dismissal of legitimate self-defense. First of all, a slap on the cheek is more likely to be seen as an insult than as an aggression. Moreover, Christ seems to refer to vengeance rather than self-defense. Jesus says love is better than hatred, and that vengeance can never be the solution. On the other hand, He does not say self defense is bad. This would lead to the rule of the stronger over the weaker, of the bully over the gentle person. And, while inviting us to turn the other cheek, He does not invite us to turn the other’s cheek, which precisely is the effect of gun-control laws.

In fact, while self defense is an individual right, vengeance is in the hands of God. As St. Paul puts it, “do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12: 19).

Finally, while Christ in the Sermon of the Mount seems to change Old Testament laws, a while before He had pointed out that:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 17-19).

So, should we think that Jesus was so stupid as to contradict what he had said before? No. Of course Jesus was not stupid, nor did he intend to contradict Himself or His Father. The “turn the other cheek” phrase simply does not apply to self-defense; rather, it applies to vengeance or insults. Jesus said that God will take the burden of establishing justice, while godly people are supposed to face the problems of life with their hearts filled with mercy and pity. After all, if Jesus really meant that His followers should not resist aggression, then a question arises. After the second slap, should the devout Christian turn the first cheek again, and then the second one again, and so forth until the slapper is tired?[ix]

Jesus also said that “When a strong man fully armed guards his palace, his possessions are safe” (Luke 11:21) and, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22: 36). Once again, should we think that Jesus had no memory of what he had said? Rather, we should understand that arms (including swords, axes, handguns, machine guns, tanks, or nuclear bombs) are mere objects, and any problem is not about inanimate objects. The real source of problems, including criminal aggressions, thefts, and illegitimate use of lethal force, is that men are poor sinners.

When Jesus is arrested, Peter takes the sword and cuts off an ear of one officer of the Sanhedrin. Then Jesus rebukes him with these words: “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels? But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?” (Matthew 26: 52-54).     

According to John, His words are: “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?” (John 18: 11). So, it is obvious that Christ did not rebuke Peter for the mere use of a sword. The point here is that the sword is not intended for defending the Son of God. If only He had wanted, legions of angels would have helped Him escape arrest. Peter’s sword is rather intended to defend his mortal life and the lives of his loved ones—and Jesus is consenting to being arrested because that is the way God chose to sacrifice Him and, by way of Him, give humans a chance to obtain Salvation, through the Grace of God and wise and godly behavior.

In fact, “A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10: 10-11). So, thieves and murderers are among us. Jesus came here to rescue us from our sins. As He did, so we are supposed to do: especially those who have responsibility over others—such as fathers or husbands. They, as shepherds, must protect their sheep—that is, their loved ones. They have to be ready to give up even their own lives to defend them. And, sometimes, protecting one’s sheep may imply hunting wolves.

As Jesus said, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15: 13). St. Paul goes deeper in his first letter to Timothy: “And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5: 8). Taking care of your loved ones is a duty rather than a right or a choice. And not doing it would be either criminal or presumptuous. Criminal, if you do not take care of them because of fear or indifference. Presumptuous, if you do not do it because of an excessive trust in God. “Trust in God” does not mean that one should expect God to solve any problem; it does not imply that, if you are a lazy man who does not want to find a job, God will provide free lunches every day. “Trust in God” means that whatever happens is part of a Greater Plan which no human eye may see, yet exists and works and will lead to His greater glory.

Not being armed for self defense (and not locking doors, not providing any way to protect your life and the lives of others) would not be “trust”, but betrayal of the faith in God. Christ warned us: “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test” (Matthew 4: 7). If one does not take any measure against predators, and indeed one supports and campaigns for and even enforces laws which prevent people from doing so, then one is vexing God.

As Jeff Snyder puts it, “Although difficult for modern men to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God’s gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one’s duty to one’s community.”[x] The same was said by the Italian father Giorgio Giorgi, who preached a sermon which inflamed the debate in his country. If faced with a criminal, he said, “I might let him kill me. Indeed, if I killed a bandit, I should presume to send him to Hell, because he’s not in the Grace of God. So it would be better for me to die, because, theoretically, I should always be in the Grace of God, given my job. But the father of a family is not a priest. He has the right, and before it the duty, to defend his wife, his children, and his property.”[xi]

III. THE TRADITION

The Scriptures seem quite clear about weapons and self defense. Individuals have a God-given right to defend themselves, and even the duty to protect the life and the welfare of their neighbors. The tradition—that is, the thought of theologians and philosophers—rightly acknowledged this point.[xii] Indeed, an entire doctrine of legitimate defense and just war has evolved, and it has focused on intentions of he who kills an aggressor. The point is, in order to be considered legitimate the act of killing must be a response to an actual and proportional danger or aggression. To use the words of Boston T. Party, “Lethal force is valid only against a reasonably perceived imminent and grievous threat. The jury must agree that your assailant had the opportunity, capability, and motivation to imminently cause you at least grievous bodily harm. You shoot to stop—not to kill. Any kill is incidental.”[xiii] This includes, of course, any effort directed towards helping others, and any reaction taken while it was difficult to estimate the real intent of the evildoer—that is, for example, finding a thief in your house by night, as Exodus 22: 1-2 explicitly admitted.

The theory of legitimate defense and just war is as old as Catholicism itself. St. Girolamo pointed out that “it is not cruel, he who slits cruel people’s throat.”[xiv] St. Augustine elaborated a first doctrine of the just war. He thought that war was God’s means to punish bad people and to test good ones. Therefore, behind them there is always Providence.[xv] The end of the good Christian must always be justice and liberty; and this end may be pursued even by violence, if there is no other way. In fact, peace without justice and liberty is an “unjust peace,” as opposed to the “tranquility of order.”[xvi] Indeed, not only does one have the duty not to engage in evil, but one should also prevent evil from happening if possible; in the words of Pope Pelagius I, “Only he who force to do evil is a persecutor; instead, he who punishes a committed evil or prevent committing evil is not one who persecutes, but one who loves.”[xvii]

One of the most unique aspects of Medieval Catholicism was the orders of knighthood. The most prominent “ideologue” of this concept was St. Bernard of Clairvaux. His Liber ad milites Templi was conceived as a manual for those willing to join the Crusades. Crusades themselves were seen as an act of pity; they gave a chance of redemption both to the non-believers of the Holy Land, and to those European people who had given up their own faith. He wrote:

But the Knights of Christ may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.[xviii]

Even St. Francis of Assisi, often regarded as a pacifist ante litteram, took part in Crusades, and never condemned them.[xix]

A major contribution to the doctrine of legitimate self defense and “just war” came from St. Thomas Aquinas. He holds the principle that over physical health, one must keep spiritual health, and so must be ready to stand fast for Christ and for the good of Christians—including, of course, one’s loved ones. Like St. Augustine, he remarked that peace is not a value in itself; there are other values which are worthy fighting for, including liberty, honest people’s welfare, and private property.

Question 64 of his Summa Theologica II-II deals with the problem of killing. Particularly, article 7 asks whether “it is lawful to kill a man in self defense.” In response, Aquinas quotes Exodus 22: 2, regarding the right to kill a thief by night. Then:

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above. Accordingly the act of self defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in ‘being,’ as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above, it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.[xx]

So, St. Thomas provides a strong justification for self defense. 

Aquinas’ positions have remained a cornerstone of Christianity until today.

St. Robert Bellarmine also pointed out that the first reason why an individual may be legitimately be killed is so that “bad guys don’t harm good ones, and innocents aren’t oppressed by evildoers: this is why all very rightly agree, that homicides, adulterers, and thieves are killed.” Bellarmine’s other two reasons are that all have to learn from the punishment of few (deterrence) and that those who are killed may even benefit from their own death, because this will prevent them from engaging in further sins.[xxi]

St. Alphonsus Liguori further elaborated these positions but he remained within the borders marked by St. Thomas. He said: “It is allowed to kill the unjust aggressor (cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae) not intending the homicide, but the defense of one’s life, when it can’t be saved otherwise [...] It is not allowed to prevent the aggressor killing him before aggression, unless aggression is sure, and there is no way to avoid it.”[xxii]

In 1823, father Antonio Rosmini noted:

He who, being able to be the peaceful owner of something—for example, life—aggresses against somebody else’s life in such a way that the person aggressed against cannot defend himself without depriving the aggressor of his life, operates in such a way as to endanger his own life. We can say that this aggressor throws his life away himself, and that he expressly surrenders his holy property. Thus he who takes the life of the unjust aggressor as the only way to save his own, takes that life with the express consent of the owner.[xxiii]

It seems, therefore, that there is almost no doubt the Catholic tradition allowed the right to self-defense and sometimes even recognized it as a duty. Absolute pacifism and nonviolence, indeed, are clearly in contrast with the teaching of the Church. So, the question is, why do so many Christians hold such positions and even charge those who stand for an opposite view as violent and cynical? Italian theologian father Gianni Baget Bozzo suggested that it may be the consequence of “a doctrinal and spiritual event: they have removed the Biblical God of rage, and have reduced the Gospel to the love of the neighbor. So the utopia of not using force…has become a secular religion.”[xxiv]

IV. RECENT STATEMENTS

The history of Christianity seems to have little to do with gun control, pacifism, and nonviolence. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has always been the protagonist of heroic acts, including the Crusades to free the Holy Land and the Insurgents’ rebellion against Napoleon.[xxv] For almost two thousand years, the Church stood for individuals’ and communities’ right to defend themselves against aggression. Predators were regarded as evil persons who should be treated with mercy and pity. The life, liberty, and property of the innocent are more important than the life, liberty, and property of criminals because the latter, in the very moment they chose crime instead of honesty, renounced their own rights to the same extent they ignored other people’s just rights.

This point was so clear to Christians that Pope St. Pius X dealt with it in his 1905 Catechism in just a few lines. He wrote:

411. Q: What does the Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill, forbid?

A: The Fifth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, forbids us to kill, strike, wound or do any other bodily harm to our neighbor, either of ourselves or by the agency of others; as also to wish him evil, or to offend him by injurious language. In this Commandment God also forbids the taking of one’s own life, or suicide.

412. Q: Why is it a grave sin to kill one’s neighbor?

A: Because the slayer unjustly invades the right which God alone has over the life of man; because he destroys the security of civil society; and because he deprives his neighbor of life, which is the greatest natural good on earth.

413. Q: Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

A: It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor….

421. Q: What does the Fifth Commandment command?

A: The Fifth Commandment commands us to forgive our enemies and to wish well to all.

422. Q: What should he do who has injured another in the life of either body or soul?

A: He who has injured another must not only confess his sin, but must also repair the harm by compensating his neighbor for the loss he has sustained, by retracting the errors taught, and by giving good example.

Then two world wars came, and their devastating effects in Europe led the Church to partially revise its position on just war, although not on self defense. While in the past the war could be just and aggressive at the same time (for example, in order to rescue a town or a region conquered by the enemy), due to the impact of modern weapons (which supposedly cannot be “selective”, that is: cannot distinguish between belligerents and non-belligerents) the concepts of “just” and “defensive” war have tended to congeal.

Still, the individual right to self-defense [has] not been rejected. Pope Pius XII was sure that both individuals and people have the right to protect themselves. Moreover, as Roberto de Mattei put it, “an individual may renounce to exercise that right for himself; but government has the duty to protect the common good of its citizens, which is not only physical and material goods, but also the heritage of values and principles which constitute society, such as man’s fundamental rights and liberties and, first of all, Christian faith and morality. The importance of such goods, especially spiritual ones, as faith, justice, and liberty, fully justifies their defense by force against unjust aggression.”[xxvi]

The Second Vatican Council confirmed this point: “Certainly, war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.”[xxvii] Although neither the Gaudium et Spes, nor any other Second Vatican Council document mentions private defense, there is no reason to doubt that the Church holds the same position as ever on this issue—otherwise the Concilium would have taken a clear position, which indeed would have created several doctrinal problems. From the fact that Council confirmed that war may be just and even due, we may infer that self-defense, and defense of loved ones, are legitimate and even due as well.

This same line of reasoning belongs to Pope John Paul II. In fact, he has been very careful in distinguishing just from unjust use of lethal force—both in private and public matters. As a former priest in a communist country, he knew the hatred of those atheist regimes, which regarded religion as the opium of the people. So he had to deal with an unjust aggressor of individual and religious freedom; this gives him an even greater insight.

In the Evangelium Vitae (1995), the Pope reaffirmed the traditional view on self defense:

[T]o kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12: 31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Matthew 5: 38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself. Moreover, ‘legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.’ Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[xxviii]

Accordingly, the new version of the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is almost as clear on self defense as St. Pius X’s was. Particularly, Numbers 2263-2265 deal with self defense:

2263. The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not.”[xxix]

2264. Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Finally, the well noted Catholic author Vittorio Messori summarized the issue of pacifism, defining it as a sort of post-Christian heresy:

I believe that the essential and often forgotten virtue of Christians is realism. As a man of faith, I know that Jesus has promised only one Heaven, but not on this earth. Therefore, I do not trust in prospects for peace or a brotherly world, because I do believe, to the contrary, in the consequences of original sin. Jesus Himself clearly states that he came not to bring peace, but war and divisiveness. Pacifism is a post-Christian ideology which has nothing to do with Christianity. The realist Christian knows that he will always have to deal with war, since he lives in an ever-changing world that is full of evil and sin. The Christian’s duty is to attempt to limit the damage.[xxx]

One may dream of a world without war, violence, and crime. But that world is not our world. Therefore, any policy designed on the behalf of such a belief is doomed not only to fail, but to a devastating collapse. The idea of abolishing traditional institutions, and of building a “better” world or an earthly heaven, actually brought the rise and fall of the most hellish history the world had ever seen, with the national-socialist and communist regimes.

So, we have a two thousand year long tradition which never expressed any doubt on the existence of a right to self-defense. It is true that the Christian tradition never talked about the right to keep and bear arms, but the likely reason is that such a right has ever been held as inherent in the right to self-defense. Indeed, it would be naive to give the right to protect one’s life, liberty, and property on the right hand, while taking out the only means to enforce that very right (privately owned weapons—today, guns) with the left hand. What we are actually making is therefore an a fortiori argument: since the right to self defense is granted and recognized, how could the Catholic Church deny the right to own the necessary means to exercise that right, without falling into contradiction? Of course, the burden of proof (if Christians really should be able to defend themselves, but without using and even owning weapons) should be on those who stand for a counter-intuitive and anti-logic position.

Moreover, the Christian long held as truth that rebellion against tyrants is legitimate—and the evidence shows that the more people are armed, the less a tyrant is likely to get the power, as the American Founding Fathers well understood.[xxxi]

V. TOLSTOY’S CRITICISM

Most Catholic authors recognized the righteousness of he who defends himself, his loved ones, and his properties by the use of proportionate, lethal force. Among them, we may mention Gilbert K. Chesterton[xxxii] and John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.[xxxiii] They, along with many others, acknowledged that peace or tranquility cannot be seen as values in themselves, or as more important values than dignity, liberty, and faith. In other words, they were aware of St. Augustine’s warning against false peace, as opposed to the “tranquility of order.” They held that, faced with evil, one should not avoid resisting it. Indeed, they stood for heroic resistance—and virtually took the same role as St. Bernard of Clairvaux had taken so many centuries before. That is, they incited honest people not to accept an alleged trade-off between liberty and peace—which is the very same position as expressed by Benjamin Franklin. We could say that, according to Christian thought, those who give up their liberty in order to get temporary and apparent peace, deserve neither, and eventually do not maintain either.

A major criticism against the traditional view of self defense came from Leo Tolstoy. His argument relies on the “turn the other cheek” and “resist not evil” passages. According to the great Russian author, Jesus’ words imply a total refusal of violence: there is no exception to this precept. As Jeff Snyder remarks, “Not for a ‘just’ war, not for retribution, not for justice, not even for self defense at the time of assault.”[xxxiv] Tolstoy uses seriously the Sermon of the Mount in order to support his position.

However, it is not methodologically correct to take only one part of the Gospels, without regard for the remaining chapters of the Gospels, the Old Testament, and the tradition of Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, at least for Roman Catholics, the Holy Seat is moved by the Holy Ghost, and it would be quite a disingenuous God who on the one hand took an absolutely pacifist position, and on the other hand pushed his Church to go to the Crusades or to impose the death penalty, or merely to stand for the right to use lethal force in self defense. (And, as we have seen, this is a very clear and long tradition.)

Tolstoy writes that “To submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer suffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked than those who do unto others what they would not like themselves.”[xxxv] This is a strong point, for him, to oppose the very foundation of government: “ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to whom force is used, what he does not like and what he who uses the force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means doing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing wrong.”[xxxvi] But this is a naive point. While government may be a monopolist of violence on a given territory, and therefore it may be viewed as a danger for individual liberty, free individuals should be left free to defend their own rights by opposing force against force. If they did not do so, eventually they would maintain no freedom at all, and soon an even worse government would arise —in the hands of criminals. This is precisely what history teaches to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

To summarize with the words of Boston T. Party, “Christians are not to hate and curse their enemies, but to love and pray for them. However, that does not mean that we are to passively allow them to kill and maim us.”[xxxvii] In other words, forgiving our enemies does not imply letting them do whatever they want.

If you agree with Tolstoy, you may turn the other cheek once, twice, or how many times you like. But you are wrongly imposing your beliefs on others if you advocate such measures as gun control, whose principal, if not only, effect is to turn the others’ cheeks thousand of times each year. What Jesus was forbidding is vengeance, not self defense or legitimate use of force. Indeed, Jesus himself used force at least once, when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple—and also he built a whip of plaited rush-ropes (see Matthew 21: 12 and 11: 15-16). Should be Christ himself be held as a sinner or a criminal? Actually, “Don’t go to war over a mere slap is the lesson here,”[xxxviii] and it is a reasonable lesson.

Jesus’ position on “resist not evil” and “love your enemy” is to be seen as a part of his “eleventh commandment”: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10: 24; see also Romans 13: 8 and Galatians 5: 14). But to love one’s neighbor as oneself, one should love oneself in the first place. What does then mean to “love oneself”? First of all, it necessarily means not to despise God’s gifts, the most important one being life. Furthermore, who is one’s neighbor when, say, a predator is going to use force against an innocent? Is the neighbor the predator, or rather the innocent? It is really hard to say the former, both in the light of Jesus’ teaching, and common sense—that is, one’s conscience.

VI. ST. GABRIEL POSSENTI

The Roman Catholic Church never condemned the mere possession of weapons; it focused on the personal responsibility of aggressors—that is, sinners. Consistent with this approach is the existence of Patron Saints for several arms-related groups. St. Elmo is patron saint for ammunition workers, St. Sebastian for archers, St. Maurice for armies and swordsmiths, St. Adrian of Nicomedia for arms dealers, St. Barbara for artillery gunners, St. Martin of Tours for cavalry, St. Hubert for hunters, and St. Michael the Archangel for paratroopers and security forces, to mention a few of them. What is lacking from this list is a Patron Saint for handgun shooters; i.e., a Saint who is supposed to be regarded as the “special guardian” of all those who have to deal with handguns for work, self defense, or a hobby.

After a long search, John Michael Snyder, a former Jesuit seminarian and a former associate editor of The American Rifleman (an official monthly journal of the National Rifle Association), found the needed Saint: St. Gabriel Possenti. He was an Italian Passionist seminarian who, in 1860, rescued his own village (Isola del Gran Sasso, Italy) from a gang of former soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the Piedmontese army. They were in the South on the behalf of the general Giuseppe Garibaldi, who conquered the South and the Center of Italy and gave them to the Piedmontese King. At the time we are talking about, he had just defeated the Papal Army of the Blessed Pope Pius IX near Pesaro.

St. Gabriel Possenti, had a feeling that something [was] wrong. He asked the monastery rector if he could go to the town to see if he somehow could help the people and obtained consent to do so. Here is Snyder’s account of what happened:

As Possenti raced into town, he saw a sergeant literally about to rape a young woman. To the sergeant’s surprise, Possenti yanked the soldier’s handgun out of his holster and ordered him to unhand the woman. Possenti did the same to another sergeant, also a would-be rapist. The two of them, dumbfounded, let the woman go. When the other soldiers in the band of about 20 heard the commotion, they rushed toward Possenti, thinking they easily could make short shrift of this slightly built, cassocked theology student. One of them apparently made some sneering remark about him attired in his cassock. At that moment, a lizard ran across the road. The marksman Possenti took aim, fired, and killed it with one shot. It was then that he turned his weapons toward the advancing gang, surprised and shocked by this amazing demonstration of handgun marksmanship. Possenti ordered the terrorists to put down their arms, which they did. He ordered them to put out fires that they had started, which they did. He ordered them to return the property that they had taken from the villagers, which they did. He then ordered the whole lot of them out of town at gunpoint. They left, never to return. The Isolans then accompanied Possenti back to his monastery in triumphant procession, naming him the ‘Savior of Isola’.”[xxxix]

So, St. Gabriel Possenti may well be regarded as a bright example of how a good Christian (indeed, a Saint) may use guns to do good: to protect life, liberty, and property of a small community of believers.

When Snyder realized these facts, he founded the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc.[xl] in order to get St. Gabriel Possenti officially designated as the Patron Saint of handgunners. On the one hand, he met some resistance, especially from those members of the Church who are more affected by “politically correct” thinking and therefore are led to ignore or even repudiate a two thousand-year-old position on legitimate use of force. On the other hand, he could find several comrades on the path of just recognition of the right and the duty to keep and bear arms in order to deter would-be criminals. In fact, a crime (such as a theft, a burglar, a rape, or a murder) is an offense not only to the victim, but also to God himself. Since men are made “in His image and likeness” (see Genesis 1: 26), infringing men’s rights is like denying the divinity of God. This was very clear to St. Gabriel Possenti, and this is likely to be the reason why he decided to intervene and rescue the young woman and the village.

After all, if there is no right to self defense, then it follows that the world eventually belongs to those who are willing to use force and violence in the first place: aggressors both private (criminals) and public (tyrants). This is certainly not God’s design for humanity, as it is possible to human eyes to see that Great Plan. Indeed, there is no evidence in the Word of God (that is, the Bible) that honest people should not defend themselves with any means proportionate to the aggression. And St. Gabriel Possenti shows how a Saint may use guns to do good, in conscious and complete righteousness.

VII. FINAL THOUGHTS

Addressing the theology of liberation, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said that “an error cannot exist if it doesn’t contain a core of truth. Actually, the bigger is the core of truth, the more dangerous is the error.”[xli] So, with regard to unconditional nonviolence, the question is, what is the truth which makes such error so pervasive and attractive to many Christians and even nonbelievers? Probably, the truth is that Jesus was extremely clear about avoiding violence as much as possible, and even making it unlawful, under God’s law, to engage in vengeance. This does not imply in any sense that it is also unlawful to defend oneself or others against crime and aggression.

After all, if things were as “Christian pacifists” say, we should wonder how almost all those who had faith in Jesus, including such major theologians as St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, could be so far from the “real” and “correct” interpretation of God’s word—which, actually, never condemns, neither explicitly nor even implicitly, the use of defensive force. Moreover, no government (except perhaps some tyranny) has ever dared to officially rule out self-defense—in fact, tyrants found it safer and more effective, from their point of view, to prevent people from owning guns rather than openly destroying any basis of their natural, pre-political right to protect themselves and their goods.

As Jorge Leonardo Frank summarized it all:

Legitimate defense is a juridical institute of universal character, which has been recognized by all the legislations worldwide, so largely that the Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) of March 25, 1995, defines it clearly as “the right to life and the duty to preserve it.” And as for the “human rights,” he adds that, if the respect is due to the life of all, including criminals and aggressors, with even more reason it should be kept in mind the life of defenseless victims.[xlii]

Self defense is not only an important principle of the Christian religion, but also common sense.

It is no surprise, then, that the American Founding Fathers gave so large space to self defense in general, and to right to keep and bear arms in particular. It makes no sense to advocate liberty in any aspect of society, but to forbid people to defend that liberty. Liberty relies on right to self defense, and self-defense relies on the right to keep and bear arms. And there is probably nothing more American (and, through America linked to the best and true European heritage) than ordinary people owning guns for their own defense.

In fact, both the Holy Scriptures and the Roman Catholic (and Christian in general) doctrine agree on this, that anyone must be left free to arm himself and provide for his own defense. And this is exciting, because it shows how the defense of the right to keep and bear arms is on behalf of a two millennia tradition, while the efforts to control guns (and by way of them to control people) are signs of a dangerous modernity—the same danger which produced national-socialism and communism. So, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms are eventually advocates of the true, Western and Christian tradition. Defending individual liberty, and the means to protect it, is a way to serve God.

ENDNOTES

[i]. Andrew Sandlin, “Hamartiology and Gun Control”, The Christian Statesman, Vol. 140, No.1, 1997, [http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/hamargun.html]

[ii]. Gianfranco Miglio, quoted in Giorgio Ferrari, Gianfranco Miglio. Il giacobino nordista, Casa Editrice Liber Internazionale, Milan, 1993, p.143.

[iii]. Gianfranco Miglio, Il nerbo e le briglie del potere, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan, 1988, p.24.

[iv]. See Gustave de Molinari, “The Production of Security”, Occasional Paper #2, Center for Libertarian Studies, New York, 1977; Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Private Production of Defense”, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No.1, 1998, http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

[v]. All Biblical quotations, including Old and New Testament, are from the New American Bible.

[vi]. Larry Pratt, “What Does The Bible Say About Gun Control”, The Christian Statesman, Vol.140, No.1, 1997, [http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/97/bibgunctrl.html]

[vii]. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2002, http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp, p.22.

[viii]. Rev. Anthony L. Winfield, Self Defense and the Bible (Arlington, Va.,: St. Gabriel Possenti Society, 1994), p.11.

[ix]. I owe this point to an observation of Mr. Thomas Schmidt.

[x]. Jeffrey R. Snyder, Nation of Cowards (Lonedell, Missouri: Accurate Pr., 2001), p.16.

[xi]. Stefano Lorenzetto, “Io ho dalla mia l’angelo custode ma voi sparate, sparate, sparate. Intervista con don Giorgio Giorgi”, Il Giornale, December 19, 1999, p.18.

[xii]. Tradition is almost as important as the Bible in order to understand the Catholic position on many issues. “With particular regard to the Roman Catholic Church, the Gospel is God’s revelation, together with the Old Testament, Church’s Fathers, and Church’s teaching. In order to see what Christianity says about war, it makes no sense to refer only to the Gospel.” Dag Tessore, La mistica della guerra. Spiritualità delle armi nel cristianesimo e nell’islam, Fazi Editore, Roma, 2003, p.8.

[xiii]. Boston T. Party, Boston on Guns & Courage:  Proven Tools for Chronic Problems (Austin, Tex.: Javelin Pr., 1998), p.2-8.

[xiv]. Girolamo, Super Esaiam, XIII.

[xv]. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, I, 1 and IV, 17.

[xvi]. Ibidem, XIX, 13.

[xvii]. Pelagius I, Epistola II.

[xviii] Bernard of Clairvaux, Liber ad milites Templi, III.

[xix]. For a history of Crusades, and more generally to understand the reasons behind the confrontations between Christianity and Muslim world, see Alberto Leoni, La Croce e la Mezzaluna  (Milano: Edizioni Ares, 2002).

[xx]. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 64, 7.

[xxi]. Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de controversiis Christianae religionis, II, 3, chap. 21.

[xxii]. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia moralis, VIII, 143 and 145.

[xxiii]. Antonio Rosmini Serbati, “Del rispettar le proprietà” (edited by Alberto Mingardi), to be published in élites, No. 2, 2003.

[xxiv]. Gianni Baget Bozzo, “L’abolizione della politica”, RagionPolitica.it, February 18, 2003, http://www.ragionpolitica.it/testo.1096.html, See also Michael Whitcraft, “Armed and Unarmed”, The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, April 21, 2003, http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/TFPCommentary/armed_and_unharmed.htm

[xxv]. See Harry W. Crocker III, Triumph. The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church (Roseville, Calif.: Prima Pub., 2001).

[xxvi]. Roberto de Mattei, Guerra santa, guerra giusta. Islam e cristianesimo in guerra, Piemme, Casale Monferrato (AL), Italy, 2002.

[xxvii]. II Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, No. 79.

[xxviii] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, No. 55.

[xxix]. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 64, 7.

[xxx]. Carlo Stagnaro, “Interview with Vittorio Messori”, LewRockwell.com, January 15, 2001, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro1.html

[xxxi]. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed. The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Oakland, Calif.: Independent Institute, 1994); Idem, Target Switzerland. Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II (Boulder, Colo.: Capo Pr., 1998); Idem, “Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews”, in Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 17, No.3, 2000, pp. 483-535. See also Pierre Lemieux, Le droit de porter des armes (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1993); Idem, Confessions d’un coureur des bois hors-la-lois (Montréal : Varia, 2001).

[xxxii]. “A child’s instinct is almost perfect in the matter of fighting. The child’s hero is always the man or boy who suddenly and splendidly defends himself against aggression”, Gilbert K. Chesterton, “Boyhood and Militarism; Literature and Science”, in The Collected Works, Vol. 27 (Ft. Collins, Colo.: Ignatius Press, 1986).

[xxxiii]. “The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally (by their standards) have been expected to arose. They at any rate have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth,” John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (London: Harper Collins, 1995), p. 243.

[xxxiv]. Jeff Snyder, “Words We Do Not Want To Hear”, LewRockwell.com, September 21, 2001, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder2.html

[xxxv]. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You (Lincoln, Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska Pr., 1984), p.243.

[xxxvi]. Ibidem, p.242.

[xxxvii]. Boston T. Party, “My answer to Tolstoy’s ‘unconditional nonviolence’”, [http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001050.html]

[xxxviii]. Ibidem.

[xxxix]. John Michael Snyder, Gun Saint (Arlington, Va.:Telum Associates, 2003), pp.2-3. See also Paolo Tagini, “San Gabriele Possenti”, Armi Magazine, March 12, 2003, [http://www.armimagazine.it/~armimaga/artman/publish article_40.shtml]

[xl]. See http://www.gunsaint.com

[xli]. Joseph Ratzinger, “Alcune osservazioni preliminari”, reprinted in Vittorio Messori, Rapporto sulla fede, Mondadori, Milano, 1993, p.185.

[xlii]. Jorge Leonardo Frank, “Legìtima Defensa”, [http://www.legitimadefensa.com.ar/qe_leg_def.htm]

Second Amendment Foundation home page

Second Amendment Foundation Journal pdf index

Christians and Guns