Given some of the comments, I really wish I had taken the time to point this out in my latest Federalist piece on gun control…
So in Gethsemane, when the soldiers come to take Jesus, Peter takes his sword and cuts of the ear of the high priest’s servant, Malchus. Jesus tells him to put it back in its sheath because those who live by the sword will die by the sword. (Matt 26:51-52).
“Ah-HA!” Cry people with a total lack of critical thinking skills. “Jesus said not to ever use weapons to hurt people!”
So take a deep breath, step back from that tree trunk for a second, look at the forest, and ask yourself: why was Peter walking around armed?
And Peter wasn’t the only one, according to Luke: “When those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?'” (Luke 22:49). For that matter, earlier in that chapter when Jesus says “let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one,” the disciples had at least two swords that they were immediately able to take out and show him.
What then are we to conclude? That Jesus categorically forbade owning weapons but completely overlooked the fact that some of his closest disciples were going around armed? Or should we rather conclude that Jesus was telling Peter that he had more important things to do than die in battle?
One of these conclusions is reasonable. One is completely idiotic. Choose wisely.