TexasCHLforum.com

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/24 ... -gun-film/
It seems that the folks she interviewed and then showed not having an answer, or looking away from the camera, actually have audio of the interview which makes her out to be an obvious liar......and they are speaking out.

Mel wrote:

TrueFlog wrote: "If you trust God, you don't need a gun for self-defense."

I seem to remember something along the lines of "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Actually, both are wrong.

This is my perspective as a committed evangelical Christian....... Sometimes God intercedes in person (Moses and the Burning Bush, Abraham and the Lord before the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, and possibly with Mary Magdalene, Joana and Mary mother of James before the empty tomb); sometimes He sends an angelic being to intercede on our behalves (Mary and the angel, Joseph and the angel, Zechariah and the angel, the shepherds and the angel, etc.); sometimes God sends a human agent of his will (Simon of Cyrene, Moses leading Israel, Phillip in Samaria, etc.); sometimes God calls on us to intercede on our own behalves or someone else's; and sometimes God intercedes by calling us home.

We should endeavor to be ready for any and all of the above. I don't carry a gun because I don't trust God to protect me. I carry one because I want to be ready if He calls on me for my own intercession, or to intercede on someone else's behalf. If it is His will to call me home that day, I could be carrying a pack howitzer and it won't make a bit of difference. If I ever have to draw my gun in what I perceive to be a self-defense situation, and it is His will that I NOT shoot the other person, he will not allow me to do it. He is sovereign in all things. But it isn't just being ready if He calls on me...... I also want to be ready in heart and mind if He ever shows Himself to me in person. I want to be ready to recognize when He has sent someone to my aid - whether angelic or human. I want to be ready in heart and mind if it is His will to call me home.

Also, there is some debate over the meaning of this passage from Luke, but Luke 22:35-38 (ESV) says:

Scripture Must Be Fulfilled in Jesus
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

To put that into context, in that day, a man's cloak might was often his most prized possession; so the command to sell one's cloak if necessary to afford the price of a sword places some importance on the sword. Now, I want to stress that there IS disagreement among God-fearing saved theologians about the meaning of this passage.....but I take it to mean that, in a dangerous world, particularly when being about God's business, we should be prepared with the means of self-defense. The translation of "sword" there refers to the short, pointed, double edged sword that was fairly commonly carried by people in a sheath suspended from the belt, not carried by EVERYbody, but commonly carried. It would have been analogous to a handgun today in self-defense terms (as opposed to a rifle or shotgun which would be more analogous to a broadsword), although it also had other uses such as cutting bread, food prep, animal slaughter, etc. But in this passage, Jesus is telling the apostles that this time, when he sends them out, they are going to be going out without him there in the flesh to guide and protect them, and that therefore, the ability to defend ones self was important enough to sell your most valued possession to get the money to buy a sword if you didn't have one.

In any case, the argument that possessing the means of self-defense is an indication of lack of trust in God is a particularly specious one. Paul said that those who would not work (because they were sitting around expecting the imminent return of Christ) should not eat. Does that mean that Paul did not trust God? Jesus tells the parables of the talents, in which the person who got the biggest return on the master's money got the biggest reward......the implication being that we are to take what He gives us, and build on it (whether that means creating new converts or something else).....it's called "good stewardship", and being prepared to protect your own life implies being a good steward of the gift of life we've been given.

It is equally specious to say that the Lord helps those who help themselves, because sometimes, despite a man's very best efforts and conscientious stewardship, everything can still fail.....people who ate right and exercised regularly still have heart attacks or cancer.... marriages still fail despite the faithful efforts of one of the spouses to bring reconciliation.

Here's what IS true: God is in control of everything, and nothing happens except he allows it.....even though we may not be able to wrap our finite minds around His purposes. What I DO know is that what we break, He is able to redeem and use for His glory. His grace covers our deficiencies, so long as we belong to Him.

Anyway, the movie's premise is entirely false, if they are saying that carrying the means of self-defense is a failure to trust in God.