R7ehr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 10:51 am
I think the President has two roles, civil leader and military leader. I think that if a nation is complete not at war, all its soldiers are at home on their bases, there is no conflicts, I would say the President is not currently taking up the sword.
He’s still in a problematic situation for a Christian. And he should “do violence to no man” and quit his job. But in that moment he isn’t taking up the sword, due to the civil part of his job. When he has soldiers in action, as commander in chief he has taken up the sword.
I’d have an easier time thinking that a General has the sword “in his hand” constantly, even in peace time, since that is his full time job. But he too would be able to “do violence to no man” in a theoretical true complete peacetime.
Bin Ladin was head of an active armed militia group. Kirk was not. The President is a civilian who usually has his armed group killing people.
I think if the President is assassinated because of his military action, that would be Biblical tit for tat.
However, if the President was assassinated because of some deranged, mentally ill person wanted to marry Melania, that is not.
And if some was aiming at a deer, and the bullet strayed traveled two miles and killed the President? Not hardly taking up the sword and dying by the sword.
If, under all these circumstances we think it is Biblical tit for tat, and then we layer over top the idea that anyone who merely talks sympathetically towards gun rights? Then we could have some civilian who never touched a weapon in their life, being killed by accidental stray bullet being judged as dying by the sword because they took up the sword. No.
Kirk’s shooter took up the sword. Not Kirk.
I don't agree with your assessment of the President compared to a general.
Military ranks go from E-1 to O-10 (except during time of war) After O-10 there is the CNO who is currently Admiral Caudle, above him is John Phelan
the Secretary of the Navy, then there is the Secretary of Defense who is Pete Hegseth. After that we have the President himself, Trump.
(we actually had to memorize this as enlisted as well as some presidential succession members)
The actions of the CNO are directed by the president and the actions taken on a weekly if not daily action basis of killing combatants or "smugglers" is directly reflecting the President's office.
Al Qaeda was indirectly started by CIA support against Russia during the Soviet Afghan war and was effectively a militia. Bin Laden was a leader who ended as more of a figurehead without direct control in the final years of his life and would be comparable to any rogue nation's leader.
My opinion is that if the President is not wielding the sword of office always, then likewise the same should be true for Bin Laden. Our country determined what to call them, Ie terrorists, prior to them turning on the Saudi, we would have called them freedom fighters against Russia.
Now another civilian leader such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives would fit better in this dual set you proposed as they are in the line of succession but don't have military control outside of perhaps impact on funding.
I don't look at Kirk as having been wielding the sword, I do look at President Trump as doing so.