Charlie Kirk Shot

[Soloist]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

Would you look at a US president the same way? As Bin Ladin?

[Ernie]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Kirk (Turning Point donors) typically hired about 5-7 armed security guards - guards who did immediately draw their weapons at the time of the shooting. Do you distinguish between purposefully taking the lives of others vs. self-defense in the verse that you quoted?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just curious about how you look at these matters.

[JohnH]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Did Charlie Kirk actually say that?

[Ernie]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Did Charlie Kirk actually say that?

"I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

This was supposedly said by Kirk in 2023 at a Turning Point USA event.

[mike]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Kirk (Turning Point donors) typically hired about 5-7 armed security guards - guards who did immediately draw their weapons at the time of the shooting. Do you distinguish between purposefully taking the lives of others vs. self-defense in the verse that you quoted?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just curious about how you look at these matters.

The other day, Ben Shapiro said that political speech is fraught. From that I assume he meant that it is bound to stir up anger at some point. Although Charlie wasn’t pointing guns at people, he was advocating for a certain political platform that if implemented by the government would essentially result in the government enforcing the policies of that platform with the force of arms. Like every other political platform ever.

So although it is several steps removed from taking up the sword, political speech is related to the power of the sword. This is why Anabaptists don’t see the role of politician and policeman that differently.

[JohnH]

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Did Charlie Kirk actually say that?

"I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

This was supposedly said by Kirk in 2023 at a Turning Point USA event.

Can you provide the actual evidence of him saying it, particularly in context?

[Robert]

Can you provide the actual evidence of him saying it, particularly in context?

Not here. Feel free to start a thread in Politics.

[Grace]

Can you provide the actual evidence of him saying it, particularly in context?

Not here. Feel free to start a thread in Politics.

Not to disagree, but I do NOT think starting a thread in "politics" is appropriate either. A young husband and father of little children was assassinated in front of the world. And discussing out of context comments, concerning Kirk, things he may have or may have not said, doesn't seem fitting, now that he was murdered and is gone from this world.

[R7ehr]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

So Kirk's comment about some gun deaths being worth it in order to protect 2nd amendment rights doesn't fall under "taking up the sword" in your mind?

Kirk (Turning Point donors) typically hired about 5-7 armed security guards - guards who did immediately draw their weapons at the time of the shooting. Do you distinguish between purposefully taking the lives of others vs. self-defense in the verse that you quoted?

I don't have a dog in the hunt. Just curious about how you look at these matters.

Absolutely not. That is was merely sharing thoughts on the issue. His comment is closer to my own, where I observed that when one takes up the sword, you die by the sword.

I once was in Egypt in a small group and we had an armed guard with us everywhere. Apparently hired with our money by a guide. (I didn’t know that we were going to have an armed guard).

No, while Kirk didn’t believe in nonresistance, and he may have promoted force, he was not taking up the sword himself.

[R7ehr]

For myself, it’s a big difference between bin Ladin and Kirk, that one of them “took up the sword and perished by the sword”, and the other did not.

Would you look at a US president the same way? As Bin Ladin?

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. Matthew 26:52 is a warning and an observation of truth. Not a promise or a curse.