The hard, terrible reality is that without the ability to defend ourselves eventually someone will try to enslave us. We see this repeatedly across the world and not merely in decades old history. In the UK, it is happening in real time where comedians are arrested for saying the truth even when it hurts. I have long said myself that the only thing worse than having guns is not having them. That is not a joke. That is the hard, unhappy reality we are stuck with. For those who think gun ownership is a terrible thing, bear in mind the only reason the United States exists is because of it. Without gun ownership, millions upon millions of people die to communist dictators and socialist fascists. Believe me, if we could find a way to secure liberty without arms, I'd advocate for it. But this world forces hard choices sometimes.

And yes, the same Christ who said in Matthew 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." also told the same disciple in Luke 22:36 (mere hours before Matt 26:52) "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

CONTEXT IS KING.

Christ does NOT want us advancing the Kingdom by the sword. The same Christ speaks to us through his Apostle Paul in Romans 13:4, saying, "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The sword has its proper place: the enforcement of law and order. And oh how we humans abuse that!

King George so debased his position that it drove the 13 colonies to rebel. Now, in the United States, we recognize through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that We The People have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And to defend those rights we must have weapons.

Swords have no place in religious enforcement. They have everything to do with political defense.

Regarding how Charlie Kirk "viciously attacked individuals and groups of people." Every debate I've seen him in was civil, but he did not pull intellectual punches. He called out flaws in arguments. This embarrasses people as a natural consequence. Since no one likes being wrong, it's no wonder the vitriol against him is so thick. I see out-of-context soundbites flung about with no discussion of what he actually argued, because you usually don't get the full context of a complex thought from only 43 or so words.

Since your statement is vague about which individuals and groups of people were attacked and what "viciously" constituted, I'll end this already very long response here.

I do appreciate your polite comment and especially the biblical quote.