Merry Xmas²⁵🎄🙏✝️❤️⭐😊

https://youtu.be/yltQj58kNnM?si 

'The safest option for a woman': What the 7-Eleven incident shows us * "

https://www.wnd.com/2025/11/safest-option-woman-what-7-eleven-incident-shows/ 

I say you allow the female clerks to use guns but not the male clerks. Reasoning being that male clerks at 7-Elevens tend to be very self-righteous and condescending towards customers.

so they're going to see every customer as a scumbag and they're going to be too quick to use that gun, whereas females usually are a little more kind towards customers . Needless to say I avoid 7-Elevens like the plague just because they treat customers so poorly usually. 

"Teach me thy way, O Lord & lead me in a plain path." — Psalm 27:11

AI GENERATED 

Summary of the Article

The article describes how 25-year-old Stephanie Dilyard was fired from her Oklahoma City 7-Eleven after she used her firearm to stop an attacker who threatened to kill her. She says the man told her he would slice her head off, threw items at her, chased her behind the counter, grabbed her by the neck, and continued assaulting her as she tried to escape and call the police. 

At that moment she drew her gun and shot him. She survived but suffered neck and hand injuries. The attacker, Kenneth Thompson, had an outstanding felony warrant and now faces charges including assault and battery, violent threats, and attempting to use counterfeit money.

 Despite working the dangerous overnight shift alone for more than two years, company policy required her to use only "store items" for self-defense. She said she chose her life because her children depend on her.

The article shifts to analysis by John Lott, who argues that many companies misunderstand crime data when they instruct employees to remain passive during an attack. While raw statistics may suggest passive behavior is slightly safer than "active resistance," the category of resistance includes many unsafe methods that skew the data. Lott states that for women, fighting physically is the most dangerous option, since it often leads to escalated violence by a stronger male attacker. 

Running is also risky because many women cannot outrun a male aggressor, and being tackled can cause severe injury. Using improvised weapons like bats or knives doesn't improve the odds much because physical contact still favors the attacker.

Lott argues that a firearm provides the greatest increase in a woman's ability to protect herself. According to his interpretation of Bureau of Justice Statistics data, women using passive behavior are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who use a gun. He also claims that when women receive concealed-carry permits, female murder rates drop significantly and rape rates fall by roughly 25% in states that allow nondiscretionary concealed carry.

 The article concludes that while police are essential, they almost always arrive after the crime has already occurred, meaning immediate survival rests on the victim. The final note is that Stephanie's children still have their mother because she defended herself.

Critique

The article is compelling and emotionally powerful, successfully blending a personal story with a policy argument. It highlights the real danger of overnight retail work and the tension between corporate safety rules and individual survival. 

However, it presents only one research viewpoint, relying heavily on John Lott's work, which is respected by some but disputed by others. The article does not explore alternative perspectives, such as why corporations create no-resistance rules, how liability plays into policy, or whether different safety protocols could protect workers without requiring them to be armed.

Additionally, the argument presents a binary choice—passive compliance or firearm defense—while ignoring other solutions like improving store security, mandating two-person shifts, installing protective barriers, or employing on-site security staff.

 It also does not address potential legal or employment consequences for workers who carry guns against company policy. Still, its primary strength is that it raises an urgent question about what individuals, especially women, can realistically do when physically overpowered and alone.

"Virginian Hatchet Speed STILL Fighting Preposterous J6-related “Silencer Possession” Conviction Despite Being Pardoned By President Trump | "

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/virginian-hatchet-speed-still-fighting-preposterous-j6-related/ 

"

Of course, almost any household object, a doorknob, a paper towel dispenser, a milk jug, a coffee maker, or a thermostat could be converted into a "firearm silencer" with enough drilling or modification. Speed's conviction for silencer possession was based on the U.S. Code's preposterously broad definition of "firearm silencer":"

UK =U KRAZY👎 "British Man Arrested, Harassed For Months by UK Police After Posing With Shotgun in Florida | "

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/british-man-arrested-harassed-months-police-after-posing/ 

"

Jon Richelieu-Booth, a 55-year-old IT contractor, had uploaded a picture of himself holding firearms at a Florida homestead on August 13.

What should have been nothing more than a LinkedIn holiday snap instead triggered a 13-week saga, starting with officers turning up at his home to warn him about how online content might affect people's feelings..."

"Ed Monk’s Book “First 30 Seconds” Is A Must-Read For All Americans – " Bearing Arms

https://bearingarms.com/ranjit-singh/2025/09/22/ed-monks-book-first-30-seconds-is-a-must-read-for-all-americans-n1229979 

"Queens Man Headed to Prison for Shooting His Mugger"

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2025/11/21/queens-man-headed-to-prison-for-shooting-mugger-n2666797 

"

Queens senior citizen who shot dead a man who tried to rob him will spend four years in prison after admitting to toting an unlicensed revolver — as his lawyer ripped the city's "draconian" gun laws.

Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal weapons possession Thursday in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home..."

Fair or not fair ? 

AI GENERATED CRITIQUE:

The rest of the story: 

---

What Happened

1. Incident & Self-Defense

Charles Foehner (67) shot and killed Cody Gonzalez on May 31, 2023, near Foehner's home in Kew Gardens, Queens. 

Foehner claims he acted in self-defense: Gonzalez reportedly charged at him, holding what looked like a knife. 

However, the "knife" turned out to be a pen. 

Surveillance footage supports that Gonzalez continued charging even after Foehner drew his gun. 

2. Weapons Found

During a search of Foehner's home, police found more than 25 firearms. 

He was only licensed for 5 of them. 

Also recovered: 152 high-capacity magazines, body armor, rifles (including AK-style) among others. 

3. Legal Outcome

Foehner pleaded guilty to one count of criminal weapons possession. 

As part of a plea deal, he is to be sentenced to 4 years in prison. 

He avoided homicide or manslaughter charges for the shooting itself. 

His lawyer, Thomas Kenniff, attacked NYC's gun laws, calling them "draconian." 

Foehner remains free until the sentencing hearing, scheduled for January 14, 2026. 

4. Public / Advocacy Reaction

Gun rights advocates strongly criticize this outcome. For example, the CCRKBA called the laws "despicable" and said Foehner should be protected, not punished. 

His attorney argues that if New York made it more practical for law-abiding citizens to legally carry or own arms, situations like this wouldn't happen. 

---

Analysis & Implications

Self-Defense but Illegal Gun: The core tension here is between Foehner's right to self-defense and the fact that the firearm he used was unlicensed. Even if the shooting is justified, New York's gun laws heavily penalize unlicensed weapons.

Gun Laws Scrutiny: This case is being used by some as an example of how strict gun regulations in NYC can penalize people who defend themselves. Critics argue that the laws protect criminals more than citizens.

Risk of Over-Arsenal: The large number of weapons found in his home likely made the prosecution's case much stronger. Even if he used just one gun in the incident, possession of many unlicensed firearms is a serious crime under state law.

Legal Trade-Off: By taking a plea deal, Foehner avoided a trial where he could have faced much more time (reports say up to 25 years on gun charges). 

Broader Debate: This is part of the larger national debate on gun control, particularly in high-regulation jurisdictions like New York. It raises questions about how gun laws interact with the right to self-defense.

--

On Display at the National Rifle Association: NRA Firearms Museum, Fairfax, VA

 

A Christian Defense of the Right to Bear Arms: The Stewardship of Life and Duty to Defend

The discussion surrounding firearm ownership is one of the most contentious debates in modern society. From a Christian perspective, however, this issue transcends mere political or cultural preference and touches upon foundational theological principles, primarily the sanctity of life, the duty of stewardship, and the nature of the believer’s existence in a fallen world. When viewed through the lens of Scripture—particularly the King James Version—a robust, principled argument emerges not only permitting but actively supporting the responsible ownership of firearms as a means of fulfilling God-given responsibilities to self, family, and community. This essay will articulate that argument, demonstrating how the Christian call to peace and love does not negate the moral necessity of being equipped to resist grave evil.

The Sanctity of Life and the Right of Self-Preservation

The cornerstone of the Christian argument for self-defense, and by extension, the means of effective defense, is the doctrine of the sanctity of life. Life is a gift from the Creator, and as image-bearers of God, mankind is given a unique dignity and value (Genesis 1:27). This divine endowment of life implies an inherent right to preserve it when unjustly threatened. This right is acknowledged and codified by God Himself in the Mosaic Law. In Exodus 22:2, the King James Version reads: "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that He die, there shall no blood for Him."

This passage establishes a clear biblical precedent for justifiable deadly force. The context is crucial: a homeowner, surprised by an intruder in the darkness of night, is absolved of "bloodguilt" for killing the attacker. The Law recognizes that in a moment of existential threat, particularly where the intent of the aggressor is unknown or impossible to discern, a person is morally and legally justified in acting to preserve their life and the lives within their house. A modern firearm, used legally and responsibly, is simply the most practical and effective tool for a physically weaker individual, or any citizen, to achieve the level of force necessary to fulfill this biblically sanctioned right of defense against a deadly aggressor. To prohibit the most effective means of self-defense is to deny the right itself, thus neglecting the divine mandate to value and protect the sacred gift of life.

The Duty of Stewardship and Provision for the Household

Furthermore, the Christian faith mandates a deep commitment to stewardship, which encompasses the vigilant protection of one’s family and household. The Apostle Paul lays a heavy charge upon believers regarding their domestic responsibilities. 1 Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for His own, and specially for those of His own house, He hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." While this verse primarily addresses financial provision, the concept of provision extends logically and morally to protection and security.

The Christian head of a household is not merely a caretaker but a guardian, called to stand between His or her family and the dangers of a world plagued by sin. When a threat arises—be it a violent intruder, a mob, or a predatory actor—the Christian is not merely defending property, but defending the human temples of the Holy Spirit. To fail to secure the capacity for adequate defense against a lethal threat, when such capacity is reasonably available, could be seen as a dereliction of this sacred duty of stewardship. Responsible gun ownership, coupled with diligent training, is thus transformed from a recreational choice into a serious moral and spiritual responsibility, empowering the believer to act decisively as the protector God has called them to be.

The Biblical Precedent for Preparedness and Dual Duty

The Scriptures repeatedly offer precedents for the righteous maintaining a state of armed preparedness even while engaged in peaceful labor. A compelling example is found in the Book of Nehemiah, where the people of God were rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem under the threat of attack. Nehemiah 4:17-18 provides a clear instruction and model: "They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of His hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every man had His sword girded by His side, and so builded."

This passage powerfully illustrates the principle of dual duty: the righteous person is simultaneously dedicated to productive, civil work ("wrought in the work") and to vigilant, physical defense ("held a weapon"). This biblical model challenges the modern notion that a good citizen must be utterly disarmed. Instead, it legitimizes the "armed citizen"—the individual who is peaceful, industrious, and yet ready to defend the community and family at a moment's notice. The Christian, living in a world where peace is not guaranteed, mirrors this vigilance by engaging in honest work while responsibly owning the most effective modern tool of self-defense.

This principle is further reinforced by the moral consequences of failing to stand against evil, as highlighted in Proverbs 25:26: "A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring." This metaphor suggests that when the righteous fail to resist the wicked effectively, the failure corrupts the entire societal stream of justice and order. The capacity for swift, decisive defense ensures that the righteous can resist, thereby preventing the collapse of order into the hands of evildoers.

The Mandate for Order and the Authority of the Sword

The Christian perspective must also consider God's mandate for maintaining order and justice. While the ultimate authority for executing wrath is placed upon the government, this still legitimizes the use of lethal force when necessary. Romans 13:4 states of the governing authority: "For He is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for He beareth not the sword in vain: for He is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon Him that doeth evil."

This verse establishes that the "sword"—the power of lethal force—is a tool delegated by God to restrain evil and punish the wicked. The use of this force is, therefore, biblically grounded in the desire for justice and the protection of the good. While the state holds the primary responsibility, in many contexts (like home invasion or sudden attack), the individual acts as an immediate and temporary extension of that defensive authority. Where the police—the government's minister of force—cannot arrive in time, the responsible citizen, acting in defense of the innocent, is fulfilling a God-honoring role by restraining a clear and present evil. To disarm the innocent is to disarm the most immediate check on the forces of wickedness when they strike.

Christ's Instruction to Arm for Peril

The final, and perhaps most direct, scriptural support for preparing the means of defense is found in the very words of Jesus Christ Himself. In Luke 22:36, as He prepared His disciples for the period of tribulation and danger that would follow His arrest, He tells them: "Then said He unto them, But now, He that hath a purse, let Him take it, and likewise His scrip: and he that hath no sword, let Him sell His garment, and buy one."

The immediate, plain-sense interpretation of this command is that Jesus was instructing His followers to literally arm themselves for the perilous times ahead. He contrasts this new imperative with their earlier mission, where He sent them out unequipped, relying completely on divine, miraculous provision (Luke 9:3). Now, facing the reality of His departure and the coming persecution, the situation has changed. The disciples must now take ordinary, practical steps for their own security. The sword—the ultimate tool of defense and combat in the first century—serves as the functional equivalent of the modern defensive firearm.

While some interpret this verse metaphorically, suggesting the "sword" is the Word of God or a spiritual concept, the disciples’ immediate, literal response and Christ’s reply undermine this claim. When they produce two actual swords, Jesus responds, "It is enough" (Luke 22:38). While two swords were clearly not enough to wage war against the Roman legions, they were sufficient to fulfill the symbolic act of preparedness and to mark the disciples as "transgressors" in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. Crucially, Jesus does not condemn the swords' presence, nor does He tell them to discard what they had just acquired; rather, He affirms the preparation while clarifying the immediate context of His arrest was not the time for physical confrontation, as His sacrifice needed to be fulfilled. This passage thus serves as a powerful biblical authorization for the responsible acquisition of defensive weaponry when facing earthly peril.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Christian justification for responsible firearm ownership is not built upon a culture of fear or aggression, but on a theology of ordered liberty and duty. It is anchored in the belief that God-given life must be protected (Exodus 22:2), that the stewardship of one's family demands practical provision for their security (1 Timothy 5:8), and that Christ Himself sanctioned the preparedness necessary for survival in a broken world (Luke 22:36). Furthermore, the examples of the faithful in Scripture, like the builders of Nehemiah, demonstrate the moral integrity of maintaining both productivity and armed defense (Nehemiah 4:17-18). The Christian who chooses to responsibly bear arms is not rejecting the call to be a peacemaker; rather, He or she is choosing to be the final barrier against a violent evil that would destroy the innocent—an act of defense that is both morally sound and biblically supported by the King James Scriptures.

(Random Bible Verse: I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. - John 15:1 KJV)