Don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the whole "if you carry a gun, you're not a Christian," meme. As if the notion of self-defense runs contrary to the teaching's of Jesus Christ (spoiler alert: they don't. I almost wrote that in all caps to scream it). But leave it to some hipster who's never read the Bible to give me crap for carrying a gun. Maybe he's just jealous the gun won't fit in his skinny jeans. Is that a gun or you just...oh, yeah, that's totally a gun.

Let's get to the obvious. When Jesus donned his robe, he didn't strap on a Glock. Though if ever there was conceal-carry friendly apparel, it was a flowing robe. Custom holster not required.

Jesus also never said "Love they neighbor as thou loves thy ammunition supplier," or "Seek ye first cover, then aim to kill." I get it. Jesus didn't grow up with guns because guns weren't around. Neither was text messaging. A lot of things would have been different.

Regardless of history or an obvious lack of any Biblical knowledge, leftists continue lecturing us for merely being gun owners. There are a few main culprits, all deriving from a level of understanding of the Bible that can only be described as functionally retarded. So let's set the record straight on Jesus and self-defense.

Misunderstanding Numero Uno (we're multicultural here): All killing is murder, therefore killing someone in self-defense is murder. Jesus was about loving thy enemy, not pumping him full of lead.

Incorrect. I don't want to repeat myself here, so let me state the most important important absolute truth that will act as a thread throughout this both entertaining and enlightening column.

Violence is amoral. Someone can use violence to rape a woman. Or someone can use violence to stop the rape of said woman. Look, if someone's being raped, please use a gun on the rapist. In one case (rape) violence is evil. In the other, stopping the rapist and saving a life, violence is virtuous.

Yes, violence can be virtuous. War, what is it good for? Turns out, some things.

Dropping a would-be murderer is different than capping your coworker because he told you he doesn't like your Grumpy Cat calendar. A gun shot is "excessive." Though Grumpy Cat is awesome. There simply isn’t a moral equivalency between someone who takes another life out of wrath, vengeance, hate, or any other evil intent already outlined in the Bible as sinful. That's the beauty of the Christian faith. It's clear in diagnosing the problem (the heart/intent) instead of the symptom (gun goes bang bang). Yes, it is God’s job to deliver justice. Sometimes he just chooses to do that through the hands of a good guy. With a .357

Misunderstanding Numero Dos: Jesus said to "Turn the other cheek." Therefore Jesus is a pacifist who doesn't fight back. He buys his unleavened bread organic.

Incorrect. The verse Matthew 5:38-39 also needs a wee bit of historical context. In the time of Jesus when there was no Facebook comment section, turning the other cheek was often seen as an act of defiance, not submission. Turning the other cheek is not surrender. Let me give you a modern day example, feminists: someone makes fun of your Birkenstocks. In response you give them a pair, saying "Because you like them so much." See what was done there? It's a subtle diss which also defuses the situation. Two doves, one of David's sling-shotted stones.

In no way does the verse support the leftist theory of Jesus being against self-defense. Firstly, the point of the story has more to do with dealing with bullies and not seeking revenge. Secondly, being slapped on the cheek is not a lethal, life-threatening situation. Of COURSE Jesus didn’t say “If someone slaps your right cheek, light that bastard up!” At least not in my translation... I've yet to read the New-Charles-Bronson-Living Version. Point is, Jesus never said "If someone shoots your child, offer to him your other child."

Misunderstanding Numero Tres:Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword after Peter slices off a soldier's ear (Matthew 26:50-52). Therefore Jesus was against self defense, as Peter was defending Jesus. #EarsLivesMatter

Firstly, when Jesus says “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” he was talking about people who live through violence motivated by evil. If Jesus were against sword violence, he would've told Peter swords were jerks while handing him a sword-violence awareness ribbon. Obviously Jesus knew Peter was hiding a sword in his man dress. Again, the perfect outfit for conceal-carry. We're talking about Jesus here. The guy predicted the future, cured blind men, and was totally against stoning broads. Even the super slutty ones. He didn't protest Peter carrying the sword.

Secondly, this passage demonstrates the principle of not attacking someone out of anger/hate/etc. Again, it's addressing the core problem, the heart and soul, not the symptom (bad sword go slice slice). Again, this was not a life-threatening situation (at least not imminently) which called for lethal violence.

Of course, on a theological level, it can be argued Jesus had to submit to all of the violence and torture (including not resisting arrest at the hands of the mob in this passage) brought to him so that he could complete his mission. Hint: a giant cross played a role. Double-hint: It had nothing to do with bunnies laying colorful eggs.

Was Jesus a weapon-toting badass? No. Nor was he a pacifist, horn-rimmed hipster. Read Was Jesus a Liberal? The Myth Debunked! Likewise, to say that my choice of self-protection is anti-christian is just well...

Is there an important role for conflict-averse, peaceful missionaries? Sure. But that doesn't mean that some people aren't meant to kick ass and take names. Or at the very least, be capable of defending the flock. Some of us are lambs. Some of us are German Shepherd Dogs. Trust us, when the wolves come to feast on the lambs, you'll want the dogs to have all of their teeth.

No more humble bumbles.

Written by Steven Crowder and Courtney Kirchoff