Anyone who has read the Bible is familiar with the story of the money-changers in the Temple, and how the Son of God dealt with those who had cheated His people in His house. Likewise, Jesus exhorted his followers to procure swords or knives, even at the cost of selling their own garments if necessary.
Jesus was, however, non-aggressive, and therein lies the crux (no pun intended) of the situation.
Unfortunately, this debate comes up far more often than it should, especially in terms of Christians bearing arms for defense of themselves and their families. Some men who are far more versed in the Bible, teachings of Jesus, and religions as a whole once wrote:
…to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.
… and I firmly believe that, but that is not the quote which captured my attention today. Instead, I would like to turn your eyes to the words Michael J. Mollenhour:
If you are a committed absolute pacifist contemplating marriage, I think you owe it to your prospective bride to tell her in advance that you would not defend her, not protect her, not kill for her, and would permit your children to be kidnapped or killed before you would lift a hand against a criminal.
And that, dear readers, is what it means to be a “pacifist” or “nonviolent” – never offering so much as the slightest resistance to someone attacking you or yours.
So what does this have to do with the physical manifestation of the Holy Trinity? As Mike asks, “Would Jesus sit idly by and watch his wife and children tortured and murdered by a home invader?” Through His words and deeds, we know the answer to be a definitive “NO”, and through His teachings and the teachings of those who came before Him and followed after, we likewise know that His Father viewed our lives as a sacred, priceless gift, and one that would not be offered again, which leads one to the invariable conclusion that His answer would likewise be “NO”*.
People are, of course, free to do with their gifts as they so desire, and in the end, the final accounting will solely be between them and whatever God they believe in, but to attempt to misappropriate their faith as a means to disarm Christians is a blatant perversion of the teachings and example of Jesus Himself, and should be called out as such wherever it is found, much like the moneychangers were called out from the Temple.
(* – And before some halfwit wanders along with the argument that Jesus gave Himself up to the Cross without resistance, and chastised those who tried to protect Him, I have only two comments. First, Jesus knew that was going to be His fate from the very day of His birth – how could He not, with His being God – and knew that if He did not die on the Cross, humanity would be forever and eternally screwed. Second, the soldiers who arrested Him were operating under arguably lawful orders from their superiors, and if there is one thing He was big on, it was obeying the laws so far as was morally acceptable. In other words, read your Bible, sit down, and shut up.)