It's clear what Jesus' position is on the carrying of personal arms. Remember when one of Jesus' disciples whacked the ear off of Malgus with his sword?
Jesus reprimanded Peter but didn't take his sword away or demanded that he surrenders it.
In regard to the passage which you referenced, you are, of course, correct that there are those, even conservative theologians, who say that Jesus exhortation to the disciples to take a sword with them is metaphorical. However, there is not legitimate exegesis to support that theory. The disciples obviously took it literally, and Jesus never corrected them. It is also curious that nothing else in that conversation is relegated to the metaphorical, and nothing in the grammar or context would lead one to that conclusion.
As you know, Erick, your referencing an entirely different passage than that of which LibertySure was speaking. In regard to that passage, Peter came to the garden armed with a sword, of which Jesus was surely aware. Peter's use of that sword was unjustified, and yet, even then, Jesus merely said to put it away, and not to get rid of it.
"That's the problem with "liberal" seminaries that "wrest the scriptures". Jesus said (KJV) "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." That's pretty clear"
The swords weren't for self-defense. Scripture says specifically that he told them that to fulfill a prophecy that he be numbered with the transgressors:
"If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.” - Luke 22:36-37
It says right there that the reason for him saying that was so the Scripture would be fulfilled that he be numbered with the transgressors. NOT for self-defense against the Roman army.
"The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied" Luke 22:38
Two swords are "enough" - so obviously they weren't for self-defense. In fact, they tried to USE them for self-defense, and he REBUKED them:
'When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.' - Luke 22:49-51
I find it very strange when I hear American Conservatives make this claim, Because from the point of view of Christianity, the idea that Jesus wanted them to FIGHT the Romans when they came to arrest him as opposed to giving himself to be crucified actually sounds like blasphemy.
Have you read "The Kingdom of God is within you"? All Tolstoy does is take literally Jesus' words in the Beautitudes and the very practice of his life, total meekness and non-resistance to violence, culminating in his own crucifixion. He points out how nearly all organized churches, particularly the Russian Orthodox, have distorted Jesus' teachings on non-resistance to violence beyond recognition. For this they excommunicated him. He never claimed to be a practicing member so I'm sure he wore it as a badge of honor.
Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated for falsely claiming that Jesus was a pacifist. The roads in First Century Israel were loaded with bandits. It was unsafe to travel in First Century Israel without being armed.