The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

In this round, I will be replying to my opponent's rebuttals."Now out of context this verse would appear to have me sunk. However when backing up to verse 14 of the same chapter, we see that this verse is actually in rebuke of the pharisees saying Jesus's power comes from Beelzebub. Now let's read verse 22-23 "But when some-one stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.""I find verses 22-23 highly irrelevant in lieu of the primary message of verse 21, that when an armed man protects his palace, his goods are, indeed, in peace. Remember, I am not debating over the meaning of the entire verse, but the significance and meaning of the singular verse alone."And in fact in Luke chapter 22: 50-51, Jesus rebukes one of the disciples for cutting off one of the guards ear; he then promptly heals the guard. "And one of them struck the servant of the high preist, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" and he touched the man's ear and healed him.""The act of the disciple Peter was NOT condoned by Jesus. Take note, the New Testament concentrates on the Teachings of Jesus, thus the response and action of Jesus shows that assault with weapons is not condoned. Jesus, however, was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defence, but by no means an advocate of aggression."Isiah 53:12 " Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.""My opponent agrees that the New Testament does not support violence. Of course, we cannot look at the new testament alone, we must reference it with the old testament for deeper understanding. And ecclesiastes 3:8 Tells us there is a time for war. The does not however justify the private ownership of weapons, it justifies the ownership of weapons during times of war.""And ecclesiastes 3:8 Tells us there is a time for war. The does not however justify the private ownership of weapons, it justifies the ownership of weapons during times of war."As much as I agree with some of the italicized statements, the posted Resolution bluntly states the New Testament Bible, thus I naturally must regard all arguments relating to the Old Testament Bible to be irrelevant.Also, I would like to elaborate on a verse I've posted."38 Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”"It is enough" roughly translates to "That's enough!', being that Jesus saw how his disciples were so eager to brandish and use their weapons of war, of which he did NOT condone. He only wished his disciples to bear their swords for self-defence and self-defence alone. Regardless of for just or unjust purposes, the New Testament Bible.The contender candidly failed to fully rebut my context contentions, and instead has cited verses of the Old Testament, which do not hold water in this otherwise inapplicable topic/Vote PRO.