So, the law says I have to own a gun - will the town issue me one?
could they force me to buy one?
Who is responsible for maintenance
Does that include a requirement to own ammo?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Poll: Majority Americans Regret Taking Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
So, the law says I have to own a gun - will the town issue me one?
could they force me to buy one?
Who is responsible for maintenance
Does that include a requirement to own ammo?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I agree, but I also believe personally that anyone who took the vaccine that had not been properly vetted made a foolish decision and there are some that were coerced by their stupid employers and they should be held accountable as well for forcing something without scientific reason.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
That's barbaric.
It is not about whether governments enact anti-biblicsl laws but whether obedience to these laws constitute disobedience to God.
When Paul wrote that we are to obey the laws of the land, the governments in power, Rome was an oppressive secular government.
The thing is, Paul was more concerned with the gospel of Jesus Christ than his rights. Many here are not.
In Kennesaw GA it was that every household had to have a gun. It was never actually enforced (but gun ownership is high). It was enough of a deterrent to significantly lower the crime rate (crime dropped by about 30% and there have only been 3 murders over the last 20 years). It was basically a political statement.
We are talking about a whooping 34,000 and change people. That's a spit in the bucket. Using such a low number shows us nothing in regard to society as a whole.
Also only a 10% poverty rate and a solid middle class lifestyle. This is hardly a case study for gun use. Take away their bank accounts and show us the statistics.
Kennesaw, GA | Data USA).
Would be, if it were not a suburb of Antlanta, where crime dropped about 30%.
I'm not saying it is a case for gun ownership (moat would look to places like Switzerland to make that case).
If it were the law that you had to own a gun, would you? Or would you disobey the government (and God)?
That is the question that needs to be addressed.
I would give up guns if made illegal, or own a gun if the law.
In 2019 AR 600-20 was changed to allow involuntary immunizations.
AR 600-20 (paragraph 5-4) states that when it is determined the "threat of naturally occurring disease is reasonably possible soldiers may be involuntarily immunized" and performing this duty, unit personnel will "only use the amount of force necessary to assist medical personnel in administering the immunization."
AR 600-20 (paragraph 5-4) states that when it is determined the "threat of naturally occurring disease is reasonably possible soldiers may be involuntarily immunized" and performing this duty, unit personnel will "only use the amount of force necessary to assist medical personnel in administering the immunization."
If my government required it, I would either buy a BB gun or move. Mennonites have done the latter for 500 years.
Most (if all) Mennonite households own guns.
Also, I have watched the Amish shooting targets. They hunt and use guns to defend livestock.
The reason I ask is that it is worthless to say you would obey the government in obedience to God if this only applies to situations where you agree with the government.
Come to think of it, bringing up the Mennonites disproves your point about guns. You are right that they have remained non-violent (towards other men), but they have also used their second Ammendment rights to own weapons.
Just because a gun can be used to kill a person does not mean this is its intended use. The intent is often defined by the owner of the weapon.
God gave us animals to eat. I have always stated that having a gun for hunting, locked in a secure gun cabinet, is a legitimate use of a gun. I am not a vegetarian so killing livestock for food, with a gun, is legitimate. But, I also note that a gun has only one use as a tool, and that is to kill something that is living
My point with Mennonites is that they leave when a government asks them to go against their conscience. They don't fight government.
I agree. Our role is not to fight the government but to stand for Christ. Perhaps this means leaving. But it may, as with the early church, simply mean standing and facing the consequences (and, ultimately, the reward).
We live in a culture that is by nature anti-authority when it comes to governments. Perhaps this is expected due to the origin of our nation.
Unfortunately this rebellious spirit lives in the hearts and minds of Chriatians who should know better.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Can we get back to the topic?
You mean the one that @Revmitchell started where he claims the opposite of what is true?
IMO, some government laws may need to be disobeyed in order to obey God. One example that comes to mind would be mandating medical people to perform abortions, with no "conscience clause". Others would be as related to Acts 3 and 4, if (when?) the government would outlaw biblical preaching. And like Peter, John and Paul (and many others down to this day), Christians must be ready to take the consequences of such disobedience.
How would I react to a firearms prohibition/confiscation law? Since I wouldn't know the sociopolitical situation at that time, I can't say. If it was done by a stable democratic (small "d") government, I'd likely need to obey (after much prayer). If it was a tyrannical government acting like, say, current Myanmar (army shooting non-protesting citizens in the streets), it would be a much different choice.
Based on Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, why would it be a different choice?
Recall that Paul and Peter wrote under the reign of Nero and died at his orders. Did Peter and Paul give exception clauses beyond "we must obey God rather than man"?
That biblical quote is the key, and it must be considered wisely, not as an excuse for doing what one wanted to do anyway. That doctor who refuses to kill the unborn due to biblical principles may well be fired, but Peter wrote (1 Pet. 4:16), "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."
I agree in principle. The issue becomes when men follow their desires rather than God under the guise of godliness.
As an example we can look at the early church. How did their taking the fight to Rome go? It didn't, because they didn't. They were persecuted, and died. And God's kingdom was advanced.
That could not happen today, not because the government is different but because Christians are less faithful.
But I agree that we obey God. The issue is that Christians reason God out of their decisions.
An illustration (a silly one):
The speed limit is 45 mph, but my conscious demands I drive 80 mph, therefore I speed in obedience to God over the government.
Matters of conscience only apply in absence of God's command.
Apparently, the reason the town passed the law- was in response to a town in Ill, that prohibited any firearm ownership ( or some similar written law) The GA town did have exceptions, religious, felonies, mental, ect. There was never any intention to enforce the law..
BUT - since there was a lot of coverage in national news,, (including a live broadcast by Opha Winfrey (sp?) people know it would not be wise to commit crimes in that town!!!!
BUT - since there was a lot of coverage in national news,, (including a live broadcast by Opha Winfrey (sp?) people know it would not be wise to commit crimes in that town!!!!