This is how they'll take your guns

[Don]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/

They can't get the guns themselves outlawed; so make it so cost-prohibitive that people won't even consider buying them in the first place.

And we all know, the insurance companies are going to support this 100%.

The *most* telling statement in this is:

"For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence," Maloney said in a written statement. "My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons."

Someone please help me figure out this logic, because it seems to me that what they're saying is: If you own a gun, you're responsible for the deaths in Connecticut and other gun shooting incidents.

 

[church mouse guy]

We can count on Chief Justice Roberts calling this a tax. A person's right to bear arms from the Bill of Rights does not mention any requirements. The Democrats are imperialists, always seeking more power--it's all about them personally. They don't even talk about freedom and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/

They can't get the guns themselves outlawed; so make it so cost-prohibitive that people won't even consider buying them in the first place.

And we all know, the insurance companies are going to support this 100%.

The *most* telling statement in this is:


Someone please help me figure out this logic, because it seems to me that what they're saying is: If you own a gun, you're responsible for the deaths in Connecticut and other gun shooting incidents.

Its not really abut the deaths. that is just the excuse to do what they already wanted to do. If there were no mass shootings ever they would still want to do this. They are just not letting a good tragedy go to waste.

 

[go2church]

If there were no mass shootings they would still want to do this?

I'm not arguing their point, but why would they still want them if not attached to violent acts?

 

[Judith]

If we would accept the truth this is all because of the claimed conservatives. When you surrender any part or parts of your freedom or rights for claimed security you have already lost the battle. Under the
2nd amendment there are no exclusions as to who can bear arms, what kind, or how many, but the gun advocates and conservatives gave in, many under Reagan, and now we are seeing the evolution of what happens when you surrender your rights. So the blame lies at the feet of those who are crying foul. Also when you do not know why the 2nd amendment was given your argument for keeping it becomes weak and most claimed conservatives do not know why the 2nd amendment was given. One big reason for this is that the schools today do not teach the history of this nation and its constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E

 

[just-want-peace]

If there were no mass shootings they would still want to do this?

I'm not arguing their point, but why would they still want them if not attached to violent acts?

Bottom line: Gun control has zilch to do with guns per se' - it's all about government CONTROLING the population.

The liberal's want precisely that which the founders specified as one of the reasons FOR the 2nd amendment; ergo they want to get rid of any privately owned possibilities of resistance!:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[Arbo]

We can count on Chief Justice Roberts calling this a tax. A person's right to bear arms from the Bill of Rights does not mention any requirements.

Agree with your take on Roberts. If Obamacare is truly a tax then nearly anything else on the left's agenda can be justied in a similar way.

The Democrats are imperialists, always seeking more power--it's all about them personally. They don't even talk about freedom and the Bill of Rights.

I would pause before agreeing to this. I've been in this country for forty-three years. The longer I am here, the more the establishment (I use this descriptor purposely) politicians of both parties seem to be of the similar mind that the retention of power is the goal. The new blood, ie Tea Party types, are encouraging.

 

[go2church]

Bottom line: Gun control has zilch to do with guns per se' - it's all about government CONTROLING the population.

The liberal's want precisely that which the founders specified as one of the reasons FOR the 2nd amendment; ergo they want to get rid of any privately owned possibilities of resistance!:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

What if I pay the tax, I get to keep my guns, correct?

If I refused to pay the tax wouldn't I then be in violation of the words of the Apostle Paul and Peter where I am admonished to be submissive to the governing authorities?

If the tax passes are you going to pay it and be in submission to the government or lie and keep your guns hidden while at the same time violating the admonition of the Bible?

You gets your allegiance now?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

LOL

And Joseph & Mary should have surrendered to Herod.

Again, LOL.

 

[FollowTheWay]

LOL

And Joseph & Mary should have surrendered to Herod.

Again, LOL.

Did they use weapons to protect Jesus? He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Put your faith in Jesus not guns.

 

[Don]

If we didn't have people rebelling against the authorities:
Moses would be dead.
Rahab would have allowed the spies to be taken.
David would have submitted to Saul and most likely have been killed.
Nehemiah wouldn't have built the wall.
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would have bowed to the golden idol.

Don't give us flimsy scripture to try to justify blind obedience.

 

[go2church]

Moses left only after pharaoh told him to go not before
Rahab lied
David refused to kill Saul
Nehemiah had permission and support from the king
The three Hebrew boys willfully took the consequences, a miracle saved them will in the fire

Joseph fled by word of The Lord before the killing took place

Pay or lie?

 

[Don]

Moses left only after pharaoh told him to go not before

But if his mother hadn't disobeyed, Moses would have been killed.

Rahab lied

And was counted among the justified.

David refused to kill Saul

No one in authority told David to kill Saul.

Nehemiah had permission and support from the king

You're right; in my haste, I was thinking about Sanballat and Tobiah.

The three Hebrew boys willfully took the consequences, a miracle saved them will in the fire

And couldn't God deliver us if we stand against an unjust government?

Joseph fled by word of The Lord before the killing took place

Which means that we can disobey a governmental decree if we believe/know doing so is of the Lord?

Pay or lie?

I personally refuse to lie. But I won't pay, either.

 

[go2church]

As long as you're willing to endure the consequences.

Look I don't think the amounts being spoken of as a tax $10,000 is one I've seen reported, has a chance of ever passing. Both parties love guns waaaay to much.

Of note it would be interesting if God actually cared enough to save anyone revolting against a gun tax considering there are already folks dying for things like prayer and bible study.

 

[Don]

As long as you're willing to endure the consequences.

Yep. All the way to the Supreme Court. And even considering renouncing my US citizenship, if that's what it takes.

Look I don't think the amounts being spoken of as a tax $10,000 is one I've seen reported, has a chance of ever passing. Both parties love guns waaaay to much.

Correct; but keep watching. Proposals are out to increase prices and taxes on ammunition; you can't find 9mm or .223 ammunition unless you're lucky or know someone at the store who'll call you when the shipment comes in; and today's news indicated a state that reached a bipartisan agreement that will make gun ownership harder and more costly.

Of note it would be interesting if God actually cared enough to save anyone revolting against a gun tax considering there are already folks dying for things like prayer and bible study.

So God only helps with the "big" things?

 

[go2church]

I don't know what God helps with, sometimes little things sometimes big things, that is why it would be interesting to know. A gun tax seems very small considering the other things going on, that and the whole be a peacemaker, love your enemy, turn the other cheek thing Jesus preached.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Did they use weapons to protect Jesus? He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Put your faith in Jesus not guns.

Owning guns does not mean "living by the sword". Your immature use of hyperbole is silly. Grow up.

 

[Don]

I don't know what God helps with, sometimes little things sometimes big things, that is why it would be interesting to know. A gun tax seems very small considering the other things going on, that and the whole be a peacemaker, love your enemy, turn the other cheek thing Jesus preached.

If you'll indulge me -- I think you have a basic misunderstanding of that passage. The "Middle East mindset" hasn't changed that much since the time Jesus walked the earth. There's a saying: "If you wait a hundred years to exact revenge, you are still moving too fast." In other words, and at least one commentary agrees with me, the passage you referenced is talking about taking revenge for a hurt--something the Old Testament laws allowed, but that the Pharisees had perverted to go beyond what God had commanded as fair and just.

No one here is advocating the use of guns for revenge against anyone. Instead, they are a tool to be used in hunting (and a shotgun just isn't the thing to use for deer); and yes, in defense of those God has made us stewards over. Just as John 10 indicates that the shepherd will guard against predators; and Ephesians 5 indicates that we should do the same for our spouses that Christ has done for the church.

 

[go2church]

Jesus died without putting up a fight, just saying. The only defense Jesus practiced was walking away. But interesting enough a small sword was part of the traveling gear for the disciples. Though, Jesus scolded Peter when he used his in the garden. Overall the New Testament and early church history is that of nonviolence. How that plays out in a self defense situation I think has varied for Christians throughout the ages. I would say that each Christian must decide for themselves.

Guns are a type of modern day sword.

 

[Don]

Jesus died without putting up a fight, just saying.

I hear what you're saying; but let's not forget that when Peter used his sword, Jesus reminded him that He could have called down an army of angels; but that there was a purpose that He had to fulfill, and thus, why He died without putting up a fight.

The only defense Jesus practiced was walking away.

Actually, He picked up a whip and used it to chase people out of the temple.

But interesting enough a small sword was part of the traveling gear for the disciples. Though, Jesus scolded Peter when he used his in the garden. Overall the New Testament and early church history is that of nonviolence. How that plays out in a self defense situation I think has varied for Christians throughout the ages. I would say that each Christian must decide for themselves.

Guns are a type of modern day sword.

Mostly agreed. Where I differ is that the principle of defending others falls under stewardship.