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.
This is how they'll take your guns
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Don, Apr 2, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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? -
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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: -
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. -
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 <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
LOL
And Joseph & Mary should have surrendered to Herod.
Again, LOL. -
FollowTheWay Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
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? -
-
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. -
-
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 <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Owning guns does not mean "living by the sword". Your immature use of hyperbole is silly. Grow up. -
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. -
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. -
Page 1 of 2