Would you give this felon a gun?

[accidentalfelon]

Romans 13 1:5

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain;

Treo, It is my belief that the above paragraph is a "qualifier". It is limiting the command to those who do not "do what is good" and who "do evil".

To put it in simpler terms, the laws are supposed to punish "evil doers" - if we are not "doing evil" then we have to weigh our actions based on the golden rule and the right of self preservation. Otherwise this entire paragraph would be a direct contradiction to what Jesus said about his disciples eating grain on the Sabbath.

If the text means what you are indicating that it means, then our entire country was birthed by a bunch of evil doers that should have been executed.

Treo, that's just my opinion that has come from my own study. I've never even read that explanation anywhere other than from my own prayer and study.

I might be completely wrong. But if I am wrong I'm glad I've got a better lawyer in heaven (Jesus) than I had 20 years ago! :)

[Warbirds]

The mere fact that I had this man "of color" as one of my friends and as an employees says something about where I stand regarding race. The fact that you keep bringing it up says something about where you stand.

Let me clarify this point for you. I think you are racist, you just try to be subtle racist. That is why I bring it up.

Other than that I think you missed when I said this, so let me quote it.

I do love it when you use religion and revolutionary war quotes to justify your actions. To me it just shows how weak your story is.

I do need to correct what I said. When it comes to fault you are "you you you you you" for everything else you are all "me me me me me me".

[reinoehl117]

Treo, It is my belief that the above paragraph is a "qualifier". It is limiting the command to those who do not "do what is good" and who "do evil".

To put it in simpler terms, the laws are supposed to punish "evil doers" - if we are not "doing evil" then we have to weigh our actions based on the golden rule and the right of self preservation. Otherwise this entire paragraph would be a direct contradiction to what Jesus said about his disciples eating grain on the Sabbath.

If the text means what you are indicating that it means, then our entire country was birthed by a bunch of evil doers that should have been executed.

Treo, that's just my opinion that has come from my own study. I've never even read that explanation anywhere other than from my own prayer and study.

I might be completely wrong. But if I am wrong I'm glad I've got a better lawyer in heaven (Jesus) than I had 20 years ago! :)

Your belief doesn't make much sense if you consider the context. Think about the Roman government at the time and then look at what Paul wrote. The paragraph in question seems to suggest that governments are instituted by God and carry legitimate authority that needs to be recognized... even if that government oversteps its legitimate boundaries. There does, of course, come a breaking point, but that seems to be the main idea. This concept of respecting legitimate authority even when it may not be completely "right" applies much more directly to us today than the passages you quoted regarding the Sabbath. The Pharisees weren't wrong for enforcing the Law... they were wrong for abusing it for personal gain. As Jesus said, He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it.

[Treo]

I said it before , I'll say it again:

No one forced you to carry a gun in a place where you knew it was illegal. You made that decision, you get to live w/ your mistake.

It really is just that simple.

[Treo]

Treo, It is my belief that the above paragraph is a "qualifier". It is limiting the command to those who do not "do what is good" and who "do evil".

Yeah, that's not a "qualifier" it's a justifier. The bible is pretty clearly unless the governing authorities are telling you to do something that directly contradicts God's Word you obey the governing authorities

[Rich_S]

Answer to question 1:

Jesus says life is more important than law.

Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

In case you are uneducated on the reference to David, below is the text where he lies to obtain bread that is illegal for him to eat. At the time the penalty for his eating the bread would have been far greater than the penalty for my carrying in a no carry state.

I Samuel 21: 1Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?” 2David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has commissioned me with a matter and has said to me, ‘Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.’ 3“Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found.” 4The priest answered David and said, “There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5David answered the priest and said to him, “Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?” 6So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away.

Answer to question 2

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure you do either.

Regarding section 3

In my summary I've blamed no one but the corrupt people who put me in there and wouldn't help my wife expose a blackmail attempt by the accuser. Learn to read. I said he apparently blames himself because he didn't stick around after we were released. He repeatedly said he was sorry for getting us in the mess for wanting to buy one of those stupid fake gold chains. I don't blame him. You share some of the blame for accepting unconstitutional laws and defending a legal system that could do something like this to two people for nothing more than doing what the supreme law of our land says is our right, the right to travel among the states and the right to remain armed while doing so to protect our LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
The mere fact that I had this man "of color" as one of my friends and as an employees says something about where I stand regarding race. The fact that you keep bringing it up says something about where you stand.

I don't know what your are referring to about my guns belonging to my wife, unless you are referring to any remarks I've made in allusion to G. Gordon Liddy and his well known explanation for having weapons in his home.

Regarding #4

Posting on here accomplishes nothing for me. I've done a lot for myself with the money I've been forced to use to pay attorneys regarding my situation. The reason I'm posting on here at all is to show what can and will happen to some here who try to follow the law, yet find themselves in situations that could have a bad outcome no matter what they do. That guy with the gold chains could have took that necklace and ran to where his buddies were waiting to rob and kill us. That's the kind of unknown that most of the people on this forum try to be prepared for. But then it's guys like you who see following the law as being more important than the possible protection of life, just like the Pharisees did.


As a footnote: As far as laughing at my story I'm glad you are entertained by the misfortunes of others. And as for that snowball fight in hell, I'm afraid I won't be there to join you. You'll have to find someone else to play.

Please post your home address. I think we should direct some homeless people who are hungry to break into your house so they can eat. According to you that will be fine because Jesus says that life is more important than law. Sound good?

[Treo]

Please post your home address. I think we should direct some homeless people who are hungry to break into your house so they can eat. According to you that will be fine because Jesus says that life is more important than law. Sound good?

The Bible says that even if a man is starving and steal bread he must repay the price of the bread

[localgirl]

People for the most part really dont change. Our recidivism rates echo that. You go into prison a murderer, a rapist, a sex offender, an armed robber, and you come out of prison a murderer, a rapist, a sex offender, an armed robber.

Only one thing changes after you go through prison, you become a hardened criminal or you stay the same. Do some people change? Yes its possible, but it doesnt mean we should give a man his gun back after he shot a family dead because he claims to be sane now and regrets his actions.

"Recidivism"! Yesh! Bonus point for Deserteagle for using awesome words.