SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State
A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
Whenever I've read that particular verse, I've imagined them selling an extra garment. An overcoat, a tunic, an extra headwrap, or a shirt. Naked, sword wielding apostles running around...come on now...ha-ha.
John Beechy wrote: So, even though Jesus is speaking to the apostles regarding an event at that time, was he telling them to sell their garments and be naked? If we apply to everyone, do we sell are garments and walk around naked so we can buy swords?
God forbid that Jesus Christ would tell his disciples then or now to walk around naked.
Rufus_1611 wrote: I trust the Word of God to protect my children and the Word told me to do the following: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - (Luke 22:36)
So, even though Jesus is speaking to the apostles regarding an event at that time, was he telling them to sell their garments and be naked? If we apply to everyone, do we sell are garments and walk around naked so we can buy swords?
Rufus_1611 wrote: I trust the Word of God to protect my children and the Word told me to do the following: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - (Luke 22:36)
And you expect us to believe that this instruction applies to every single follower of Christ do you?????? Is that your actual experience of American society????
I guess what you are suggesting is that in America every Christian is walking around with a sword strapped to his waist????
Instead of encouraging people to arm themselves with M16's and kalashnikovs from the local arsenal why not remember the Biblical teaching ....
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
ObamaCare treading on religious freedom. Frustration over losing the election. The fiscal cliff fiasco. Now second ammendment rights being tread on by executive order with many states refusing to comply. In a couple weeks another battle over the debt ceiling with Obama saying there will be no negotiations over spending cuts. And the second four year term hasn't even begun.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was an assassination attempt.
Rufus_1611 wrote: I trust the Word of God to protect my children and the Word told me to do the following: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - (Luke 22:36)
And at the Last Supper, even. But you know some will say this is a spiritual sword; the rest that it was so they could slice bread or for some other respectable purpose. It can't be an actual sword with a sharp edge, it wouldn't be Christian to take it up, would it? Swords have only one purpose, and that isn't target practice, by gum.
protect them wrote: A society which allows the murder of 20 innocent six year olds and does nothing about the access of guns on its streets is culpable of the evil of not protecting them. Millions of schools all over the world do not have gun toting teachers to protect the children in their care. Your arguement is seen to be flawed by the experience of your own schools and schools of other nations. Do something realistic to stop this regular American carnage, do something realistic to protect the children. Clearly as a "Christian" you do not trust God to protect your children perhaps you need to think this through. God does not require nations to arm themselves to the teeth and make available such murderous tactics in a "civilised" society.
I trust the Word of God to protect my children and the Word told me to do the following:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. - (Luke 22:36)
Rufus wrote: A society who allows the people placed in charge of the protection of those children to be unarmed is culpable for the evil of not protecting them
A society which allows the murder of 20 innocent six year olds and does nothing about the access of guns on its streets is culpable of the evil of not protecting them.
Millions of schools all over the world do not have gun toting teachers to protect the children in their care. Your arguement is seen to be flawed by the experience of your own schools and schools of other nations.
Do something realistic to stop this regular American carnage, do something realistic to protect the children. Clearly as a "Christian" you do not trust God to protect your children perhaps you need to think this through.
God does not require nations to arm themselves to the teeth and make available such murderous tactics in a "civilised" society.
Hmmm...what's this about, conspiracy theory? I'll check it out when I have time later tonight. What are they saying, Adam Lanza was never really there or that he was mind controled? I'll check it out...
This Sandy Hook Fully Exposed Video has over 9 million views. You might want to watch it or read about the obvious inconsistencies before commenting as if the official story is true. This one is so obvious it appears intentional, like "they" want a lot of people to know it was a hoax or staged or whatever.
Connecticut has the 5th toughest gun laws in the nation, including a ban on assault rifles. The guns were purchased LEGALLY by the killer's mom, he was turned down when he tried to purchase firearms. Guns used to murder people are used by people who already have no regard for the law, so more legislation just disarms law abiding citizens. There is a reason that these shootings take place in no gun zones. The Colorado shooter chose the theater with the sign "no firearms allowed" over many others who were showing the same movie. The chances of gun legislation making it through congress is two in nature, slim and none. The president doesn't have a lot of options even with executive orders. The problem continues to be, There is no fear of God before their eyes.
protect them wrote: Bad Guys??? Criminals don't slaughter 20 six year olds in a school. ---
Lanza broke many laws before he ever got to the school, including gun laws. Then he murdered more. If he committed no crime, he wouldn't be a criminal. If you want to call him more emotionally satisfying names, have at it. Just don't say he wasn't a criminal.
protect them wrote: Bad Guys??? Criminals don't slaughter 20 six year olds in a school. A society who allows easy access of military style weapons on the high street is culpable of that evil act.
A society who allows the people placed in charge of the protection of those children to be unarmed is culpable for the evil of not protecting them.
There are 107 countries with a higher murder rate per 100,000 people than the United States and every single one of them has more restrictive gun laws than the U.S.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." - William S. Burroughs
Any sworn officer of the state of Texas has the authority to charge and arrest any individual violating the laws of this state. If someone under the color of federal authority wants to usurp the law of this state, he or she would be subject to arrest,incarceration and prosecution and the national guard would not need to be called on to do it.
Is that right, Rufus? Interesting. I thought the Feds were basically above the law and untouchable at any state level. I thought Texas was just talking tough in that article and not being realistic. That would be very interesting to hear of Federal agents being arrested for breaking Texas law. I think that would be great since they carry with them such a high level of confidence and superiority.
Jim Lincoln wrote: He will have to do like Eisenhower or Kennedy did, nationalize the Texas National Guard and have the law enforced. ...
Any sworn officer of the state of Texas has the authority to charge and arrest any individual violating the laws of this state. If someone under the color of federal authority wants to usurp the law of this state, he or she would be subject to arrest,incarceration and prosecution and the national guard would not need to be called on to do it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings --- This makes for interesting reading. I would think reinstating the law that expired in 2004, the N.R.A. no doubt had a hand in that, ---
Key word: agenda
For your edification, Columbine and several others occurred prior to 2004, while the law you want reinstated was in effect. Maybe bad guys are different now, and reinstatement will be effective?
He will have to do like Eisenhower or Kennedy did, nationalize the Texas National Guard and have the law enforced.
Considering one doesn't even know what the new gun law provisions will entail, if there is any new law at all.
White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings This makes for interesting reading. I would think reinstating the law that expired in 2004, the N.R.A. no doubt had a hand in that, q.v., Full Show: United States of ALEC or read the transcript for it. This is something that should have been allowed, and the Brady law should have its loophole plugged. I suspect what will be proposed will not please me either, the extremists in Congress go overboard way to the left--or right while zooming past a middle ground.
Mark Twain wrote: All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress [/QUOTE
I agree and I am very curious to know what all of OBama's executive orders are going to consist of. He no longer has to be concerned with re-election, so this should be interesting. He wants everything his way but doesn't want to budge on anyrhing...sounds like a dictator to me. Insurance premiums are already on the rise because of Obama care as well.
4
There are a total of 23 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
