Gun Laws vs Death rates.

[SBC]

This appears to be speculation. Where is your evidence? I suggest that it is clear that, as time progresses, the world is getting less "dictatorial", not more. In the last few decades, the iron curtain has fallen, and a smattering of other nations have moved from autocracy to democracy.

Power of the world IS:
MONEY (is the status that Dictates) and MIGHT (of military that Controls).

When the status that Dictates has confiscated the People's Wealth and Arms...then maybe you will get it. Democracy - funny. Democracy is simply allowing people to vote - then confiscating the People's Wealth and Arms.

One World Government - One World Order - news to you? The World's Governments have been talking about it and planning it for eons. What do you think US officials are promoting as they trot around the Globe on the People's dime? Higher TAXES on the wealthy, making the People Dependent upon governments for everything and GUN control.

Rev 13
[7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
[8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
[9] If any man have an ear, let him hear.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

God didn't grant you liberty either. [/QUOTE]

Don't be naive - What do you think having a CHOICE to believe or not is?

The Head of the household, in Christianity has grave responsibilities to love as Jesus loved. Jesus also gave the Head of household the responsibility to obey the laws which his government set before him.

Who is talking about love? Sure A Christian head of household, presumes to set their household rules in accordance with Gods Word. All men have the responsibility to obey the government that has a particular jurisdiction over them.....IF it does not exceed, the bounds of Gods Word.....and in the US, IF it does not exceed the bounds of the Constitution, be it Federal or State.

In many cases, but the head still has to obey the laws that have jurisdiction over him; in this case, the government which rules the country he lives in.

Uh, in the US, for natural born citizens no. The Fed gov't, ie the SERVANTS sit at the APEX, with very FEW duties. The Power, ie the PEOPLE sits at the BASE. But sadly the Servants glued in sits of honor for eons have convinced the People, that the people are too stupid to take care of themselves and should be DEPENDENTS of the Servants.
Keep telling yourself this is the land of the Free and Independent....while daily the people clamor to be added as a dependent of the "pseudo servant".

The "LAW" of the LAND, in this case, the federal, state, and local governments, don't exercise carte blanche authority. They are elected by the people who have given them the authority to enact laws which allow or restrict its citizen to exercise their liberty within reason.

This is the INTENT of the last Candidate (schooled in the Law!) for POTUS -

Hillary Clinton ~
"We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move"...
Hillary Clinton Admits: 'We Tax Everything That Moves'

Not carte' blanche, as you say?
Tax everything as Hillary Clinton says?
And nothing whatosever in the US Constitution provides for such outlandish nonsense.
But hey, that IS the Communist, Liberal, American Democrat mind-set, that their well oiled machine endlessly drives toward and promotes world-wide.

Ever wonder who was the first to try that? I say cut his hind legs off and throw them in some flour and butter milk and toss them in some hot peanut oil. yum-yum. ;0

No, I do not wonder if it was tried, but I do understand the concept of it works on naive people.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Yarddog]

Don't be naive - What do you think having a CHOICE to believe or not is?

UN
Free will to obey.

Who is talking about love? Sure A Christian head of household, presumes to set their household rules in accordance with Gods Word. All men have the responsibility to obey the government that has a particular jurisdiction over them.....IF it does not exceed, the bounds of Gods Word.....and in the US, IF it does not exceed the bounds of the Constitution, be it Federal or State.

God's word says that are to be obedient to governing authorities, regardless of what country it is. And it is not your authority to say what exceeds the Constitution. That belongs to SCOTUS.

Uh, in the US, for natural born citizens no.

Incorrect. All citizens are to obey the laws of the land.

The Fed gov't, ie the SERVANTS sit at the APEX, with very FEW duties. The Power, ie the PEOPLE sits at the BASE. But sadly the Servants glued in sits of honor for eons have convinced the People, that the people are too stupid to take care of themselves and should be DEPENDENTS of the Servants.

I agree that the government is the servants of the people. But, as set forth in the Constitution, the people vote them in to enact laws for the people to obey.

And nothing whatosever in the US Constitution provides for such outlandish nonsense.

Incorrect. The Constitution gave Congress the power to set taxation.

No, I do not wonder if it was tried, but I do understand the concept of it works on naive people.

Yep, it's working, on all facets of the political spectrum. Conservative media has been slowly turning up the great for about 40 years and their voters are clueless and stuck in the boiling water.

God Bless

 

[pat34lee]

Gun safety laws make a difference and educating the gun owners about preventative measures to keep guns out of the hands of children and those who are suffering with mental illness, even if it is just temporary sadness or depression.

I think there should be mandatory classes in schools to
familiarize children with firearms and other weapons.
Maybe then they can teach their parents something.

 

[SBC]

UN
Free will to obey.

God's word says that are to be obedient to governing authorities, regardless of what country it is.

Disagree -

Acts 5:
[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

And it is not your authority to say what exceeds the Constitution. That belongs to SCOTUS.

It is my authority to know what exceeds the Constitution, and if you did also, you would understand how the District of Corruption is called a Swamp, for more than it merely being built upon a swamp.

Incorrect. All citizens are to obey the laws of the land.

Incorrect. All persons are subject to obeying laws that apply to them. Period.
All laws do not apply to all people.

I agree that the government is the servants of the people. But, as set forth in the Constitution, the people vote them in to enact laws for the people to obey.

The People do have a right to vote for whom they choose.
Too bad the majority of voters are ignorant of the limits of the Constitution, and vote for candidates who promise the people to violate the Constitution.

The Founders used Biblical standards and principles when founding this country, which any student of law and scripture would easily notice.

Acts 5:
[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

Incorrect. The Constitution gave Congress the power to set taxation.

The Constitution gave Congress very limited powers ~ but then we have a nation full of people who have no clue what those limits are.

Yep, it's working, on all facets of the political spectrum. Conservative media has been slowly turning up the great for about 40 years and their voters are clueless and stuck in the boiling water.

Little ole' Conservative media a threat to the mega Liberal conglomerate?
Army tank attacking a private home, children burned alive, woman shot and killed holding her infant, her young son shot and killed, IN the US, by the US democratic servants, and beware, Guam is tipping over... Jimmy Jones kool-aid, free for the gulping.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Yekcidmij]

God's word says that are to be obedient to governing authorities, regardless of what country it is. And it is not your authority to say what exceeds the Constitution. That belongs to SCOTUS.

-Would you agree with the Declaration of Independence? It seems it's a document that wasn't obedient to government authority.

-How do you understand contradictory SCOTUS rulings? I mean, at one time SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery. Surely we can't say that this was right or should have been "obeyed" because the supreme court said so.

I thought we did away with the idea that anyone rules by divine right, but on this forum the idea seems to be alive and well. And it's a rather strange idea to still have life given the structure of US Government where government itself is subject to laws and where principles and processes are in place precisely because nobody rules by divine right - people are subject to mistakes and incentives that must be controlled, mitigated and corrected when they arise. Government is just a collection of people who respond to the same environmental pressures to which everyone else responds. There is nothing infallible about a government where it's rules must be followed at the expense of natural law, divine law, or conscience. And there is nothing that says it's rules will always align with natural law or divine law.

It's hard to apply biblical writings to US government because the ideas about government then and now are very different. The foundations of US government lie in the Enlightenment, natural law, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the idea that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the citizenry as opposed to the biblical writers who were almost always writing under and about some sort of theocratic monarchy be it the Davidic king or Caesar.

I see little value in telling people to be obedient to government because God commands it. People should obey government when it's right. Thankfully we've had people like the founders, abolitionists and civil rights activists who saw it the same way.

 

[Yarddog]

-Would you agree with the Declaration of Independence? It seems it's a document that wasn't obedient to government authority.

No. Christians killing Christians over taxation.

-How do you understand contradictory SCOTUS rulings? I mean, at one time SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery. Surely we can't say that this was right or should have been "obeyed" because the supreme court said so.

Well, the many of the Founding Fathers were hypocrites. It wasn't liberty and justice for all, it was liberty and justice for white men. In part, we must understand that it is SCOTUS' place to make decisions based on rule of law, not Christian values. Laws at that time favored White Men and blacks, Indians, women,... just didn't have laws making them equal under the law. (We can add the unborn to that list today)

I thought we did away with the idea that anyone rules by divine right, but on this forum the idea seems to be alive and well.

Many Christians are hypocrites. They point fingers at others when we should truly examine ourselves first.

-
I see little value in telling people to be obedient to government because God commands it. People should obey government when it's right.

How many people died needlessly during the American Revolution? We had Christians fighting Christians over taxes and self rule.

-
Thankfully we've had people like the founders, abolitionists and civil rights activists who saw it the same way.

Women found rights in Britain before American women. Slavery was abolished long before in America. Just how much freedom would we have found if we would have worked through the system of law instead of the battle field. The Enlightenment had taken hold in Britain and the Americans loved being British in the early 1760's.

The problem was taxation. England was hit hard financially by the French and Indian War and because they needed to maintain an army in the colonies they needed taxes to pay for it. Thus, taxes were levied by Parliament and the colonists hated that part. In part because they had no say in what Parliament decided to do.

All of that death was a result of people wanting a say in their taxes. What did Jesus say about taxes? Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar...

 

[Yarddog]

YD wrote, "Free will to obey." You responded:

Disagree -
Acts 5:
[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

How do you think providing a verse which agrees with what I wrote helps your position?
We are called to be obedient to God who calls us to be good citizens of the places we live.
Romans 13:
1. Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

It is my authority to know what exceeds the Constitution, and if you did also, you would understand how the District of Corruption is called a Swamp, for more than it merely being built upon a swamp.

You may have a self-proclaimed authority but you have no legal authority.

Incorrect. All persons are subject to obeying laws that apply to them. Period.
All laws do not apply to all people.

That may depend on exactly what laws that you refer to.

The People do have a right to vote for whom they choose.
Too bad the majority of votes are ignorant of the limits of the Constitution, and vote for candidates who promise the people to violate the Constitution.

Many people make claims like this but are actually ignorant about Constitution gives government the power to do.

The Founders used Biblical standards and principles when founding this country, which any student of law and scripture would easily notice.

Being that the standards and principles can be found in part in scripture doesn't mean that the Bible was the source any more than any other religious book or ancient philosopher. If the Founders were actually using the Christian Bible, then we wouldn't have religious freedom.

The Constitution gave Congress very limited powers ~ but then we have a nation full of people who have no clue what those limits are.

And we have a nation full of people who have no clue what those powers are.

Little ole' Conservative media a threat to the mega Liberal conglomerate?

No, Conservative media is a threat to American's freedoms.

Army tank attacking a private home, children burned alive, woman shot and killed holding her infant, her young son shot and killed, IN the US, by the US democratic servants, and beware, Guam is tipping over...
God Bless,
SBC

Have no clue what this is but would be glad to fact check them for you if you give more info.

 

[SBC]

-How do you understand contradictory SCOTUS rulings?

Bingo!!

Nine Supreme court Justices with one appointed Chief Justice.

And of course they ALL AGREE on EVERY DECISION, "because" Decisions are ALWAYS "purely" based on the LAW.......RIGHT?

Wrong. If all decisions were "PURELY" based on the LAW....why is there NOT ALWAYS a "unanimous" agreement when deciding a case?

Why is it the OPINION of half of the court to decide ONE WAY, and the OPINION of the other half of the same court to decide ANOTHER WAY?

IF the "LAW" is so VAGUE, that even the SCOTUS can not FULLY AGREE, then WHY is "that particular" governing LAW, still VALID, and not instead REPEALED?

Fact is; it is Congress' JOB to REPEAL LAWS that are VOID for VAGUENESS.
And we all know they are hot to trot doing their JOB, eh? Because we all know, their "real job" is to solicit others to keep pouring in the bucks to KEEP them glued to seats of honor.

If the Justices can not agree on what the LAW is intended to do, and agree unanimously, how is the average Joe's supposed to read the LAW and all conclude it's intended meaning?

And in the mean-time we have CONGRESSMEN, scribbling out BILLS, trying to push them through the HOUSE with yea votes, and as famous Pelosi's says, just vote yea, and read it later to find out what it says! THAT is your Congress mind-set, restricting, stealing the rights and liberties of the American People, by simply doing what a handful of people sitting in a seat of honor, says to do.

Seriously? Are people that naive?

Scripture puts it like this:

Matt 16
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Government Servants put it like this:
Give me your liberty, and I promise you, I will be enriched, and shall give you scraps from my table.
Keep me glued in the seat of honor, and I promise to keep giving you scraps from my table.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

YD wrote, "Free will to obey." You responded:

How do you think providing a verse which agrees with what I wrote helps your position?

Our positions do not differ, by quoting of verses.
Our positions differ, by understanding.

We are called to be obedient to God who calls us to be good citizens of the places we live.

Sure.

Romans 13:
1. Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

The difference is your presumption to ALWAYS AGREE with the higher authority. I don't.
You further seem to believe, simply because a higher authority was established by God, it is therefore a GOOD authority. Which is not the case either. (Lest I remind you of the great authority and power Satan was given).
Nor do I have to DO everything they ask, but I already know, when that is or is not acceptable.

You may have a self-proclaimed authority but you have no legal authority.

Actually, I do have the option to invoke legal action, provided me BY legal authority.
The government is not YOU, or your mommy and daddy. The government is a system by which men are elected to take care of government business, while not infringing on the liberty OF the people, and such men are the servants of the People, who seated them, to protect their liberty.

That may depend on exactly what laws that you refer to.

And why I said, only laws that APPLY to the individual, according to personal and subject matter.

Many people make claims like this but are actually ignorant about Constitution gives government the power to do.

uh huh.

Being that the standards and principles can be found in part in scripture doesn't mean that the Bible was the source any more than any other religious book or ancient philosopher. If the Founders were actually using the Christian Bible, then we wouldn't have religious freedom.

It appears you have not spent much time studying the founders, what they studied, what they established, and why.
It appears you do not comprehend the difference between standards and principles AND declaring one MUST adhere to a particular Religion.

And we have a nation full of people who have no clue what those powers are.

Agree.

No, Conservative media is a threat to American's freedoms.

Do you know how silly that sounds? Conservative media dwarfs compared to the Liberal media. Have you NEVER read the Communist Manifesto? In the US, Communism is a negative word, but Liberalism is acceptable, yet both have the same laid out plan.

Conserve - funny, promoted, by Liberals, as a negative.

Phil 4
[11] Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

Right - funny, promoted, by Liberals, as a negative.

Matt 5
[6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Matt 20
[20] Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
[21] And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
[22] But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
[23] And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Do you have a clue of what "shall be given them on the left" ?

What does a Liberal thirst after? Liberally, more than sufficient, wanting other people's money, things, respect, status, power....

Have no clue what this is but would be glad to fact check them for you if you give more info.

I do not require you to search "fact check" for me. The records of WHO established this country, and by what standards and principles it was established are records I have access to; as well as WHO has sat in seats of honor and their records of what standards and principles they did or did not adhere to while sitting in such seats.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

No. Christians killing Christians over taxation.

They were not KILLING over the principle of taxation.
They were first OBJECTING the the equal-ness of taxation without the equal-ness of representation.
The KILLING spun off because of the OBJECTIONS.

Well, the many of the Founding Fathers were hypocrites. It wasn't liberty and justice for all, it was liberty and justice for white men.

Well, la te da - Guess it slipped your mind - the founders of the Federal Union - were white men - the colonies that became states had their own established governing laws.

Many men, women, children came to this country, by many means, and became subject to other men; living on their land, eating their food, being provided for by such other men. So they were WHITE men. So what?

In part, we must understand that it is SCOTUS' place to make decisions based on rule of law,

Correct. So why if it is the rule of law, would there ever be a time they were not unanimous?

not Christian values.

No one said it was. And nor should it be on gender preference, homosexuality preference, or race preference.....but it is.

Many Christians are hypocrites. They point fingers at others when we should truly examine ourselves first.

Sure they are. It's called self-justifying. If one can intentionally make another appear not up to snuff....well, then they themselves will hopefully be viewed as okay, or not as bad as the other.

You have heard it .... so and so killed his wife....well, well, I'm not that bad, I ONLY hit my wife. Ya, but you hit your wife....ya, ya, but...I'm not as bad as him, cuz I didn't kill her. It's a circle jerk of nonsense, when both actions would be wrong, men in the world, attempt to put it into the perspective of degrees, really bad or kind of bad. Spiritually speaking wrong is wrong and right is right, regardless of the degrees.

How many people died needlessly during the American Revolution? We had Christians fighting Christians over taxes and self rule.

Needlessly? Fighting for liberty is needless? Hebrews fought for land God gave them and other were occupying. Were there needless deaths there also, directed by God?

Women found rights in Britain before American women. Slavery was abolished long before in America. Just how much freedom would we have found if we would have worked through the system of law instead of the battle field. The Enlightenment had taken hold in Britain and the Americans loved being British in the early 1760's.

Britain was established long before America. Why compare apples and oranges?
Work though the system of Law? How does that work, when people disagree on what the law SHOULD BE, to begin with?
Americans loved being British so much, they became Americans? That's funny.

The problem was taxation. England was hit hard financially by the French and Indian War and because they needed to maintain an army in the colonies they needed taxes to pay for it. Thus, taxes were levied by Parliament and the colonists hated that part. In part because they had no say in what Parliament decided to do.

Raising funds was England's problem. They attempted to solve their problem by taxing people they could not represent. And the people being taxed, and not represented, rejected such presumed control by the King of England.

[/QUOTE]All of that death was a result of people wanting a say in their taxes. What did Jesus say about taxes? Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar...[/QUOTE]

Actually it was the Spanish silver coins that was most widely exchanged in early America. And never coins Caesar minted.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Yarddog]

The difference is your presumption to ALWAYS AGREE with the higher authority.

Where in the world did you ever come up that rubbish??? There is not a single post that I have ever written which that has hinted in the slightest that we have to ALWAYS AGREE with our government. We don't even have to agree in the least but we still are called to obey those authorities, as long as they do not called us to disobey God.

Abortion is legal in the US but doesn't mean that Christians can abort our children. We shouldn't agree just because it is legal.

 

[Yarddog]

Actually, I do have the option to invoke legal action, provided me BY legal authority.

That is quite different from what you have said and to what I responded to.

Do you know how silly that sounds?

Nope, it was spot on correct.

Conservative media dwarfs compared to the Liberal media.

I don't know about it being dwarfed anymore. Cable and satellite TV has seen an explosion of Conservative Media outlets and collusion between these outlets has allowed the brainwashing of millions of naïve people.

Have you NEVER read the Communist Manifesto?

Yep.

In the US, Communism is a negative word, but Liberalism is acceptable, yet both have the same laid out plan.

Nope.

The rest of what you wrote was just too comical. I am glad that I am a skeptical moderate so that I can see through the bull of both the left and right.

 

[SBC]

I am glad that I am a skeptical moderate so that I can see through the bull of both the left and right.

Thanks for sharing your political name tag makes you glad.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Sir Robbins]

Please provide evidence that everyone in Norway owns a gun. This I simply cannot believe.

It was a law when I lived there that we were to own one. That was in 2011.

 

[expos4ever]

It was a law when I lived there that we were to own one. That was in 2011.

I don't believe you - there is no way everyone in Norway was ever required by law to own a gun.

 

[miamited]

It was a law when I lived there that we were to own one. That was in 2011.

Hi sir robbins,

It would seem that it should be fairly easy for you to find a law that existed in 2011. Can you point us to chapter and verse of said law, even if it doesn't still exist? Can you point us to the decision that rescinded said law? Can you provide any evidence beyond just your saying so, that in 2011 it was a law that citizens own a firearm in Norway? Computers and the internet can be wonderful tools when used properly to spread the truth.

Here, for your perusal, is a quote regarding the law on firearms in Norway that claims to have been the law in 2011: A licence is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. Many categories of guns, including automatics and some powerful handguns, are banned from sale altogether. Hunting and outdoor sports are popular in Norway. But the laws are strict in these areas, too.Jul 24, 2011

Sounds to me like there are some criteria to meet for someone to own a firearm and this explanation doesn't seem to support your claim. I'm just asking you to provide some evidence that your statement is a true statement. If not, that's ok. I just hope that those reading then understand that your claim is just a bunch of words cobbled together, but don't explain a 'truth'. Christians should be all about, 'what is the truth'.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[TheNorwegian]

It was a law when I lived there that we were to own one. That was in 2011.

This is either delusional or a blatant lie

I don't believe you - there is no way everyone in Norway was ever required by law to own a gun

Of course it is not required to own a gun in Norway. Let me give you two sources for this:

1) I have live in Norway all my life and have never owned a gun. Neither has my wife nor my parents nor P-I-L or most other people I know. None of us has been arrested or fined for this

2) Here is a link to the Norwegian law about weapons and ammunition Lov om skytevåpen og ammunisjon m.v. [våpenloven] - Lovdata
Since most of you do not read Norwegian: The first line of paragraph 7 says "Anyone acquiring a gun must have [written] permission from the local chief of police ..." Then follows conditions for those who may or may not acquire a gun.

 

[miamited]

It was a law when I lived there that we were to own one. That was in 2011.

Hi sirrobbins,

Well, are you coming back to defend your ludicrous claim or are you just going to hope that it goes away while you continue to push against any rational gun control based on a lie? Here's the testimony of someone who apparently has lived in Norway for quite a while. Certianly through the year 2011 for which your claim is made

Oooooh sirrobbins, where are you?

Of course it is not required to own a gun in Norway.

1) I have live in Norway all my life and have never owned a gun. Neither has my wife nor my parents nor P-I-L or most other people I know. None of us has been arrested or fined for this.

There is, for me, a contradiction in someone holding out to others that they are a believer, but promoting things that are not true. Where do you stand on this?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Sir Robbins]

Hi sirrobbins,

Well, are you coming back to defend your ludicrous claim or are you just going to hope that it goes away while you continue to push against any rational gun control based on a lie? Here's the testimony of someone who apparently has lived in Norway for quite a while. Certianly through the year 2011 for which your claim is made

Oooooh sirrobbins, where are you?



There is, for me, a contradiction in someone holding out to others that they are a believer, but promoting things that are not true. Where do you stand on this?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I post on here maybe once a month... I did not see the alert until I logged in today.
the above post is accurate in having a written request and grant permission of a firearm. I lived in Honningsvag... very few live there... it's pretty remote from most of Norway. We had weapons for wild animals above all else. There's a fox issue up there... although encouraged not to shoot them, some do when they attack children. It's rare now from what I'm told. I'll be in Bergen next year in April. Log distance from Honningsvag... I was asked when I moved there to get a firearm so I assumed it was law. It puzzled me when I had to get permission but my assumptions are incorrect and inaccurate.

in regards to promoting things that are not true, plenty of Christians do this quite often and even seem very convincing..... I was simply making a false assumption that I stated as a fact which has been proven as so....