We have to realize that there was a conflict at the time with the Sanhedrin, who were very conservative as to the meaning of jewish law and the Pharisees, who were more liberal and forward thinking. Jesus was a Pharisee, he studied with the grandson of R.Hilliel. His teachings reflect those and that of the Esscenes.
The Sadhedrin  did not like anyone causing problems especially with the Romans.
Jesus challenged their  status quo. This scared them very much. He did not challenge the Romans as much as he did the Sanhedrin. The Romans could care less about his religious teachings as long as he did not attack their authority.
Therefore the render unto Ceasar what is his. The Jews at the time wanted a warrior messiah to shed the yoke of Roman rule. It was thought that he was there for earthly salvation not heavenly. The toes he crunched were the ones telling all how to get to heaven, yet partying like the Romans. This is the  same situation as when the Maccabees defeated the Hellenistic Jews. it was a civil war. Rome got involved  since one jew was nothing to them unless it threatened their ability to tax.
Paul went on to teach the Roman lands as the Jews wanted nothing to do with him. He made  it out that the Sanhedrin killed Jesus so as not to get them mad. But the Jewish form  of execution was stoning so as not to spill blood. Also it required that 27 jews, the Sanhedrin had  to agree to that punishment. Let me tell you what a feat that is to geet 2 jews to agree lett alone 27. Only the Romans could crucify, for Roman crime.
there was so much more going on in that little part of the world that most are not familiar with it.
Enough said, G*d gives us life and we have a right to that life and to our family. It is an obligation to protect those we hold close. As longas we do it at the time not a say later. This is the basis for 'in the heat of the moment' Baruch Adoni

Taken from [i][b]"Hard Sayings of The Bible"[/b][/i]

Romans 13:1-7. Submitting to Government?
How do Christians deal with the tension created by their presence in a society in which the need to preserve their integrity as individuals and to be faithful to their understanding of the lordship of Christ may conflict with the demands of that society?
In Romans 13 Paul focuses on the tension between the individual and society at large in terms of the problem of civil obedience or disobedience. The question which is raised concerns the individual’s responsibility toward the social order, insofar as that social order is regulated by laws that are upheld and enforced by government authorities.
Individual Christian responsibility has often been compromised on the basis of a one-sided use of biblical injunctions. Thus Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 are often cited as proof that the state always demands and deserves our total and unquestioning obedience. But Rev. 13 and Rev. 18 are neglected. The former pictures the state as a beast opposed to God’s purposes; the latter speaks of the downfall of any nation that becomes a modern Babylon, corrupted by wealth, materialism and injustice.
Some Christians are quick to condemn any person who upsets or threatens to upset social norms and regulations. But those same Christians tend to disregard Acts 17:6-7, where the apostles are described as “men who have turned the world upside down” and who “are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (RSV).
The Gospel accounts also make clear that Jesus did not accept all legal and governing authorities as ultimate dispensers of God’s will. Wherever he went, he bucked the system, upset the status quo and challenged the authorities’ claim to the right and the truth. And in the context of a life of discipleship, countless martyrs have given their lives because they resisted the decrees of the authorities.
Thus a serious look at the scriptural material will prevent us from viewing the demands of society and its rulers with uncritical acceptance and automatic approval. Are there conditions when the demands of the social order must be resisted and the worth of the individual as a responsible being before God must be affirmed and defended?
If we cannot give uncritical and unquestioning allegiance to the demands of society and its governing authorities, we must also be careful not to go to the other extreme, that of concluding that government is inevitably an evil institution which should be resisted, disobeyed, distrusted or ignored. For we are instructed to honor and pray for those in authority. The Bible makes clear that government has a positive role to play in God’s plans for human community. According to the New Testament, all authority is ultimately under the rule and judgment of Christ.
In light of this double perspective, how are we to understand Romans 13, which seems to come down on one side of this double perspective? First, we need to read Romans 13 more carefully than it has often been read. Second, we need to read these admonitions in light of the context of Paul’s missionary activity, which took place in a world in which Roman law and rule had created relative peace and order, conducive to the rapid spread of the gospel.

[b]cont.[/b]

[b]cont.[/b]

Let us carefully follow, in outline form, Paul’s argument:

Statement: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1).
Hypothetical Question: Why?
Answer: Because all authority exists ultimately by God’s design, including the authority of the state (Romans 13:1).
Conclusion: Therefore, to resist the authorities is to resist God’s intent (Romans 13:2).
Hypothetical Question: But what is God’s intent?
Answer: It is God’s intent that through his “servants” (governing authorities) evil acts are punished (Romans 13:4); bad works are restrained through fear of punishment (Romans 13:3); and the good is promoted and encouraged (Romans 13:3).

In summary, Paul’s argument is this: It is God’s intent that human life in the context of community will be life in harmony and peace and order (see Romans 12:10, 18). Since life in community becomes chaotic and anarchistic without the presence of regulatory laws enforced by authorities, the presence of these are part of God’s overall intent for human existence. Therefore, insofar as the state and its rulers exercise their authority in keeping with God’s intent, they act as God’s ministers for the common good of society.
If, however, the authority of the state runs counter to this divine intent, then that authority should not be understood as God-given. In fact, it becomes quite clear from Rev. 13 and Rev. 18, as well as other places in the New Testament, that the state which persecutes Christians, which dispenses injustice instead of justice, which supports moral decay, which tramples on the weak and powerless, has been usurped by demonic powers and forces diametrically opposed to God’s intents and purposes.
The passage that follows Paul’s discussion about the relationship between the individual and the demands of the social order (Romans 13:8-10) is very instructive for a proper understanding of that relationship. Most commentators feel that Paul has completed the considerations about obedience to the state and is now speaking about morality and ethics in general. It seems to me, however, that such an understanding of the thrust of the argument overlooks Paul’s specific intent at this point.
Indeed, the admonitions concerning love for others (Romans 13:8-10) are not a departure from the previous topic but are rather a climax of the entire discussion. Romans 13:8 picks up very pointedly from Romans 13:7. There the argument for obedience to the state and for responsible existence within the social order is driven home in terms of specific things that we owe: taxes, respect, honor. But beyond these specifics, Paul goes on to argue (Romans 13:8-9) that what we really owe is to love others even as we love ourselves.

[b]cont.[/b]

[b]Cont.[/b]

According to Paul’s Jewish heritage, government authorities are intended to be guardians of the commandments which make community life possible. The commandments “do not kill,” “do not steal,” “do not commit adultery” and so forth, if violated, lead to the destruction and fragmentation of community. Since the law is summed up in the command “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Romans 13:9 RSV), the loving of one’s fellow human beings—not doing any wrong to them—“is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10 RSV). It is responsibility for both the protection and the enforcing of this law which is given to human authorities by God’s design.
What if, in our expression of love to our fellow human beings, we run smack into the laws of the society in which we live? What if the rulers act in opposition to their intended purpose as stated in Romans 13:3? What if they become “a terror for those who do right”? What if the demands of the social order require us to be molded into a lifestyle that is contrary to the implicit and explicit demands of the gospel?
There are no pat answers to these questions. Anyone who suggests easy solutions or indeed the Christian response fails to take seriously the complexities of the world in which we find ourselves. Nonetheless, we must be sensitive to the issues raised by these questions and must respond in keeping with our understanding of the call of Christ. And that call is decisively a call to be there for others in love. If we fail at this point, even the most carefully woven cloth of orthodox belief and pious practice will finally become nothing but a tattered rag.

cerebrus, I am pretty familiar with the Bible, and I don't recall a single example in the New Testament of God, Jesus or one of the apostles advocating anyone break the civil law or rebel against the government.  Jesus was prepared to rebel against RELIGIOUS leaders who broke their own law, but he never advocated rebelling against the Roman civil government.
So I don't know where the writer of that excerpt you provided gets the idea that Jesus ever equivocated from the position Paul expouded upon.  
To me, this writer's atittude seems to be a less virulent form of Eric's...wishful thinking regarding a section of the Bible with which they want to disagree.

RikWriter, the constitution divinely inspired like the Bible? No. The framers and drafters of the Constitution men who were being led by the Holy Spirit? YES! By the way, when Jesus went into the temple and overturned the tables, making a whip and driving out the merchants... Let's see, disorderly conduct, assault and battery, resisting arrest,...

[b]Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.[/b]

When something competes for precedence over God, you must choose which path to follow. You cannot do both.

[b]Matthew 22:16-21
They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."[/b]

Submit to government to the limits of their authority. Submit to God to the limits of God's authority.

[b]Matthew 22:36-39
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[/b]

Love for God's and His desires and authority takes precedence over all else.

[b]Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.[/b]

[b]John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey what I command.[/b]

Jesus claims ultimate authority. There is none higher than His. Followers of Jesus will seek to follow His will in all things.

Umm...first off, we are not talking about Jesus violating TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN LAWS, we would be speaking of Roman civil law. Second, he didn't resist arrest...no Roman soldiers came to arrest him.

Cerebrus, not one of those instances is an example of Jesus or any of the apostles advocating breaking civil law.  The issue we were discussing is the Bible's position on gun control, not the Bible's position on say, abortion.  It seems clear to me that the Bible would advocate you follow civil law unless it contradicts the moral law dictated by God.  Is it your position, dragging this back on subject, that gun control laws contradict what you and most Christians believe to be God's moral law?

Speaking for myself, Yes, it is.

No law made by man is inherently good or evil. It is only the intent and enforcement of that law upon the subject population that has any moral value.

I believe the examples I gave make it clear that Jesus says to give to government the respect it is due, as long as that government is not at cross purposes to God. When the position of the governing authorities is in opposition to God's laws, God 's law takes precedence, His authority is Supreme.

When Hitler was in power the Nazi party was the duly elected Government of Germany. The laws that led to the Holocaust, including universal disarmament of the civilian population, were legitimate laws enacted by a legitimate, sovreign government and enforced upon it's citizenry. It is beyond imagining to believe that had Jesus walked among the Germans He would have advocated following laws that were intended to exterminate innocents. As a matter of historical fact, many Germans of faith spoke out and even used force against the Nazi Government, and paid a predictable price for it. They were following the higher principle of God's law's in opposition to their government.

BTW, during the relatively peaceful Roman Occupation of Palestine, it was customary for Roman governors to delegate both civil and religious authority to the Jewish leaders. In a quid pro quo arrangement, those Jewish leaders agreed not to incite rebellion among the population against Rome.

In the execution of Jesus, Pilate returned Jesus to the Jews for punishment, the traditional 39 lashes permitted under Jewish law. Claiming to be God wasn't illegal under Roman law, so it was a Jewish problem with a Jewish punishment. Since only Roman authorities could carry out capital punishment, the Jewsih leaders accused Jesus of claiming to be a King who would overthrow Caesar. That was punishable by death under Roman law, and so Pilat ordered Jesus crucified.

RikWriter, up until now I've been fairly certain that your argument has been an honest one but this last one was PATHETIC. The point was that "disorderly conduct", "disturbing the peace", "assault and battery", and yes, maybe, "resisting arrest" (they hadtemple guards) might not have been on the Roman books as quoted but a LOGICAL man would admit that Jesus broke civil laws in his action on that day. Obviously, your mind is made up as only YOU know God's will on the subject. Adios.

No, a logical man would admit nothing of the kind.  Do you know if there were temple guards?  Do you know if they had orders to arrest anyone who drove out merchants from inside the temple? Do you know if "evading arrest" (it wouldn't be resisting) or "flight to avoid prosecution" were crimes under Roman law?
I sure don't and I am not about to assume they are.
And the fact is, I not only do not claim to know "God's will" I don't think any human CAN know it, if there even IS a God.
But the question at hand isn't, "Does RikWriter believe in the Bible?" the question is, "What does the Bible have to say about gun control?"
I am certainly not ADVOCATING the Biblical position on civil disobedience, I am merely stating it.