Gun Owners Beware : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this quite disturbing.

Capitol Hill ( - Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants the Department of Justice to keep personal data on law-abiding gun buyers from the National Instant Check System (NICS), and to offer the information for unlimited use by state and local agencies.

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called the move "gun owner registration, plain and simple."

Making good on a promise he made during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing December 6, Schumer introduced the "Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act" (S. 1788) after Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to allow the FBI access to NICS records of lawful gun purchases.

Schumer introduced the bill one day after Ashcroft explained that he was merely obeying the law Congress had passed.

"The law which provided for the development of the NICS, the National Instant Check System, indicates that the only permissible use for the National Instant Check System is to audit the maintenance of that system," Ashcroft responded. "The Department of Justice is committed to following the law."

Ashcroft also reminded the senators that NICS records from any illegal attempt to purchase a weapon, whether by a convicted felon, a terrorist, an illegal alien, or a person with a history of mental illness, are maintained indefinitely, and completely available to police.

But Schumer, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and five other co-sponsors, dismissed Ashcroft's explanation and offered the "Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act" in response.

Despite the bill's title, the language of the proposal makes no reference to terrorist investigations, and no limits are placed on the use of the information.

The proposal would "allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access NICS audit log records for the purpose of responding to an inquiry from any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement investigation."

It would require DOJ to maintain the records of lawful gun purchases "in no event fewer than 90 days after the date on which the licensee first contacts the system with respect to the transfer." Present federal law and Department policy require the records to be destroyed within 24 hours of a purchaser's approval.

The rest of the article:\Nation\archive\200112\NAT20011217a.html

-- Bob in WI (, December 18, 2001


Please make any postings at the second post. Thanks, sorry I don't know what happened.

-- Bob in WI (, December 18, 2001.

One more step in you know which direction!

And I'll even give them a free dna I spit on their paper..

-- Jim-mi (, December 18, 2001.

It's OKAY....It may help someone to Feeeeellll safer. (sarcasm fully intended) - Bummer, huh?

-- Doreen (, December 19, 2001.

Yes Doreen, I have to agree. Every study that I have ever seen points to the fact that the more people have firearms, the lower the crime rate. Just that facts ma'am.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (, December 19, 2001.

Yes..criminals do think twice about committing their crimes if they are faced with the possiblity that their next attempt might be their last, if you know what I mean.

Ever notice the trends lately? It seems that the more gun control we have, the more brazen our criminals become.

-- Nexar (, December 19, 2001.

I am sure you are all aware of the prevailing levels of personal safety and crime rates in areas such as Pakistan's NWFP and Somalia? Do you know what the rate of gun ownership and legal controls are in those areas? Would you like a pick-up truck with an anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back? Do a Google image search for 'technical somalia'

-- john hill (, December 19, 2001.


We are speaking here of the US and private citizens. We are not talking about civil wars, as in Somalia. Of course it would be ridiculous to have a machine gun mounted on a jeep. That is a weapon of war not self defense.

It really doen't matter what the rules are in places like Somalia because obviously no one is following them. It is one thug out to try to destroy the next thug. The general population is stuck in the middle, and I would not be surprised if the little guys don't have arms to protect themselves. This is the usual problem in the type of situation. The bullies have the weapons and the little guy gets the shaft. Look no further than Afghanistan. We now have the so-called surrendered taliban turning into highway robbers and murderers. If everyone in Afghanistan had weapons this would be much less of a problem unless the numbers involved were large.

I don't know what kind of laws you have in NZ, but from the tone of your post is appears you are opposed to individuals having self defense weapons.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (, December 19, 2001.

I am not strongly for or against ownership of firearms but I am concerned that people feel having a gun in their pocket is some sort of golden shield that will protect against all the bad things that can happen.

Claims that increasing the number of guns in a society makes it a safer place just don't ring true with me and for evidence I point to Afghanistan and Somalia where there are a lot of guns in circulation.

Although it is not legal for most people in NZ to own any form of short weapon (rifles and shotguns abound) I am sure they are readily available to the criminal fraternity. Maybe the average house breaker type criminal is not armed because they do not expect the housholder to be armed either.

-- john hill (, December 19, 2001.

John check this out. This is not my material. Could not get the url to post correctly.

BIBLICAL SELF-DEFENSE If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him.... (Ex. 22:2-3)

At the heart of the debate over gun control is the issue of self- defense. Citizens may desire gun ownership for hunting and recreation, but the primary reason for owning a gun is self-defense against criminals and a tyrannical government. Therefore, any biblical text that deals with the right of self- defense is central to determining the right of gun ownership under God's law. Perhaps the most crucial text to address the right of self- defense is Exodus 22:2-3. This Scripture appears in that portion of the Pentateuch known as "The Book of the Covenant" (Ex. 21-23). The Book of the Covenant follows the declaration of the Ten Commandments, and provides a concrete application of the principles of truth and justice contained in the Ten Commandments by means of "statutes and judgments." The context of Exodus 22:2-3 is dealing with theft and restitution. Within this discussion of theft, the case of a thief breaking in is presented. In this case law two scenarios are given.

In the first a thief is "found breaking up," that is, breaking in by breaking up the roof, the window, or the door during the night hours. Thus we have a forced entry into the house (or property) that is discovered by the owner. The owner responds to this threatening situation (for in the dark he knows not the intent, identity, or arms of the intruder) by killing the robber, presumably with some sort of weapon. The declaration of God's law is that in these circumstances the owner is innocent of any wrongdoing, and is fully justified in using lethal force to defend himself and his family.

The second instance involves a thief "breaking up" under different circumstances. In this case, it is during the daylight hours, and presumably, the owner can identify the intentions of the intruder and see that he is unarmed and poses no threat to life or limb, but is a mere thief. Yet, in spite of this the owner kills the thief. In these circumstances the owner who uses lethal force is guilty of a crime. This was not an act of self-defense (for he was not attacked or threatened) but an act of brutality against an unarmed man whose only intention was the theft of property. The penalty for theft was restitution, not death. Thus, this is a case of the unauthorized taking of human life, and is, therefore, murder, punishable by death. God's law authorizes the protection of life by deadly force if necessary, but His law does not permit the defense of property in the same manner.

It is important to note that the case presented here of a thief breaking in involves the shedding of blood. Therefore, this case law is an application of the righteousness of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Consequently, the biblical law of self-defense empowers us to defend our lives against wicked men who hate God, His law, and the life of their neighbor. We may assume that those who threaten us with bodily harm or weapons hold the life God has given us in contempt, and, therefore, we may defend ourselves against such evil even to the point of killing our assailant. In conclusion, let us consider the implications of Exodus 22:2-3 for the right of self-defense.

1. This case law establishes the righteousness of self-defense. God's law permits a man to defend himself and his family. This defense may require the use of deadly force, and this certainly implies the use of weapons. 2. A man is justified in defending himself whenever he is attacked or his life endangered. If a man is not guilty of any crime for slaying an intruder on the mere supposition that he may be armed or pose a threat to him or his family, how much more does the law of God authorize self-defense against an armed assailant who definitely threatens bodily harm. 3. The primary responsibility for defense against violent attacks is a personal responsibility. The defense of one's life and one's family is chiefly an individual responsibility, not a community or governmental responsibility. (There is no indication that Israel had a standing police force or army. The armed men of Israel, under the direction of their magistrates, were the army and police force.) There is certainly a need to love our neighbor and come to his defense if we can. But the first line of defense against violence and aggression is the man who is prepared to use whatever force necessary in the protection of his own life and those for whom he is responsible (e.g., his family). This, of course, means that he must be armed to meet all possible threats to his life. Today, this requires a citizen to be armed with guns. 4. Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God's law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self- defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen's access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual's ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants? 5. This case law would be a great deterrence to criminals. After all, citizens are armed and authorized to kill, if necessary, intruders and attackers! 6. This case law also restrains the individual in the use of weapons in self-defense. He must be very careful, lest he use deadly force when it is not called for. If he does he is guilty of a crime, and must pay with his own life.

-- Bob in WI (, December 20, 2001.

Biblical quotes notwithstanding.... Can I ask which country/society is most like the USA? My guess would be Canada so can you tell me if Canadians by law can carry guns for self defence? How does the general level of violence compare between USA and Canada?

-- john hill (, December 20, 2001.

Wow----thanks Bob.

-- Jim-mi (, December 20, 2001.

Hi John Hill,

I'm still trying to figure out where to buy that battleship and laser pistol. LOL

-- Kenneth in N.C. (, December 20, 2001.

I am 100% in agreement with the biblical quote but it is not in line with a lot of things I have read on this site in the past. My distallation is that is might be OK to kill someone if you are afraid that they will kill you or your family but it is never OK to kill in the defence of property. I said "might be" because running away is a valid form of defence and tends to cause less paper work later.

It matters not if you do the killing with a gun or a club but no one has convinced me that increasing the number of guns in circulation does not increase the number of potential life threatening situations.

I would not like to see the general population around here get armed as the criminals would also be armed, which generally speaking, that are not presently.

-- john hill (, December 20, 2001.

John, Maybe in NZ you have no crime or criminals who have weapons available. The problem in the US is that the criminals are already armed. Your argument in relation to the US is moot. It is estimated that there are over 2 million (1993 study) illegal arms on the street already. Making laws to get rid of these guns is a waste of time. The only people who will get rid of their guns will be the honest ones. We have had laws against cocaine and heroin for quite some time and what good have these laws done. Laws against a felon possessing a gun are about as useless.

People who truly want guns will get them no matter what the law says. A complete gun ban, or highly restrictive licensing amounting to near- ban, would create a real incentive for gun making to become a "cottage industry".

It's already happening in Great Britain, a consequence of the complete ban on civilian possession of handguns imposed by the Firearms Act of 1997. Not only are the Brits swamped today with illegally imported firearms, but local, makeshift gun factories have sprung up to compete.

British police already know about some of them. Officers from Scotland Yard's Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group South recently recovered 12 handgun replicas which were converted to working models. An auto repair shop in London served as the front for the novel illegal gun factory. Police even found some enterprising gun-makers turning screwdrivers into workable firearms, and producing firearms disguised as ordinary key rings.

Theoretically it would be nice if there were no guns in the world, but until there is no hate, greed, malice, lust or many other sins it is impossible. Reality dictates the solution. If we want to protect ourselves we need to be armed. The government obviously can't do the job. If they could there would be no crime. I just recently heard that over 70% of crime in the US is perpetrated by drug users. I think we should work on this, not removing guns from the hands of legal owners.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (, December 21, 2001.

John, I am glad you live in such a safe country. Even your capitol is named Christ Church and that says a lot about your culture. Aside from being a beautiful set of islands and very nice people I do not know much about your country or its government.

I live in an isolated rural area where pretty much everyone has guns, at least several. The only radio stations that I receive are from Vancouver Island, a comparable rural area in Canada. While they may not have many shootings there, I am usually quite shocked hearing about the axe and hammer murders. Our region in the past year has had 1 shooting by a mentally ill man, 1 hunting accident and 1 stabbing death. This is far less than the skull shattering brutality going on across the water from us.

We Americans just have a thing for guns. They are just another tool like an axe or a hammer

-- Laura (, December 23, 2001.

Thanks for those kind words Laura even if we don't deserve them. This country of 3.6 million saw about 11 murders in two weeks recently, this is rather more than usual and a big change from 1950 when there were just two in the entire year, oh for the good old days! I expect most rural properties in NZ have a rifle or two and just about every man of my age group has been trained to use one.

Handguns are for shooting people and as I don't have a fear of being in a situation where one would save my life I don't have a desire to keep one under my pillow.

I guess what upsets me about the never ending gun debate is that some folks write of them like they are more than tools. Maybe I will do everyone a favour and quit the subject! :-)

Christchurch is a great city, almost quaint in some respects but it is not the capital, Wellington is the capital and is at the southern extremity of the North Island, Christchurch is the major city on the South Island.

-- john hill (, December 23, 2001.

You will never stop crime by banning guns, nor terrorism or any other horror. Murder happened centuries before guns were ever made. Gun bans are just another "law" to keep people in line which would be broken like every other law. That's why they call them criminals, because they break laws. Isn't there a law against robbery? Rape, murder, burglary, are all illegal and yet it stops.....who? All the gun bans do is stop the honest people from protecting themselves. It's all crap. I dont need a reason to buy a gun. I wanted to shoot, so I bought different ones, and not one of them has killed another human being.

A gun can make a crippled, old, sick, or small person equal to any attacker, and that's just what thugs dont want.

We gun owners do not force gun ban imbeciles to buy guns, we let them do what they want to do and we leave them alone. What right do they have to try and strip us of our weapons? Ask them and you wont get an answer. They dont want any reality to damage their little fairy tale land where gun bans stop crime and let everyone live in harmony. They know better, so do we. Gene

-- Gene (, October 02, 2003.

For what it's worth...Many years ago, when gun legislation was a hot topic, I saw this bumper sticker on a pickup: "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun".

I say let's keep our guns and outlaw cars!

Here in Montrose, Missouri, most folks have guns but we are still plagued with drive-by shoutings.

Marty, unemcumbered by rational thought.

-- Zen Clown (, October 03, 2003.

Hey, I totaly agree with the right to own a gun. No one should take that right away. If they try to, shoot 'em. But what I don't understand is why everyone is so up in arms about gun registration or licenses. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't law enforcement know if you have a gun? There's a murder, forensics finds out what type of gun the bullet came from, they check through the posible suspects to see if any of them own that type of gun. Makes things a lot quicker, everybody gets home in time to watch Leno. What's the problem?

-- Anti-bush (, July 22, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ