The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Don't forget to take the poll, guys - the results of the poll do not appear to match the responses so far!

But I'll weigh in: I think the Terrorism Watchlist people need to lose their existing permissions. If you're on the Watchlist, you'd have a lot of explaining to do, anyway - I don't see what the problem is in at least suspending that person's existing permissions. If people don't like that, IMO they should be actively cooperating with the government to clear their names. Also, Cow's point about requiring nationwide registration of guns is a good one. I would also like to see suspension of existing permissions for people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse (no surprise there, surely).

Marcus' point re: the Watchlist itself should certainly be looked into. People need to be given an opportunity to clear their names if there is some sort of misunderstanding. But I would expect them to make the effort to jump through those hoops and not just sit around saying, "I have a right to own a gun, and if I'm on the list that's just too bad." Get yourself off the list if you want the gun. Do something! But the FBI needs to give them something to do about it, of course.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

You have to know you are on it first. Denial of rights based on suspicion and not through a factual determination through a court process is fascism. I don't support this sort of tyrannical process. You may as well burn the Bill of Rights and all of our documents from the founding of the country because you are ignoring the ideas behind them all. I don't support this sort of thing at all. This is an attack on our inalienable rights and form of government. The worst part is it comes from many of our citizens. It is also one of the tools used in many of the tyrannies of the 20th Century. Now it has traction here of all countries.

From what I've read up to 30%, on the list are from terrorists using aliases and bureaucratic confusion over names. Many of them have no idea they are on it and can't find out why they are on the list to begin with. The appeal process is murky and not meant to be cleared. The obvious potential for abuse to deny people their rights and take action based on this sickens me.

I can tell you the practical impact this has. I'm an airline pilot and have had passengers held up from boarding because their name was on the No Fly List. We delayed the flight because they were verifying whether or not the person was the same person as a name on the list. When I asked simple questions (such as is this the same person, why are they on the list, etc.) I got conflicting answers from each person involved in the process. It plants suspicion in the minds of those who know. It creates distrust that can be unwarranted. I don't trust the accuracy of the list after what I found out. I was left to mull over denying this person their seat because of this. By federal law, the pilot in command is the final authority for the operation of an aircraft. I can deny boarding to anyone I deem necessary.

I believe that rights came from God. I am a true believer in most of what our Founding Fathers put into our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I will fight to uphold them. I would rather die living them out and defending them than to cross the line to fascism. This crosses the line for me.

BTW I took them with on the flight.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

Strider33 brought up good points though - guns are dangerous, and that danger could arguably justify a certain amount of control and regulation. All things remaining equal, people would still retain their right to own a gun, subject to certain restrictions that everyone can agree on. I find it heartening that most NRA members would in fact support certain restrictions, in the interest of public safety.

Question for you, Marcus: how do you think the Zimmerman situation should shape the current dialogue on gun control? Do you think alcohol or drug abuse history should play a role in who gets to have a firearm?

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I think the anti-constitutional crowd is using the Zimmerman case for their own ends. I also believe that the facts of the case are what's important in there. The law isn't wrong but the facts aren't out publicly. We have a lot of emotion clouding the issue along with the threat of riots being used to pressure the system to come to a predetermined outcome irregardless of the facts of the case. People aren't willing to wait for the investigation to be complete. Many seem to want Zimmerman dead no matter the facts. As the New Black Panthers were saying.

As far as alcohol or drug use goes. It should only be used if there is a conviction or several doctor's diagnosis of abuse. I think allegations should not bar liberty. The standard has to remain high.

We have plenty of firearms regulations. Our problem is with enforcement and prosecution. We don't need more regulation. We need more consistency and defense of individual rights. If you want to save lives, look at the automobile accident rate. There is an area needing tighter standards.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

I know the question was directed toward marcus, but I don't think the Zimmerman case should have any bearing at all on the issue of gun control. That is what the media and this administration are trying to do with this story (besides making it into a race issue). I think that adding more and more laws onto the books will not fix this issue. There are always those who are going to break the laws because they don't care about others or the consequences of their actions. What I think will fix this issue is for families to start being families again, for dads to start being dads to their children, for mothers to begin being mothers. For them, as one, to teach their children right from wrong, to do what is right and to reject what is wrong. Be responsible parents by leading by example, letting your actions speak instead of empty words that sound like "Do as I say, not as I do." Our young ones are so messed up and confused in this generation, not knowing what to do or who to believe, so they do what is right in their own eyes. We all know where that leads. This steep slide down to the depths of moral depravity in this country has been going on for generations, and its pace has quickened as it grows closer to the bottom. Until the church in this nation begins to do what we have been taught to do in the Scriptures, to live lives of truth, charity and love instead of lives of bigotry and hypocrisy (in the eyes of the world; well, somtimes in truth, too), the people of this nation will continue to be without hope and helpless to resist such decline into sin.

All that to say, no, I don't think the Zimmerman case should have any bearing on the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. These rights contained within the constitution are inalienable rights, which means that they cannot be bought, sold, taken or traded or given away. They were given to us by God.

Added: Of course I am not directing this toward all families. There are millions and millions of families in this nation who do just what I have stated above. In these families, there is little or no risk of one of them using a firearm in in such harmful ways as has been discussed so far in this thread.

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

We definitely haven't made full use of the regulations we already have. The guy who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was mentally ill, and yet he had an assault rifle! We need to be able to devote enough resources to enforcing the regulations we already have, before more regulations would even become realistic.

Also, just as with mental illness, the drug or alcohol issue would also be certified by a physician, or as in Zimmerman's case, convictions for it.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

The problem isn't resources but will to not bargain away charges to make a conviction.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

Our law enforcement community has a terrible time maintaining accurate records. They also have a problem with purging completely records of those acquitted. If any area needs more resources, it's law enforcement records.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

Loughner used one of the most common police issue sidearms, a Glock 19. Where did you see he had an assault rifle? I haven't found any reference to that yet. An assault rifle is a functional term not an ergonomic one. An assault rifle can be fired both semi and fully automatically. If Jared Loughner had an assault rifle he would have paid at the Class III tax and passed the additional background screening by the ATF for legally owning one.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

You mean there's something worse than the Glock?

It seemed to be as much of an "assault rifle" as anything I'd ever heard of.

I think I'm going to be sick!

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Worse? I didn't realize you are unfamiliar with firearms. You are confusing politically incendiary terms with technical meanings.

A firearm is a tool. The tool itself is neutral. It is a soulless piece of metal, wood, and/or composites. It is only as good or as evil as the one who uses it. In the hands of someone who is careless or means ill, it brings destruction or death. In the hands of someone who is disciplined and means well, it stops evil acts. Just like a knife or a vehicle.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

Here is the definition of a rifle.
Here is the definition of an assault rifle.
Here is the definition of a handgun.

_________________
I am a stranger in a wicked and adulterous land. I look forward to returning home one day.

Interesting marcus. According to Wikipedia's definition, no semi-auto rifle sold in the U.S. is an "assault rifle" because an "assault rifle" must "be capable of selective fire." "Assault rifles" are used in about 1% of gun crime, yet have attracted undue attention because they look so "scary." What's really silly is that all of the "assault weapons bans" that have been proposed and enacted prohibit "scary" things like telescoping stocks and bayonets. I have a Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 rifle that would theoretically fall under the "ban" (even though it is a bolt action rifle with a 5 round, non-detachable magazine) because it has a bayonet. Something tells me someone would be pretty stupid to try robbing a bank with it.

I also completely agree that "We have plenty of firearms regulations. Our problem is with enforcement and prosecution." Just look at the Fast and Furious debacle. The ATF (and perhaps several others, including Eric Holder) is directly responsible for the sale of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, and more seriously, the deaths of two Border Patrol agents and at least a 200 Mexican citizens. The more we learn about it, the more it seems Fast and Furious was an attempt by the Justice Department (and maybe even the Obama administration) to manufacture an excuse to push for more regulations. In short, the ATF (and justice department) violated federal law, leading to hundreds of deaths, to prove that we need more federal gun laws. Absolutely despicable.

tsnody2001. I really appreciate what you said about families. My dad gave me a bb gun when I was about 7 or 8 and showed me how to use it. I hunted rabbits with it, so I learned what guns do when you shoot living things with them. Then I got a .22 rifle when I was 12. Again he taught me how to use it safely, and he had me go through hunter safety class. We often went target shooting and hunting once in a while. Fast forward 20 years... I don't have kids, but I have introduced several of my friends to firearms and their safe use. We enjoy hunting and target shooting safely.

I think Assured's comment that "The guy who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was mentally ill, and yet he had an assault rifle!" illustrates the ignorance many Americans have concerning firearms and "gun control." As marcus pointed out, Laughner purchased a pistol not a rifle, let alone an "assault rifle." While store employees are free not sell a gun to someone whom they deem "suspicious", a gun purchaser still has to pass a state background check to purchase a firearm. Since Laughner had no record, he was not legally barred from purchasing a firearm. Moreover, as terrible as the Giffords tragedy was, and as evidenced by studies, and anecdotally by tragedies in countries with even more gun regulation than America, "gun control" has almost no effect on the number of mass shootings. Moreover, what is often ignored is the criminal violence prevented by firearms. As far back as 1981 a study found that guns were used in self-defense situations as many as 650,000 a year. This is five to ten times as many instances of gun crime reported.

Of course, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, all of this is moot, since the U.S. Constitution (and more importantly) almost all state constitutions secure the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Even if at some point all crime could be stopped, it would not abrogate these constitutional rights.

marcus/psy-bob -- well said -- this is what can happen when emotions rule over facts

And that's why it's probably wrong.

I don't know what study that particular number came from, but a lot of the numbers about this subject are grossly off. The pro-gun side likes to trot out Gary Klek's estimates of 2M+ defensive gun uses annually. Even on its face, that number is absurd. There are only 234M adults in this country; that'd mean one adult out of every 117 uses a gun to defend themselves every year. To put that in perspective, I've got 424 friends on my FB page - to meet that average, 3 of them would have to use a firearm in self-defense every year and a fourth would have to do it about every other year.

That has not happened. At all.

Here's an interesting piece on why the numbers from both sides are suspect.

Another article points out the silliness of that number: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-36310.html: "Suppose it occurs "more than 2 million times a year," as the National Rifle Association says. That would be roughly double the number of times guns are used to commit violent crimes, plus the annual number of hospital visits for gunshot injuries, plus the number of accidental deaths and suicides from guns."

-Dan.