Taking Preemptive Action

[anonymouse]

2. Computerized Prime Gun Trace Log and Alert System. Mayors Against Illegal Guns will develop a computerized system that participating retailers will implement over time to log crime gun traces relating to the retailer. Once the program is in place, if a customer who has a prior trace at that retailer attempts to purchase a firearm, the sale will be electronically flagged. The retailer would have discretion to proceed with the sale or stop the sale.

I wouldn't want to buy a gun from a store that uses software developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns...

[MostlyHarmless]

I wouldn't want to buy a gun from a store that uses software developed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns...

Such database may be "legal" in states like NJ or NY. But I have my doubt that an FFL, who transmitted confidential customer information to some Mayor in NY, who subsequently leaked that information, would go unpunished under PA law.


Jan

[Malocka]

You know, I get that. And I'm not suggesting going against anyone's word - I'm just saying that the code is a joke and should be treated as such. But I'm glad you brought up honor. A lot of people think that winning will depend on us getting the truth out there. Maybe. But it seems like we're the only ones fighting a clean fight (except for John Lott/Mary Rosh). The anti crowd thrives on the public's willingness to eat up their lies and distortions.

They say or print something about how having guns in the home just means you'll accidentally kill your family, or that felons can go to Florida and get carry permits, or whatever, and regular folks believe them. They believe them because people believe that others are generally telling the truth (politicians excluded of course), and because they've heard the same lies so many times that they're indoctrinated. Our response - spend half of our energy fighting their lies - which of course isn't reported in the same media spreading the lies in the first place.

What's the answer? I don't know. But we're usually the only ones fighting clean in a very dirty fight, with the odds stacked heavily against us. Luckily, the law is on our side - unless we lose a conservative SC Justice in the next 3 (or 7) years.

There's a saying. Young guys fight clean, old guys fight to win. So maybe signing BS codes of conduct with the names of Greek gods isn't a good plan, but neither is letting them turn it into free publicity that they can use to legitimize themselves. James O'Keefe had the right idea. He got a lot accomplished (the first few times anyway), but I suppose dressing up like a pimp and toting a fake prostitute didn't imbue his strategy with honor either.

The code of conduct cannot be signed and simply thrown away for the following reasons:
1. One should never sign something that they do not truly believe in.
2. Within the “code of conduct” is a promise to enter purchaser’s names into a database.
A. Who owns this database??
B. How much will this database cost??
C. Entering people’s names into the database is an infringement of their privacy rights
D. Who has access to this database??

3. The Shooter Shop would be susceptible to law suits, by entering people names into a database.
4. Buyers would be reluctant to buy from a store that shares private information.
Simply put, IT’S WRONG.


From the beginning, this has never been about an organization expressing their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. This is about MONEY. This is about people’s right to privacy being infringed upon. This is about forcing people to sign an agreement or face harassment, slander and the threat of protest. This is about EXTORTION!

It is difficult to get people together, to stand up for what they believe in. We have been given this forum to do just that. So on Saturday, Feb. 13 its time to let everyone know how we feel!!

OO-RAH!!!

[Malocka]

I'd agree with that. Oh, and taking away evil guns.


Yeah, about that MONEY thing. It seems like you signed up on this site to get people to visit your uncle's shop, and didn't bother to disclose your relationship until folks asked about it. So yeah, sure, let's rally the troops and get them to come out and buy stuff. I was even going to come out and buy some ammo or something. But then it felt like I was just being manipulated to "stand up for what I believe in" by spending money there. You said "We have been given this forum to do just that" - but you've been a member on this site for two whole days. Where were you for all the other battles we've fought? I've donated to legal funds for people here I'll probably never meet. And I do buy at local shops even though I can get stuff cheaper online. But there's a difference between getting folks to rally around a cause, and taking advantage of their good intentions. I'm sorry to say that the intentions aren't clear enough for me to lend my [monetary] support anymore.

And of course don't set up a database. Nobody is suggesting that except the HGC folks. And you know what, forget my suggestion about not taking them seriously too. It seems like their protests may be good for business.

OO-RAH!!!

First off, I HAVE NEVER ASKED ANYONE TO BUY ANYTHING!!!! So please don't put words in my mouth!!! I made the statement about standing up for what you believe, because I have heard alot of people say, "what can I do?? I'm just one person".
I joined this forum 2 days ago, because before that I was not aware of any of this site or had ever heard of Heeding Gods Call!!! I am new to the whole blogging thing and once asked I answered all and every question. I have nothing to hide. I do not work at the shop. I started taking an interest in the 2nd amendment and our rights when it was brought to my attention from an incident at my sons school, which has nothing to do with this issue. I advised him to stand up for his rights. I felt like a hypocrite if I didnt do the same. Forgive me for not belonging to this group earlier. Everyone has to start somewhere and at sometime in their life. I have also become aware of how our VA hosp. really treat our veterans, after going with my father and trust me I have alot to say about that. If you are going to post things you have to be ready for people to disagree or bring a valid point. Thats all I was doing. Funny, Gunlawyer001 disagreed with you and you didnt slam him. I wish you and everyone the best in life.

[Malocka]

When I referred to this forum, I was not speaking about PAFOA. I was referring to the protest itself, at whatever shop they protest, since it seems there are 2 more on the list. (Which I will be at and support)

[Malocka]

Sorry about the sexist comment. I realized it was wrong after I posted it. I thought I had deleted it before anyone had read it. I am upset about what they are doing to my uncle. He is a reputable man, and doesn't deserve this. I was never asked by anyone to come onto this site. We are on the same side fighting for the same cause. Let's act it. Truce?

[Red]

i've contacted other shops, some of whom have dealt with Heeding and Asshat's Call before; it seems the group contacts them to let them know they'll be there, and they'll keep coming until the shop signs off on their retarded "pledge".

Hmm...I never took you as one to agree with Rahm Emanual.

Reference for the folks who don't follow the news closely: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/fire-oba...king-retarded/

[Red]

First off let me state I am not a bible thumper, and this information came from a quick Google search after coming across this thread. If this group wants to put a religous spin on this issues we should fight with the same ammo (pun intended). The Bible is full of text that supports the right of self-defense.

The Bible and Self-Defence
This article is written by Don Walker, pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Kansas City

Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36 to do an interesting thing. He said "Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." This flies in the face of the pacifist image that many people have of the Lord Jesus. Some have tried to spiritualize away the obvious meaning of Jesus’ instruction. He was speaking of a literal sword. It is apparent that His disciples understood what He meant by verse 38, and Peter’s inept and inappropriate use of the weapon. The point being, Jesus told His disciples to "take a sword." For what purpose if not for self-defense? (To slice their bread and spear their olives?) Jesus’ rebuke of Peter’s use of the sword that night was because of the nature of His mission – the Cross – and not a blanket condemnation of the use of a sword in defence. Jesus’ statement that "all who live by the sword, shall die by the sword" was not a forbidding of defending oneself, but a condemnation of those who live by violence.

The Old Testament reveals that God recognizes and supports the validity of defence, and even the necessity of taking human life, both by nations and individuals. Those who would piously quote the Bible when it says "Thou shalt not kill", stating that all life is God-given and we have no right to take it with our own hands, fail to read the rest of the Bible. In the same book of the Bible God specifically ordered the execution of people for such crimes as blasphemy, sexual perversion, adultery, kidnapping, and murder. On the matter of self-defence, it is clearly stated in the Law that if a man finds a thief in his house at night, taking the life of that thief on the spot is an acceptable means of protecting one’s home and property (Exodus 22:2). John Locke equated an assault on personal property as equivalent to an assault on one’s life, as one depends on one’s property for life. John Calvin declared that Christ’s law of love requires defence of one’s helpless neighbour. Paul teaches that the civil magistrate properly bears the sword (Romans 13:1-7). Historically, the Church has always viewed defensive war as just, and within the boundaries of scriptural teaching. (This is not to say that there have not been pacifists such as the Anabaptists, but they are the exception.) Biblically, the just war, as with Jephthah and the Ammonites was essentially an appeal to heaven to decide between the adversaries (Judges 11:27).

The advocates of the non-violent pacifist approach that says we are never to defend ourselves in any aggressive or violent way quote such scriptures as "Resist not evil" or "Turn the other cheek" to support their position. This position seeks to persuade us that any form of forceful defence would be contrary to the teachings of Christianity and not keeping with the Lord’s example who allowed men to do violence to Him.

The greatest problem with this viewpoint is that neither Christianity nor the Bible teaches non-violence or pacifism. The Bible shows us in both the Old and New Testaments that our God of love is also capable of violence, retribution, and vengeance. Force is never condemned in the Scriptures – only the misuse of force. Love and force are not incompatible in the mind of God, neither are justice and force. In each situation they are only opposite sides of the same coin. Religious humanism has put all the emphasis on the side of love and pacifism, most of which has been drawn more from Mahatma Ghandi rather than the Lord Jesus Christ and a clear Biblical standard.

We must understand that when Christ gave the command to turn the other cheek and to not resist evil that He was speaking to a situation where men’s hearts had departed from the intent of the Law of God, and they were using the Law as a tool to satisfy their own personal revenge. The Lord was addressing the evil attitudes of hatred and hypocrisy, not the legal procedures of His day. We are never at anytime permitted in the Bible to take the law into our own hands, nor are we allowed to be vindictive or revengeful even in the most extreme situation. If the issue is suffering for our testimony of faith in Christ, it should always be triumphant and non-violent.

In a unfallen world there would obviously be no need for self-defence. But we live in a fallen world, where sinful man is by his very nature a predator. Social mores may prevent him from giving full vent to his predator instinct, but that wicked nature is only beneath the surface. When lawlessness is allowed to reign, with the breakdown of society, self-defence is required for survival. The reality is that the police cannot fully protect you and your family. As a result, we are confronted with the necessity of personal protection. We are charged under God to protect our family, our possessions (since all of our possessions represent stewardship under Christ’s Lordship) and our personal well being from any undue violence that would hinder the on-going work of the Kingdom of God.

Does this mean that God cannot protect His people in times of danger? Undoubtedly, God can protect us without means, as He did Daniel in the lion’s den. Or He can protect us with means, as He did David with his skillful use of the sling against a lion. In both instances, it was God protecting His servant. In the same way that God can heal directly, without means (supernaturally), or He can heal with means (doctors and medicine). God is still the source of healing in both cases. God is our source of protection whether He provides it for us directly and supernaturally or whether He would require us to use some natural means of protecting ourselves, such as a .44 magnum.

It is to be expected that most of us would go to any length necessary in order to protect our family from a rampant disease, unnecessary poverty, or the attack of a wild animal. Why would we not be as quick to protect ourselves and our family from an intruder whose intention was evil?

Please hear me, I am not saying that everyone should have a firearm resting on his nightstand. What I am saying is that the Bible does allow for self-defence. We are granted under God the right to take whatever natural means we deem necessary to provide protection for our lives, the lives of our family, and our property.

[ReelBig20]

So, I'm definitely in, but is it just everyone going when it's best for them? Do we plan on meeting as a big group to do our shopping and create a spectacle equal to these HGC bastards? I feel like it's definitely true that we should be the ones who show up clean cut and bite our tongues (at least when we're going to say something inappropriate), but what's the harm in showing up in numbers? Just a thought, let me know what you think?

[Red]

First off let me state I am not a bible thumper, and this information came from a quick Google search after coming across this thread. If this group wants to put a religous spin on this issues we should fight with the same ammo (pun intended). The Bible is full of text that supports the right of self-defense.

Killing
by Hans Neser

Killing is a topic that brings a lot of emotion to foreground and is quite often clouded with strongly preconceived ideas fostered by personal upbringing, society and a misunderstanding of what the scriptures teach on this subject.


There are some difficult questions that have been responsible for many debates, arguments and divisions in the Body of Christ:

1. Does God give you the right to defend yourself, family or home if attacked?
2. Is it sinful to be involved in military action to defend your country?
3. Is it sinful for a disciple to be actively involved in the execution of a prisoner condemned for a capital crime?

Before proceeding I must acknowledge that most of these ideas presented below are not my own in origin but credit must be given to Cecil Hook. Self Protection - Sinful or Sensible (Original text by Cecil Hook - Modified by Hans Neser). My thanks to Cecil for giving permission to publish extracts of his works.


This will be a study of certain rights of disciples.

• Does being disciples require that we be socially passive, non*resistant, and nonviolent?
• Do we have any recourse against injustice and tyranny?
• Does a society have the right of self*protection?

Many perplexing questions call for answers. Some we may answer definitely; others may be left to the judgment of each individual in his particular circumstance.

The sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder," is the fundamental law protecting the sanctity of life. The very need for such a commandment is regrettable. The Golden Rule is the fundamental law to govern all social relationships. If it were practiced by all, this study would be unnecessary. The problem arises because the disciple must practice it even when others are not. In order to have a proper basis for many of our conclusions, we will consider both Mosaic and Christian teachings, principles, prohibitions, and regulations concerning our social conduct and the taking of life.

The sixth Commandment warns, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Capital punishment was the penalty prescribed for violation of this commandment: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12; cf. Leviticus 24:17, Numbers 35:16f, Deuteronomy 19:1). The killer was to be killed. Would the executioner be violating "You shall not murder" in killing the killer? He would not be in violation because there are different definitions of killing, and execution of the criminal is not the type condemned.


There are at least four kinds of killing which were not considered as murder; hence, they did not incur the capital penalty. These would be identified as manslaughter, but not murder. Let us review these four types of manslaughter:

• Accidental: "Ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you, that the manslayer that killeth a person unwittingly may flee thither" (Numbers 35:11; read all of chapter 35). He was not considered to be a murderer.
  
• Protective: "If a thief be found breaking in, and he be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him" (Exodus 22:2).
  
• Punitive: Capital punishment was prescribed for those who blasphemed the name of Jehovah (Leviticus 24:16), those who disregarded the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32f), one who cursed or struck his parents (Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 21:15, 17), and other offenses.
  
• Warfare: God directed Israel into warfare on different occasions. In Deuteronomy 20, Moses sets forth regulations concerning battle.
  

Some persons reject these Mosaic regulations on the grounds that the Jews were permitted to hate and to take vengeance. But such objections come from a gross misunderstanding. God has never permitted man to hate his fellow man and to take vengeance. Rather, the law stated, "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:17). Love was to be demonstrated to one's enemy, for "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him." (Exodus 23:4; cf, Deuteronomy 22:1-4). Both Jesus and Paul go back to the law for their highest principles.

Judgement and Retribution
Another misunderstanding perpetuated is: "Under the law, it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If someone knocked your tooth out, you could knock one of his out." But that is not a provision of the law. It did not permit personal retribution for crimes. Then who took action against injustices? This is a very crucial point which is so commonly overlooked.

To avenge is to inflict punishment for just retribution. God avenges. To take vengeance is to inflict pain or injury in resentful or malicious retaliation. Injustices were avenged, but not on a personal basis. It was through due process of law involving witnesses and trials before judges. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Exodus 21:22f; cf, Leviticus 24:19f).

Injustice was avenged by due process of law in the court rather than individual retaliation. "Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly." (Deuteronomy 16:18). Difficult cases could be appealed to a higher court: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests and the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days: and thou shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment" (Deuteronomy 17:8f). A person could not be convicted without sufficient evidence: "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15f).

Was not the next of kin to a murdered person called "the avenger of blood?" Wasn't the avenger of blood given the right to avenge his kin by killing the murderer? Yes, there were circumstances where this was permitted, but there was a reason for it which is often overlooked. There were no police among Israel, so "citizen's arrests" were made by the complainant and he brought charges against the offender. Ordinarily, a person pressed his own charges, but a slain man could not perform such a thing. Someone else must do it for him, so the next of kin became the avenger of blood for the dead.

Ordinarily, this was a legal procedure for punishment of a murderer. The citizen was the complainant, witness, and executioner: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness shall he not be put to death. The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people" (Deuteronomy 17:6f).

When a person killed another, he could run to the nearest city of refuge, surrender himself for protection, and wait for proper trial. "Assign you the cities of refuge whereof I spake unto you by Moses, that the manslayer that killeth any person unwittingly and unawares may nee thither: and they shall be unto you for a refuge from the avenger of blood. And he shall nee unto one of those cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city, and declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver up the manslayer into his hand; because he smote his neighbor unawares, and hated him not beforetime. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the manslayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled" (Joshua 20:2f). If, however, the man was guilty of murder, he was delivered to the avenger for execution: "If any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally so that he dieth, and flee into one of these cities; then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die" (Deuteronomy 19:11f).

If the manslayer did not surrender himself at the city of refuge, "The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death: when he meeteth him, he shall put him to death" (Numbers 35:18f). In this action, the avenger would be acting as an agent of the law-and of God's wrath - avenging injustice against society, rather than seeking personal revenge.

Playing God
Some object to the taking of life under any circumstances, declaring that such is "playing God." They only betray their ignorance of Biblical teaching. Do we play God when we bring a new life into the world, or remove an appendix? God has put life and death in our hands and wants us to deal with both discreetly. Who can contend that it is more praiseworthy to bring life into existence without honorable purpose than to destroy life with honorable purpose?

We should now be ready to answer these questions:

• Could a righteous person fill the capacity prescribed under the Law of Moses as a judge, a soldier, or an executioner in capital cases?
• Would death rendered by these persons be justified?
• Could they perform these actions with love for their neighbor, without malice or personal vengeance?
• May we conclude that God gave the Jewish society and its members the right of self*protection?

All these questions demand an affirmative answer.
Do not reject the foregoing on the ground that we are not under the Law of Moses. In it we have a context in which to interpret "Thou shalt not kill." That command was interpreted with the same love and lack of vengeance as that enjoined upon us. Our principle of self-protection is established.