Universal background checks Dems' top priority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
My suggestion was a proposal of something that has not been tried yet. So of course I don’t have any links.

Of course it was forced confiscation in Australia, They had an amnesty were people were allowed to turn in their weapons without deemed breaking the law. Aussies had no choice in the matter if they wanted to remain law abiding.

If American gun owners were to comply with such an amnesty threat then they would not have mounted an armed rebellion. You can’t have it both ways. Either American gun owners have the courage to take on the US military or they don’t. If they do have the courage, then the rebellion would begin as soon as the first request for compliance was made, and registration would not matter. If they don’t then again registration would not matter because they wouldn’t stand up to the military anyway.

Stepping away from the world of fantasy we realize that even with AR-15s, the populace is not going to take on the US military. It would be much easier to vote the bums out of office and put our own bums in.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s been tried before. You surely must be able to find examples from other countries, the ones you want the US to emulate. If you can’t find such examples then that gap should inform you that reality doesn’t match your conjecture.

Many Americans would comply with a mandatory gun buyback scheme, some would not. Are you imagining everyone would have the same response?

You do seem fixated on an armed rebellion against the military. Gun owners would likely not respond according to your fantasy scenario where a forced buyback created an immediate armed rebellion. I expect those so inclined would mostly hide their ‘arms’
 
Last edited:
And don’t you dare give your son a gun that he has coveted for years!
 
Raxus said:
40.png
Lev:
Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called Gods children… Matt 5:9
Click to expand...
Peacemaking and gun ownership are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
The Church is guided by Aquinas on this topic regarding self defense…

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. " - Summa Theologica

So while it is permissible for the State, the army and police to arm themselves with intent to kill if necessary… it is not permissible for an ordinary person to do so. This is the reason why in the English Bill of Rights gun ownership is described as an auxiliary right to the right of self defense. It only supplements that human right in certain circumstances. It is not a human right itself and especially heinous when mass gun ownership is causing more harm that good to the community.
 
Last edited:
Lev said:
So while it is permissible for the State, the army and police to arm themselves with intent to kill if necessary… it is not permissible for an ordinary person to do so. This is the reason why in the English Bill of Rights gun ownership is described as an auxiliary right to the right of self defense. It only supplements that human right in certain circumstances. It is not a human right itself and especially heinous when mass gun ownership is causing more harm that good to the community.
Click to expand...
The quote very clearly said it was only a sin to harm robbers if you were motivated by “private animosity”.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
My suggestion was a proposal of something that has not been tried yet. So of course I don’t have any links.

Of course it was forced confiscation in Australia, They had an amnesty were people were allowed to turn in their weapons without deemed breaking the law. Aussies had no choice in the matter if they wanted to remain law abiding.

If American gun owners were to comply with such an amnesty threat then they would not have mounted an armed rebellion. You can’t have it both ways. Either American gun owners have the courage to take on the US military or they don’t. If they do have the courage, then the rebellion would begin as soon as the first request for compliance was made, and registration would not matter. If they don’t then again registration would not matter because they wouldn’t stand up to the military anyway.

Stepping away from the world of fantasy we realize that even with AR-15s, the populace is not going to take on the US military. It would be much easier to vote the bums out of office and put our own bums in.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s been tried before.
Click to expand...
Registration has been tried before, but where has it been put to the exact use that I proposed regarding background checks?
Many Americans would comply with a mandatory gun buyback scheme, some would not. Are you imagining everyone would have the same response?
Click to expand...
If only a few gun owners rise up then the rebellion does not have much chance of succeeding.
You do seem fixated on an armed rebellion against the military. Gun owners would likely not respond according to your fantasy scenario that the forced buyback created an immediate armed rebellion.
Click to expand...
It is a fantasy scenario. I’m so glad you agree. It is exactly the fantasy scenario that gun-owners (I won’t say gun-worshippers with you because I respect you too much) say justifies opposing registration. If it is not for rebellion against a government turned despotic then what is it for?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Registration has been tried before, but where has it been put to the exact use that I proposed regarding background checks?
Click to expand...
Are you playing the “no true scotsman” as your defense? Every other country with modest to severe gun restrictions does background checks. Stop evading.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
Lev:
So while it is permissible for the State, the army and police to arm themselves with intent to kill if necessary… it is not permissible for an ordinary person to do so. This is the reason why in the English Bill of Rights gun ownership is described as an auxiliary right to the right of self defense. It only supplements that human right in certain circumstances. It is not a human right itself and especially heinous when mass gun ownership is causing more harm that good to the community.
Click to expand...
The quote very clearly said it was only a sin to harm robbers if you were motivated by “private animosity”.
Click to expand...
No it says that if the police or soldiers are motivated by by private animosity it then renders their action sinful. What it clearly says is that an ordinary person is forbidden to intend to kill in self defense and that is the whole purpose of a weapon like the gun. It is purpose built to kill things.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You know what this gun is called?

Peacemaker.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Registration has been tried before, but where has it been put to the exact use that I proposed regarding background checks?
Click to expand...
Are you playing the “no true scotsman” as your defense? Every other country with modest to severe gun restrictions does background checks. Stop evading.
Click to expand...
Do they require universal background checks and use the registry to to check for compliance?
 
Lev said:
No it says that if the police or soldiers are motivated by by private animosity it then renders their action sinful. What it clearly says is that an ordinary person is forbidden to intend to kill in self defense and that is the whole purpose of a weapon like the gun. It is purpose built to kill things.
Click to expand...
I spent some time at your link. It’s an article by someone who does not believe one can take a life in self defense. The person has preselected their quotes to support their position.

I’m sure someone who supported the right to self defense could locate many equally compelling verses that support their position. Here is one from your link.
It is written (Exodus 22:2): “If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.”
Click to expand...
If you want to debate the theological support for self defense as a Catholic, perhaps a seperate thread is warranted. US Law does recognize armed self defense as a legal response.
 
Last edited:
Lev said:
it is not permissible for an ordinary person to do so.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that actually shakes out that way. Being forced to kill a man in self-defense and INTENDING to kill a man in self-defense are two entirely different things.
 
Lev said:
What it clearly says is that an ordinary person is forbidden to intend to kill in self defense
Click to expand...
This means that a person FORCED to kill in self-defense with a gun, with no other reasonable alternative, is just fine.
 
It’s actually the universally recognised work of St Thomas Aquinas a 13th century philosopher and theologian who contributed heavily to the Christian understanding of the teachings of Christ.
Theo520 said:
US Law does recognize armed self defense as a legal response.
Click to expand...
But that is not what the 2nd amendment specifies. It specifically specifies identity as a ‘militia’ in service to the security of the free state.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’

It is the debatable interpretive gymnastics of constitutional ‘experts’ who have stretched it to support the current policy of relatively unfettered gun ownership for personal self defense.
 
Lev said:
But that is not what the 2nd amendment specifies. It specifically specifies identity as a ‘militia’ in service to the security of the free state.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’

It is the debatable interpretive gymnastics of constitutional ‘experts’ who have stretched it to support the current policy of relatively unfettered gun ownership for personal self defense.
Click to expand...
Do you intentionally forget or misconstrue your own posts? You provided a link to someone stating there wasn’t theological justification for killing in self defense. My comments were worded appropriately.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
Lev:
But that is not what the 2nd amendment specifies. It specifically specifies identity as a ‘militia’ in service to the security of the free state.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’

It is the debatable interpretive gymnastics of constitutional ‘experts’ who have stretched it to support the current policy of relatively unfettered gun ownership for personal self defense.
Click to expand...
Do you intentionally forget or misconstrue your own posts? You provided a link to someone stating there wasn’t theological justification for killing in self defense. My comments were worded appropriately.
Click to expand...
The link to Summa Theologica states there is no theological justification to intend to kill in self defense. That is the position of the Catholic Church.

Intending to kill in defense is allowed only to commissioned defenders charged with that defense. Do you see the difference.
 
Lev said:
Intending to kill in defense is allowed only to commissioned defenders charged with that defense. Do you see the difference.
Click to expand...
You are citing a textbook expressing an author’s view point, where he presented selected quotes from multiple sources and provided his interpretation.

It’s all thought provoking but what is your point? The author isn’t representing the magisterium.

I humble disagree that one is not allowed to use potentially deadly force in defending oneself. I also threw in a bible quote that explicitly agreed with me and contradicted your source.
 
Last edited:
Lev said:
Yes, and I know a pitbull called Cuddles. It’s not a relevant point.
Click to expand...
It is relevant:

Tell me, who was the more blessed: Joshua/ Caleb or the Ten Spies?

And what was the question they were dealing with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top