What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course it does, to defend is the act of resisting an attack. An act, per Aquinas, has both an effect and a cause. The effect being that the attack is resisted. Therefore, a true defense is the one that brings about the effect of resisting the attack.

This is unintelligible gobbledygook, and I think you know it. The fact is there is no Church doctrine that say you or I have a right to have a weapon.

Taking just that last sentence, the right to self defense does not guarantee a successful self defense. You have the right to try. You do not have a guarantee of success, nor the right to such a guarantee.

And I made no claim that ‘any weapon’ is needed, rather my claim is that the Natural Law entitles one to offer effective defense. If the aggressor is armed with firearms, or the aggressor is larger or better trained than you, that use of firearms is in accord with the Natural Law. Likewise, since an effective defense requires one to be prepared for the attack ahead of time, the carrying of firearms is likewise in accord with the Natural Law.

But you never know for sure that you are going to be attacked, or what weapon the attacker will have. And even if you did know, Catholic morality does not guarantee you the right to have a sufficient weapon to dominate any possible attacker.

No false dichotomy, Did the resistance fighters of the Warsaw ghetto violate the Natural Law, either in their defense, or in the possession of firearms to engage in that defense?

No they did not violate Natural Law. Nor would it have been contrary to Natural Law for the government to deny them access to firearms. Of course the rest of what the government did to them violated Natural Law, but not that.

If what you claimed earlier was correct, then the resistance fighters throwing punches alone would have been a legitimate defense

I don’t know what you mean by “legitimate” here. Would it have been moral to throw punches? Yes. Would it have been effective to throw punches? No.

I’ll ask again: Show me one place in Catholic moral writings that clearly says a government has no moral right to restrict access to weapons.

 

[JonNC]

I mean… wait… just one more:

This is exactly how I feel when progressives say we just a few more “common sense” gun laws (targeted specifically and intentionally at the law-abiding) and that will dramatically reduce gun violence.
Like I said, I will stand with anyone who can come up with a law that targets those who use firearms illegally, and doesn’t infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

Jon

 

[Brendan]

This is unintelligible gobbledygook, and I think you know it.

Nope, it’s simply Aquinas.

Taking just that last sentence, the right to self defense does not guarantee a successful self defense. You have the right to try. You do not have a guarantee of success, nor the right to such a guarantee.

Correct, there is no guarantee, but the act should at least have the potential for

But you never know for sure that you are going to be attacked, or what weapon the attacker will have. And even if you did know, Catholic morality does not guarantee you the right to have a sufficient weapon to dominate any possible attacker.

No they did not violate Natural Law. Nor would it have been contrary to Natural Law for the government to deny them access to firearms. Of course the rest of what the government did to them violated Natural Law, but not that.

Since the government DID deny them access to firearms (and you claim that doing so was not one of their offenses) , yet their use of the denied firearms did not violate the Natural Law. That is an interesting contradiction you propose. You are simultaneously claiming that they both violated the Natural Law, and upheld it.

Where did they get the legitimacy to possess firearms? What law gave them the right to override the Natural Law right of the society to restrict them?

I don’t know what you mean by “legitimate” here. Would it have been moral to throw punches? Yes. Would it have been effective to throw punches? No.

‘Legitimate’ has it’s root in the Latin ‘legio’ or law. That which is legitimate is that which is according to the law. Something may be legitimate under the civil law or it can be legitimate under the Natural Law. In either case, there is a ‘legio’ that grants legitimacy.

Would you expected the punches to achieve the effect of defense, if not, then it is not an act of defense. One would expect that an Act of Charity produces the effect of love and gratitude. I will admit, that sometimes, acts of charity do not produce that effect, but for an act to be truly and act of charity, the effect of love and gratitude must be reasonably foreseen.

That is why the Church, via Thomas, indicate that the effect of defense (restated and effective defense), must at least be reasonably foreseen in an act of defense.

If we follow your premise, and that the Church does not foresee an attack as actually being repulsed, would you claim that the Church teaches that society may an 90 year old woman who holds up her twiggy arms to block her face against a 250 lbs\115kg 20 year old attacker has done a legitimate defense, that she should thus have no other recourse to defend her life?

I would claim that the woman, like the Warsaw resistance fighters, has a right, under the Natural law to possess a firearm to defend her life, as it is the only reasonable means by which she can effect a defense. Her arms are no more of a defense against a large attacker that the Warsaw fighters fists would be against a Panzer IV. Like the resistance fighters, she has the right to acquire that firearm prior to the actual defense. And like the resistance fighters of Warsaw, this right cannot be contradicted by the civil law.

I’ll ask again: Show me one place in Catholic moral writings that clearly says a government has no moral right to restrict access to weapons.

I am, in Thomistic thought, which the Church has declared to the be the Theology of the Church. And what I am claiming is that society has no moral right to restrict access to that which can offer an effective defense ( a defense which achieves it’s effect)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nope, it’s simply Aquinas.

Aquinas is not the problem. It is your misapplication of Aquinas to the question at hand.

Since the government DID deny them access to firearms (and you claim that doing so was not one of their offenses) , yet their use of the denied firearms did not violate the Natural Law. That is an interesting contradiction you propose. You are simultaneously claiming that they both violated the Natural Law, and upheld it.

Who are we talking about here? The Jews or the Nazi government? Take each one separately:

The Jews: They did not violate Natural Law by using whatever weapons they could to defend themselves against unjust aggression from the government.

The Nazis: They did not violate Natural Law by denying citizens ownership of guns. They did violate Natural Law by their subsequent unjust aggression against the Jews. The fact that their aggression was facilitated by the fact that the Jews were mostly disarmed just makes their aggression all the more unjust. But it does not make the denial of guns per se a violation of Natural Law.

Where did they get the legitimacy to possess firearms? What law gave them the right to override the Natural Law right of the society to restrict them?

They had no such legitimacy. Now, can we leave Godwin alone for a while? Because basing US law on the expectation of some day rounding up the Jews (or the Muslims) into ghettos is far fetched.

Would you expected the punches to achieve the effect of defense, if not, then it is not an act of defense.

Sometimes defense is not possible. But that is** rare**.

That is why the Church, via Thomas, indicate that the effect of defense (restated and effective defense), must at least be reasonably foreseen in an act of defense.

Citation please? So I can see the context of the quote you are referring to?

If we follow your premise, and that the Church does not foresee an attack as actually being repulsed, would you claim that the Church teaches that society may an 90 year old woman who holds up her twiggy arms to block her face against a 250 lbs\115kg 20 year old attacker has done a legitimate defense, that she should thus have no other recourse to defend her life?

Unjust things happen in life that should not happen. That does not mean the 90 year old women must carry a gun.

I am, in Thomistic thought, which the Church has declared to the be the Theology of the Church. And what I am claiming is that society has no moral right to restrict access to that which can offer an effective defense ( a defense which achieves it’s effect)

Still waiting for a logical support of this claim…

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I’ll simplify Brendan’s argument this way:

We have the inalienable right to life given us by God; we consider that Natural Law. But the right to life has no effect without the corollary right to defend that life and by extension defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves, such as the elderly, the disabled, the children and the unborn.

The question posed is what does the right to defend one’s own life look like? If I am to accept leaf’s argument at face value, I have no right to weapons beyond my “ineffective” fists. So therefore I have no right to defend my life with weapons that I would consider necessary for an effective defense of my life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’ll simplify Brendan’s argument this way:

We have the inalienable right to life given us by God; we consider that Natural Law. But the right to life has no effect without the corollary right to defend that life and by extension defend the lives of those who cannot defend themselves, such as the elderly, the disabled, the children and the unborn.

The question posed is what does the right to defend one’s own life look like? If I am to accept leaf’s argument at face value, I have no right to weapons beyond my “ineffective” fists. So therefore I have no right to defend my life with weapons that I would consider necessary for an effective defense of my life.

Natural Law says you have the right to use whatever weapons you have available - fists, guns, grenades, bazookas, whatever. It does not say you have a right to have them available. That is an important difference that you and Brendan are glossing over.

Just show me one Church document or Catechism citation or council proceeding that says anything at all about the right to own weapons.

 

[JonNC]

Natural Law says you have the right to use whatever weapons you have available - fists, guns, grenades, bazookas, whatever. It does not say you have a right to have them available. That is an important difference that you and Brendan are glossing over.

And it is the job of progressives to make sure you do not have them available!

Jon

 

[Brendan]

Aquinas is not the problem. It is your misapplication of Aquinas to the question at hand.

How so, how did I misrepresent Aquinas views on Act, Cause and Effect?

Who are we talking about here? The Jews or the Nazi government? Take each one separately:

The Warsaw resistance fighters

The Jews: They did not violate Natural Law by using whatever weapons they could to defend themselves against unjust aggression from the government.

The Nazis: They did not violate Natural Law by denying citizens ownership of guns. They did violate Natural Law by their subsequent unjust aggression against the Jews. The fact that their aggression was facilitated by the fact that the Jews were mostly disarmed just makes their aggression all the more unjust. But it does not make the denial of guns per se a violation of Natural Law.

Not talking about them, except in regards to what rights under the Natural Law a government would have to restrict legitmate defense.

They had no such legitimacy.

So you are saying that they commited no violation of the Natural Law in defending themselves, but DID violate the Natural Law by obtaining the weapons in the first place.

Interesting take on Natural Law…

Now, can we leave Godwin alone for a while? Because basing US law on the expectation of some day rounding up the Jews (or the Muslims) into ghettos is far fetched.

I made no mention of anyone related to Godwin’s law. I am simply discussing a case in light of general application of Natural Law.

I have not seen any ‘expectation’ of ghettos mention in this thread, only the possibility thereof. For those in ghetto, remember that less than 4 year prior, they had been living peaceable lives in a western democracy.

Sometimes defense is not possible. But that is** rare**.

Citation please? So I can see the context of the quote you are referring to?

Unjust things happen in life that should not happen. That does not mean the 90 year old women must carry a gun.

What by what other means can she achieve the effect of the act of defense? yes, she could attempt to punch him, but how would that differ from the Warsaw fighters from punching a Panzer?

Still waiting for a logical support of this claim…

See my first comment.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How so, how did I misrepresent Aquinas views on Act, Cause and Effect?

You didn’t misrepresent him. You misapplied him. What you said about Aquinas was true, but had nothing whatsoever to do with owning guns.

So you are saying that they commited no violation of the Natural Law in defending themselves, but DID violate the Natural Law by obtaining the weapons in the first place.

I never said the Warsaw resistance fighters violated any Natural Law by obtaining weapons. I just said it was not a violation of Natural Law to deny them those weapons. In short, there were no violations of Natural Law on either side, except for the aggression against the Jews, which was a violation of Natural Law - and the ONLY violation of Natural Law in your example.

See my first comment.

Your first comment does not count as a citation of Church teaching supporting the right to own a gun because you did not make the connection between the general principles of Aquinas and your conclusion about guns.

 

[exnihilo]

Fascinating view of America and its institutions and fears arising here. The Goverment (and the legislature?) are the product of the people, but to the people, they are street gangs?

A gang offers you protection from bad guys. You pay them for this protection. If you don’t pay for the protection, and you can’t refuse to participate, they send their bad guys to rough you up and make you pay. In other words they do the same to you the bad guys they protect you from would do. I don’t see how that is any different from government.

I don’t see the democratic forms of government as a product of the people. Sure there are elections but politics is complicated. It isn’t like the people’s will is always or even ever carried out. But most importantly the government is not a product of me and does not reflect my will. I don’t agree with much of what it does and would be happy to not participate, but that isn’t allowed. My neighbors voting doesn’t change that and I don’t know why in principle I should be subject to the will of my neighbors any more then I should be the subject to the will of a tyrant or king.

 

[exnihilo]

Natural Law says you have the right to use whatever weapons you have available - fists, guns, grenades, bazookas, whatever. It does not say you have a right to have them available. That is an important difference that you and Brendan are glossing over.

Just show me one Church document or Catechism citation or council proceeding that says anything at all about the right to own weapons.

The argument you are making seems to be the same some are now making regarding the freedom of religion. The argument is basically you can have any religious belief you want, you just can’t act on those beliefs. I think it reasonable to think that no one can stop you from having beliefs, absent maybe torture or drugs. Tyrannical regimes would send men to reeducation camp but could they really force a man to have new beliefs? Regardless, conceiving of rights this way makes the rights meaningless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The argument you are making seems to be the same some are now making regarding the freedom of religion. The argument is basically you can have any religious belief you want, you just can’t act on those beliefs. I think it reasonable to think that no one can stop you from having beliefs, absent maybe torture or drugs. Tyrannical regimes would send men to reeducation camp but could they really force a man to have new beliefs?

Do I really have to explain how freedom of religious exercise is different from freedom to own a gun?

But even freedom of religious expression can have legitimate limitations, such as in sacrificing a virgin to the volcano god. Similarly, the right to own weapons can have legitimate limitations, such as no guns on a commercial aircraft. Now if you accept that some limitations are reasonable and others are not, we may be able to have a conversation about what constitutes reasonable limitations, and perhaps find common ground. But when the argument from the other side is that the right to own a gun is absolute, there is no room for common ground.

 

[JonNC]

Do I really have to explain how freedom of religious exercise is different from freedom to own a gun?

But even freedom of religious expression can have legitimate limitations, such as in sacrificing a virgin to the volcano god. Similarly, the right to own weapons can have legitimate limitations, such as no guns on a commercial aircraft. Now if you accept that some limitations are reasonable and others are not, we may be able to have a conversation about what constitutes reasonable limitations, and perhaps find common ground. But when the argument from the other side is that the right to own a gun is absolute, there is no room for common ground.

No right is absolute. A right that compromises the rights of others, or costs someone else if their property or person becomes license. Example: people have a right to health care, but they do not have the right to other people’s money in order to acquire it. I have a right to a Glock, but you shouldn’t have to be forced to buy it for me. Further, my Glock shouldn’t be used to hurt others or their property, assuming no self defense is involved

There’s your limit.

BTW, an enumerated right is an enumerated right. Effectively, speech, religion, firearms hold the same status
Jon

 

[philipl]

But all those “common sense” gun laws are already in place. So why doesnt he explain what new “common sense” laws that need to be created that will make the already"common sense" law better?

Notice that no one who claims we need “common sense” gun laws will explain what is common sense. That because “common sense” mean getting rid of all guns, they just wont admit it.

 

[exnihilo]

Do I really have to explain how freedom of religious exercise is different from freedom to own a gun?

But even freedom of religious expression can have legitimate limitations, such as in sacrificing a virgin to the volcano god. Similarly, the right to own weapons can have legitimate limitations, such as no guns on a commercial aircraft. Now if you accept that some limitations are reasonable and others are not, we may be able to have a conversation about what constitutes reasonable limitations, and perhaps find common ground. But when the argument from the other side is that the right to own a gun is absolute, there is no room for common ground.

Yes. Especially since the context is the US government where both are enumerated rights in the constitution.

I agree there are limits to rights and those limits are when you cause harm to another person. Merely possessing a weapon cannot cause anyone harm. The government used to have some decency in respecting this fact which is why when the gun banners started they used prohibitive tax and regulation laws, rather then straight up prohibition, to achieve their objective.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No right is absolute. A right that compromises the rights of others, or costs someone else if their property or person becomes license. Example: people have a right to health care, but they do not have the right to other people’s money in order to acquire it. I have a right to a Glock, but you shouldn’t have to be forced to buy it for me. Further, my Glock shouldn’t be used to hurt others or their property, assuming no self defense is involved

There’s your limit.

OK, the only limits you seem to want to put on this right is who pays for it. Well, for those who have the money, this is no limit at all. And it does not address the common sense limit of no guns on commercial aircraft. Do you really want to argue that the “enumerated right” status of bearing arms trumps regulations of guns on aircraft? If so, I think that is quite a fringe belief. Actually, I would not necessarily want to deny you your Glock either, in the right context, such as if you owned a 200 acre ranch and used it in the middle of that ranch for target practice or any other legal activity.

BTW, an enumerated right is an enumerated right. Effectively, speech, religion, firearms hold the same status
Jon

All the word “enumerated” means is “explicitly listed” or “counted”. It does not automatically confer any higher status to the right - higher than, say, any other right defined by a government document (which the Constitution is). As legal documents go, the Constitution is the top dog in the US. But as an authority for morality, it is no different than local zoning ordinances.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I agree there are limits to rights and those limits are when you cause harm to another person.

All you have agreed to is limits on using a gun. You have not agreed to any limits on merely possessing a gun, as your next sentence shows:

Merely possessing a weapon cannot cause anyone harm.

So do you think banning guns from commercial aircraft is reasonable, or not? After all, one could say “I want to bring my gun aboard. Don’t worry, I haven’t harmed anyone yet, and you will just have to trust me that I won’t try to do so now.”. I don’t think you will get one in a million Americans who think that is a good policy.

 

[exnihilo]

OK, the only limits you seem to want to put on this right is who pays for it. Well, for those who have the money, this is no limit at all. And it does not address the common sense limit of no guns on commercial aircraft. Do you really want to argue that the “enumerated right” status of bearing arms trumps regulations of guns on aircraft? If so, I think that is quite a fringe belief. Actually, I would not necessarily want to deny you your Glock either, in the right context, such as if you owned a 200 acre ranch and used it in the middle of that ranch for target practice or any other legal activity.

Whether a belief is fringe or not has no bearing on the argument. What makes ‘no guns on commercial aircraft’ common sense? That isn’t even the law now. Anyone can check a firearm and government agents carry guns in the passenger section.

I have no problem with an airline prohibiting weapons as they have the prerogative due to their property rights. It is a different matter when the government imposes a ban. Why not let the market work. If banning guns is such a great thing the airlines will do so in response to customer demand.

Notice that no one who claims we need “common sense” gun laws will explain what is common sense. That because “common sense” mean getting rid of all guns, they just wont admit it.

Anytime I hear ‘common sense laws’ I worry.

 

[exnihilo]

All you have agreed to is limits on using a gun. You have not agreed to any limits on merely possessing a gun, as your next sentence shows:

So do you think banning guns from commercial aircraft is reasonable, or not? After all, one could say “I want to bring my gun aboard. Don’t worry, I haven’t harmed anyone yet, and you will just have to trust me that I won’t try to do so now.”. I don’t think you will get one in a million Americans who think that is a good policy.

Right, I don’t think there should be any limit on ownership of weapons. The constitution says the same.

I don’t think banning weapons on commercial aircraft is ‘reasonable’. It’s not really unreasonable either. What it is is something beyond the scope of our government. I can see how some people might think the ban promotes safety. Of course 9/11 showed otherwise as do all the tests of TSA which show they are worthless at detecting weapons.

Guns are currently everywhere in the US. If people who perceived guns as being an inherent danger knew where all they came into close proximity to guns they’d be shocked. They are in schools, hospitals, churches, restaurants, bars, grocery stores, everywhere. Most gun owners are not criminals.

And as for ‘Don’t worry, I haven’t harmed anyone yet, and you will just have to trust me that I won’t try to do so now’ that is already policy. Air marshalls carry guns. This is all that can be said about them. If you read the papers you see a shockingly large percentage of law enforcement and military, the people we allow to use violence and carry guns (well not the military - they are disarmed most of the time), commit criminal acts either while so employed or after.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Whether a belief is fringe or not has no bearing on the argument.

So, you do agree that your view is shared by practically no one?

What makes ‘no guns on commercial aircraft’ common sense?

That’s easy. It is a confined environment where people cannot run away if you pull your gun. It is too easy to hijack the plane since you can threaten much greater harm to many more people than if you pulled your gun back on the ground. The threat to the common good is much greater on an aircraft than the benefit to each person of having a gun there in your seat. But you think all this makes no sense??

I have no problem with an airline prohibiting weapons as they have the prerogative due to their property rights.

It is not an airline rule. It is government rule. The airlines have no say in the matter. If some airline wanted to allow guns on their flights, they would not be allowed to operate in the US. Not to mention they would go out of business because nobody wants to fly on an aircraft where there is so little protection against one of their fellow passengers using their weapon.