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

[LeafByNiggle]

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

That is not how most constitutional scholars interpret the 2nd amendment. And I don’t think the founders would have interpreted it that way either. But that is neither here nor there, since the Catechism and not the Constitution is the moral authority in this forum. As I said before, the Constitution is not any kind of moral authority.

I can see how some people might think the ban promotes safety. Of course 9/11 showed otherwise

No, it showed that the measures were too weak. They have been strengthened and there has not been anything of that magnitude for for 15 years.

Guns are currently everywhere in the US.

I am pretty sure they are not with the guy next to me on the plane. Unless he is a sky marshal. In which case I am pretty sure he is thoroughly vetted.

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.

Air marshalls are rigorously vetted. If all gun owners were willing to go through such a process (and pay for it themselves) I would have no problem with allowing them on the plane with their 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.

That is no reason to give everyone the chance to be just as criminal.

 

[Theo520]

Every armed person is a potential threat to the continued being of others, in the same way that incompetent, drunk or drugged drivers are. It makes sense that weapons should be regulated as much as driver licenses.

ICXC NIKA

They are since you need a background check to get a concealed carry permit.

 

[exnihilo]

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

I don’t know how many people have my view. I imagine it is a minority view but not a one in a million view as you suggested. I’ve read plenty of other people express this view.

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 don’t think it is ‘common sense’. I can see the point you make but that doesn’t make it common sense. It is not a logical necessity that you need such a rule.

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.

I know it is a law. If nobody would fly on an aircraft allowing guns then why do we need a law? I’m sure there are plenty of folks who would fly on airlines that allowed guns just as there are plenty of people who go to all sorts of places where guns are allowed or are likely to be. Why not let the market decide?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I know it is a law. If nobody would fly on an aircraft allowing guns then why do we need a law? I’m sure there are plenty of folks who would fly on airlines that allowed guns just as there are plenty of people who go to all sorts of places where guns are allowed or are likely to be. Why not let the market decide?

Because providing for the common good is a legitimate function of government. There is probably disagreement as to exactly what constitutes the common good, and no matter how much government tries to find a just settlement of that question, there will always be people like you who will disagree with that judgement. It is a prudential judgement, subject to error. And sometimes the majority gets it wrong, such as in prohibition. But if we are going to have any government at all, we must struggle through those decisions the best way we know how. You are entitled to make your case for no restrictions on guns, and if you can win enough people over to your side, your view may become the law of the land. Those on the other side of this question are entitled to make their case too. And if their side wins the day, it also becomes the law of the land.

 

[JonNC]

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.

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.

If you want the government to pay for rights, I’ll take an AR- 15 please, and my Anglican parish is in need of a new sanctuary. That is not the role of government.
To argue your point, you seem to want to choose extremes. No, I don’t think guns should be carried on planes. That’s not a restriction on the second amendment. I don’t think one has a right to carry a gun onto private property against the will of the property owner.

Enumerated means the framers thought these particular rights so important, so imperative, as to name them specifically , telling government, “hands off”.

The right to keep and bear arms applies to the 600 square foot flat the same as it does a 200 acre ranch.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I don’t think guns should be carried on planes. That’s not a restriction on the second amendment. I don’t think one has a right to carry a gun onto private property against the will of the property owner.

Please address the current situation: The airlines have not expressed any will in the matter. The rule is a government rule. Are you in favor of it?

 

[Rau]

… No, I don’t think guns should be carried on planes. That’s not a restriction on the second amendment. I don’t think one has a right to carry a gun onto private property against the will of the property owner.

Enumerated means the framers thought these particular rights so important, so imperative, as to name them specifically , telling government, “hands off”.
.

In so far as guns on planes are concerned, the property (plane) owners have little say. The government and or legislators determine the common good. And in doing so, they restrict the fight to bear arms. Few if any rights are unfettered.

The framers found the right to bear arms very important at the time they wrote the constitution. All such matters are eligible for review to ensure they continue to meet the will and needs of the people. They are not “so” special as to be beyond review by the people whose interests the Constitution serves.

 

[exnihilo]

I am pretty sure they are not with the guy next to me on the plane. Unless he is a sky marshal. In which case I am pretty sure he is thoroughly vetted.

Air marshalls are rigorously vetted. If all gun owners were willing to go through such a process (and pay for it themselves) I would have no problem with allowing them on the plane with their guns.

Nope. Passengers forget about guns in bags with some frequency. Security does catch many of them, but they miss some too. There are plenty of reports of passengers realizing they had a gun in a carry on bag and were allowed to fly. I have to hope most people are smart enough not to admit this and tell the press as they open themselves up to criminal charges. So it might happen much more often then you think. But it does happen so maybe the guy next to you isn’t an air marshall and does have a gun.

Vetted just means the person hasn’t yet committed a crime which is the same as most people who fly. The men employed as air marshalls aren’t from some super class of mankind.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vetted just means the person hasn’t yet committed a crime which is the same as most people who fly. The men employed as air marshalls aren’t from some super class of mankind.

There is enough of a difference that it is reasonable to trust an air marshall more than a random person.

 

[JonNC]

Please address the current situation: The airlines have not expressed any will in the matter. The rule is a government rule. Are you in favor of it?

That’s because what rule the airlines would set would either be irrelevant or redundant. Of course I am, because it does not restrict or infringe the right, any more than the requirement not to yell fire in a dark theater infringes free speech. That’s not the issue at hand, however. The thread is about background checks, which I support with the caveats I mentioned earlier.

Are you comparing the restrictions on airlines to the authoritarian policies that were imposed by Chicago and DC before they were declared unconstitutional?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s because what rule the airlines would set would either be irrelevant or redundant. Of course I am, because it does not restrict or infringe the right, any more than the requirement not to yell fire in a dark theater infringes free speech. That’s not the issue at hand, however. The thread is about background checks, which I support with the caveats I mentioned earlier.

OK. That’s better. Opposing expansion of background checks on practical grounds is one thing. But opposing them on grounds of absolute morality and unalienable rights is quite another. Perhaps we have found common ground on this issue.

 

[JonNC]

In so far as guns on planes are concerned, the property (plane) owners have little say. The government and or legislators determine the common good. And in doing so, they restrict the fight to bear arms. Few if any rights are unfettered.

The framers found the right to bear arms very important at the time they wrote the constitution. All such matters are eligible for review to ensure they continue to meet the will and needs of the people. They are not “so” special as to be beyond review by the people whose interests the Constitution serves.

So, are you then willing to apply the same standard to speech, due process, religious free exercise, self incrimination protection, etc? Because a right is a right. If the government has the power to take rights away, they were not rights in the first place, but instead privileges granted be an authoritarian power. And that can’t be the case because government power comes only from the pre-existing rights of the people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, are you then willing to apply the same standard to speech, due process, religious free exercise, self incrimination protection, etc? Because a right is a right. If the government has the power to take rights away, they were not rights in the first place, but instead privileges granted be an authoritarian power. And that can’t be the case because government power comes only from the pre-existing rights of the people.

The difference is you can come up with a Natural Law justification for the rights you mentioned (except for self-incrimination maybe). On that basis you can say they were pre-existing. But there is no Natural Law justification for ownership of guns - although some here have tried to make the case for it.

 

[exnihilo]

There is enough of a difference that it is reasonable to trust an air marshall more than a random person.

Why should you trust a government agent more then any other person? How is that a reasonable position? Since we are talking about the basic principles of US government a big one is not trusting government and not believing it’s agents to somehow be a better class of people. Anyway, Google ‘air marshal crimes’ and you’ll find they commit lots of crimes. I sure don’t trust them more then a random stranger.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why should you trust a government agent more then any other person? How is that a reasonable position? Since we are talking about the basic principles of US government a big one is not trusting government and not believing it’s agents to somehow be a better class of people. Anyway, Google ‘air marshal crimes’ and you’ll find they commit lots of crimes. I sure don’t trust them more then a random stranger.

That is your prerogative. But I still think it is an unreasonable position to take.

 

[JonNC]

The difference is you can come up with a Natural Law justification for the rights you mentioned (except for self-incrimination maybe). On that basis you can say they were pre-existing. But there is no Natural Law justification for ownership of guns - although some here have tried to make the case for it.

Of course there is. The right of self defense to start with, but also the very fact that the right to keep and bear arms is critical for the protection of all other rights. The second amendment makes that very point: “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.” The security of our freedom depends on the people being armed, which is what the founders meant by militia.

Jon

 

[Rau]

So, are you then willing to apply the same standard to speech, due process, religious free exercise, self incrimination protection, etc? Because a right is a right. If the government has the power to take rights away, they were not rights in the first place, but instead privileges granted be an authoritarian power. And that can’t be the case because government power comes only from the pre-existing rights of the people.

I support what I wrote in respect of all rights under the constitution. There is a court which can determine whether government action is consistent with the constitution as a whole. And the people have the supreme right and duty to maintain a Constitution that meets their needs.

 

[Rau]

…“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.” The security of our freedom depends on the people being armed, which is what the founders meant by militia.

The people may of course conclude that said motivation is no longer a relevant motivation. Or that the greater likelihood - in the contemporary world - is that the people will put their arms to uses rather different than contemplated. This latter observation might persuade the people to seek change to the constitution to serve a more contemporary and currently foreseeable need, or to radically review or downgrade the right, in the interests of a contemporary view of the common good.

It is good for the people to be reminded that the constitution is not God given. It is theirs, and they can change it to serve them better.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course there is. The right of self defense to start with, but also the very fact that the right to keep and bear arms is critical for the protection of all other rights. The second amendment makes that very point: “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.” The security of our freedom depends on the people being armed, which is what the founders meant by militia.

Jon

The opinion of the second amendment or of those who wrote it has absolutely no moral authority when it comes to questions of Natural Law. As for you first claim, the right to self defense in Natural Law is only the right for you to take certain actions. It is not a right for you to possess a gun. You can argue that in some circumstances, defense without a gun is ineffective. That may be. But that does not imply a right to an effective defense for any or all particular situations.

 

[LethalMouse]

The people may of course conclude that said motivation is no longer a relevant motivation. Or that the greater likelihood - in the contemporary world - is that the people will put their arms to uses rather different than contemplated. This latter observation might persuade the people to seek change to the constitution to serve a more contemporary and currently foreseeable need, or to radically review or downgrade the right, in the interests of a contemporary view of the common good.

It is good for the people to be reminded that the constitution is not God given. It is theirs, and they can change it to serve them better.

And based on perception, from our convo on the other thread this was one of the stances that I knew you would hold. Even though your stance on the other has no direct correlation to this one. Thanks for being a stereotypical statistic

On the subject at hand the belief that the new is vastly different is based purely on segragation. There was a continental army with militia supplement. While this militia had great use at the time beyond anything since, the since does not negate the use.

In WW2 little considered the Japanese had a land invasion of Alaska and were fought off by the citizen militia.

Now looking forward we hear “but but they have tanks…” lol yeah… sk do we, the standing army doesn’t beam up up and away to a space ship, the militia is a supplement. Even today there is still plenty of ground war in a war. If let’s say a US force of 500 were squared off against another force of say 800 both with tanks etc. But then the US force has 500 militia show up to assist… the situation changes.

Admittedly for the near future in probably decades or more an invasion against the US is a hilariously foolish endeavor without the militia, but to bank on such pernantly would be an even more fool hearty lack of historical studies. No nation ever stays on top indefinitely, there was a time marching on Rome would have been as insane as marching on DC, but one day it was not. Our standing militia gives us the one thing that keeps us untouchable when we are down. Let alone a myriad of other factors not even related to such…

Class warfare: when guns are over regulated the normal can’t do it. This is not the metric of a free people but one of aristocracy. The only defense against the claim is to point to other corruption under the failed guise that those are supported as well. The fact that when something like a family heirloom becomes more complicated a gift than a house closing and requires hiring a team of lawyers.

When you make a paperwork “oops” and instead of your car registration lapse causing a no biggie from a cop or a $50 fine, you are in prison as if a murdering nuclear arms dealer etc… we all make paperwork oops, the existence of laws that turn a honest oops into a felon in prison is not morality but the Devil’s technicalities.