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

[JonNC]

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.

So, you’re not talking about the people taking action, as in a constitutional amendment, but instead undermining the constitution by redefining what it says. That, in my view, is nothing less than subversive.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

They can indeed do that via a constitutional amendment. That doesn’t mean changing this right would serve a contemporary view, except that of progressive authoritarianism. We saw the result of that in the last century. The contemporary world is even more endangered by dictatorial governments, many of them in the last century progressive socialist.

They also need to know the risks of giving up the tools they must have to protect their liberty

Jon

 

[Rau]

And based on perception, from our convo on the other thread this was one of the stances that I knew you would hold…

I hope the same common sense and rational reasoning capacity applied there would be anticipated here - and with predictable results.

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…

The contention others make on this thread is that the people need to be armed to defend themselves from their government, not from external forces.

 

[GEddie]

So, you’re not talking about the people taking action, as in a constitutional amendment, but instead undermining the constitution by redefining what it says. That, in my view, is nothing less than subversive.

Jon

And if you think precisely that hasn’t gone on for ten generations, you are kidding yourself.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JonNC]

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.

If the rights necessary to protect ones human and civil rights are eliminated, then those rights are easily eliminated as well. We saw this in the last century as progressive socialist regimes in Europe and Asia eliminated the people’s right to arms in order to eliminate other rights. Hence, it is clearly a right to possess the means necessary to protect other rights.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And if you think precisely that hasn’t gone on for ten generations, you are kidding yourself.

ICXC NIKA

That is exactly what has gone on, particularly in the last hundred years, starting with the disastrous 17th amendment.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I hope the same common sense and rational reasoning capacity applied there would be anticipated here - and with predictable results.

The contention others make on this thread is that the people need to be armed to defend themselves from their government, not from external forces.

Who said this? Just because the former is absolutely true, doesn’t make the latter false. In fact, protecting the security of a free state could be from either.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the rights necessary to protect ones human and civil rights are eliminated, then those rights are easily eliminated as well. We saw this in the last century as progressive socialist regimes in Europe and Asia eliminated the people’s right to arms in order to eliminate other rights. Hence, it is clearly a right to possess the means necessary to protect other rights.

Jon

The ability to protect a right is not in itself an automatic right. It may be that history has instances of human rights being denied, partly by removing some of the means used to protect those human rights. That does not make those means equal to the human rights themselves.

 

[JonNC]

The ability to protect a right is not in itself an automatic right. It may be that history has instances of human rights being denied, partly by removing some of the means used to protect those human rights. That does not make those means equal to the human rights themselves.

Well, that is ludicrous. If one lacks the ability to to protect rights, the rights themselves become mere privileges that exist at the whim of the powerful. This is why the founders provided protection for this absolute right.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, that is ludicrous. If one lacks the ability to to protect rights, the rights themselves become mere privileges that exist at the whim of the powerful.

If one lacks the right to protect his life, that right may indeed be infringed by an unjust power. It is still a right, although an infringed right. It does not become something less than a right.

This is why the founders provided protection for this absolute right.

Jon

Which right are you referring to now? The right to life or the right to bear arms?

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’m sure both you and your brother are fine, responsible gun owners, and would not endanger the public by having guns. But if gun regulations are eliminated, many others whose brother is not so nice will have no reason not to give that irresponsible brother a gun. It is all of those transfers that create a risk.

Unless you have all privately owned firearms stored by the government in some sort of public gun depository, have them publicly registered, and then have gun owners sign them out, there is no way a mandatory background check law will prevent the transfer of privately owned firearms to criminals.

I don’t know. But you were the one who claimed to know the intent of the law and made a statement about it. If you didn’t think it was necessary to know the intent, then don’t claim what that intent is.

I noticed you cut out the rest of my statement. The Left claims that voter identification laws are designed to interfere with voter rights since it imposes an additional requirement and a (nonexistent in reality) inconvenience. A mandatory background check imposes actual inconvenience and interferes with a right. If the Left was consistent, they would be against both.

 

[JonNC]

If one lacks the right to protect his life, that right may indeed be infringed by an unjust power. It is still a right, although an infringed right. It does not become something less than a right.

Which right are you referring to now? The right to life or the right to bear arms?

Okay. Let be certain of your position . Are you suggesting that Americans should give up their basic right to arms ? if so, you seem to be saying you know that the confiscation of this right will quite possibly lead to the confiscation of other rights that you recognize as such, but that is worth the price under your cost/benefit analysis.
Where am I wrong if indeed I am?

Jon

 

[Rau]

The ability to protect a right is not in itself an automatic right. It may be that history has instances of human rights being denied, partly by removing some of the means used to protect those human rights. That does not make those means equal to the human rights themselves.

Correct. Effective means to protect oneself - indeed the only means one may perceive - may involve violating another’s rights, or committing an immoral act.

 

[Rau]

Well, that is ludicrous. If one lacks the ability to to protect rights, the rights themselves become mere privileges that exist at the whim of the powerful. This is why the founders provided protection for this absolute right.

“Absolute right”? What is that? The right not to be murdered - a right that comes from God - I can understand. But the right to be armed to the teeth - a right written down in the Constitution of the USA - why would that be absolute? If it’s absolute, it did not need to be written down. It’s not absolute, because the people devised it, and the people can eliminate it.

 

[Rau]

So, you’re not talking about the people taking action, as in a constitutional amendment, but instead undermining the constitution by redefining what it says. That, in my view, is nothing less than subversive.

IMHO, that is nonsense. The constitution is not from God. It was written by (your) fallible forebears doing the best they could to capture the thinking of the times, and the needs of the people as they saw it. The Constitution is not sacrosanct - it can be amended by the people in any way the people see fit. Delete, Edit, Add.

 

[JonNC]

Correct. Effective means to protect oneself - indeed the only means one may perceive - may involve violating another’s rights, or committing an immoral act.

Nonsense. If I am only protecting myself, it doesn’t violate others rights.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Nonsense. If I am only protecting myself, it doesn’t violate others rights.

You are not free to protect yourself by any and all means. Not under law. And not under God.

 

[mikekle]

You are not free to protect yourself by any and all means. Not under law. And not under God.

Actually you are right, I remember a local case some years ago around here that was similar, this man shot and killed another man at a bar parking lot late one night, he claimed it was self defense and he feared for his life, but after the investigation, the man he killed was not armed and it turned out all he was going to do was beat him up.

This was a hot topic back then, some thought he had the right to kill if he truly feared for his life, but some said you can only use deadly force in self defense when you KNOW your life is in danger, NOT if you are just scared of getting a beating, just getting beat up is not a life and death struggle, it may hurt but its not life threatening, so important to keep that in mind.

 

[Rau]

Actually you are right, I remember a local case some years ago around here that was similar, this man shot and killed another man at a bar parking lot late one night, he claimed it was self defense and he feared for his life, but after the investigation, the man he killed was not armed and it turned out all he was going to do was beat him up.

This was a hot topic back then, some thought he had the right to kill if he truly feared for his life, but some said you can only use deadly force in self defense when you KNOW your life is in danger, NOT if you are just scared of getting a beating, just getting beat up is not a life and death struggle, it may hurt but its not life threatening, so important to keep that in mind.

That may be true, but the victim here may not be able to accurately judge what is about to happen to him. Had I a gun, and were I facing this situation, I may use it - but I doubt I would have need to intend death of the aggressor. I have heard that the law takes the view that shooting a gun is “deadly force” and the intention is essentially implied. If you have reasonable grounds to fear for your life, your use of a gun would likely be accepted as justified.

I also had in mind that one may be blackmailed into a serious act against another person. One may truly believe that acceding to the blackmail is the best or only means of self-defence. Acting against an innocent - perhaps murdering an innocent - may be the means to self-defence. But our right to self-defence (under God, or under the Law) simply does not extend that far.

[Separately, FYI, and off-topic - I’ve encountered arguments that killing innocents is perfectly fine if it is believed to the means to save a greater number of “other” innocents.]

 

[johnnyc176]

NOT if you are just scared of getting a beating, just getting beat up is not a life and death struggle, it may hurt but its not life threatening, so important to keep that in mind.

Lol…as long as it’s someone else getting beat up huh… Pretty easy to point to someone else and say well he was only going to get beat up. People have died getting ‘beat up’.