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

[LeafByNiggle]

Okay. Let be certain of your position . Are you suggesting that Americans should give up their basic right to arms?

I said nothing about what “should” happen.

if so, you seem to be saying you know that the confiscation of this right will quite possibly lead to…

No, I didn’t say “quite possibly”. In fact I think it extremely unlikely in the US. I just said it is hypothetically possible.

 

[JonNC]

I said nothing about what “should” happen.

No, I didn’t say “quite possibly”. In fact I think it extremely unlikely in the US. I just said it is hypothetically possible.

Extremely unlikely? We see it going on today. The AG attacking free speech rights. Public universities limiting free speech rights. Religious liberty under a frontal assault by the HHS mandate. Asset forteiture without due process on the rise. Not only is it likely, it is clearly underway.

Regardless, my greatest concern is that when (not if) progressives get to the point of “Australian” type gun confiscation, it will turn millions of law-abiding Americans into law breakers (myself included), because they will not comply.

BTW, I always enjoy our spirited debates.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

Yes. they are my forebears, and they were fallible. And they created the greatest system of governance ever devised, even with it’s flaws. The limited government, constitutional representative republic has developed the atmosphere where entrepreneurial capitalism has been the engine of the greatest economy and highest standard of living in the history of the world. Only in the last 30 years as we have drifted toward a progressive socialist strong central government model have we seen the beginning of decline.

Delete, edit, add is precisely the model those flawed founders developed to allow change. They also warned us about changes that increase the power of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Jon

PS: Rau, I take it you are not from the US. What country are you from?

 

[exnihilo]

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.

That is a very important point. It should also be noted that voting is not a constitutionally protected right whereas owning firearms is. Following the legal reasoning applied to voting there should be absolutely no restrictions or checks on firearms purchasers.

 

[GEddie]

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.

People **do **die from getting beaten by human hands. So it’s not as easy an issue as that.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

That is a very important point. It should also be noted that voting is not a constitutionally protected right whereas owning firearms is. Following the legal reasoning applied to voting there should be absolutely no restrictions or checks on firearms purchasers.

There **are **restrictions on voting:

– one has to be a citizen,

– of adult age,

– not a criminal (most places anyhow);

– living in the area where one intends to vote.

I’d say that establishes that rights can have requirements attached to them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[exnihilo]

There **are **restrictions on voting:

– one has to be a citizen,

– of adult age,

– not a criminal (most places anyhow);

– living in the area where one intends to vote.

I’d say that establishes that rights can have requirements attached to them.

ICXC NIKA

Voting isn’t a right. Restrictions on voting in no way shows you can have restrictions on rights. The point was that when politicians or courts says that requiring identification is an unfair burden for voting, which is not a right, then obviously requiring identification to purchase or own a weapon is an unfair burden.

 

[Rau]

…Regardless, my greatest concern is that when (not if) progressives get to the point of “Australian” type gun confiscation, it will turn millions of law-abiding Americans into law breakers (myself included), because they will not comply.

I thought they confiscated too, but from some quick research, they did 2 things:

• a voluntary buy-back for legal weapons;
• an amnesty for those in possession of weapons held illegally.

 

[JonNC]

There **are **restrictions on voting:

– one has to be a citizen,

– of adult age,

– not a criminal (most places anyhow);

– living in the area where one intends to vote.

I’d say that establishes that rights can have requirements attached to them.

ICXC NIKA

Yes.
–The constitution often applies to citizens.
– Minors may not be mature enough to handle some rights
–I think that if someone misuses a right, or abuses others’ rights, he deserves to lose his.
– Yes, one should vote in one’s precinct, be registered to vote, show a picture ID, and not be dead when voting.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I thought they confiscated too, but from some quick research, they did 2 things:

• a voluntary buy-back for legal weapons;
• an amnesty for those in possession of weapons held illegally.

These leading up to confiscation. Why would amnesty be needed if possession of guns were legal? But you are right, it was so nice of them to have an amnesty before they confiscated.

Incidentally, the buy-back was not “voluntary”, if by voluntary you mean they could keep their weapons without consequence.

Jon

thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

 

[JonNC]

People **do **die from getting beaten by human hands. So it’s not as easy an issue as that.

ICXC NIKA

And women are far too often raped, many of those rapes take place on college campuses, which are often “gun-free zones”, much to the advantage of a large male rapist and the disadvantage of his smaller female victim.

As my 25 year old petite niece says, she is willing to give up her gun rights when men give up testosterone.

Jon

 

[GEddie]

Extremely unlikely? We see it going on today. The AG attacking free speech rights. Public universities limiting free speech rights. Religious liberty under a frontal assault by the HHS mandate. Asset forteiture without due process on the rise. Not only is it likely, it is clearly underway.

Regardless, my greatest concern is that when (not if) progressives get to the point of “Australian” type gun confiscation, it will turn millions of law-abiding Americans into law breakers (myself included), because they will not comply.

BTW, I always enjoy our spirited debates.

Jon

So do I.

But ITASM, if the point is ever reached where you and others would ignore the law in order to remain armed (it won’t be – even progressives won’t mess with that hot wire), that would put you on the same plane with those who ignore the law in order to smoke pot or shoot heroin, and likewise deserving of any grief you got. “I believe in our government, until it requires me to give something up” is no rubric for civil society. IMNAAHO and only MNAAHO.

None of your examples of governmental overreach merit anything resembling a violent response. And by the time a violent response would be merited (citizens actually being killed by forces of the state), it would be far too late.

The armed-society mantra of “guns mean no tyranny” is a classical exercise in self kidding, IMNAAHO, and has succeeded only in turning this country into a killing field.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JonNC]

So do I.

But ITASM, if the point is ever reached where you and others would ignore the law in order to remain armed (it won’t be – even progressives won’t mess with that hot wire), that would put you on the same plane with those who ignore the law in order to smoke pot or shoot heroin, and likewise deserving of any grief you got. “I believe in our government, until it requires me to give something up” is no rubric for civil society. IMNAAHO and only MNAAHO.

None of your examples of governmental overreach merit anything resembling a violent response. And by the time a violent response would be merited (citizens actually being killed by forces of the state), it would be far too late.

The armed-society mantra of “guns mean no tyranny” is a classical exercise in self kidding, IMNAAHO, and has succeeded only in turning this country into a killing field.

ICXC NIKA

Please find pot smoking in the constitution. Now here is where I agree with the legal pot crowd. The central government should allow states to deal with something like that.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means something. Where I agree with Rau is that the constitution is open to amendment. Progressives such as Hillary want to confiscate using statute, or by reinventing the meaning of the constitution using the courts. Neither of these approaches changes the right.

Jon

 

[Rau]

These leading up to confiscation. Why would amnesty be needed if possession of guns were legal? But you are right, it was so nice of them to have an amnesty before they confiscated.

Incidentally, the buy-back was not “voluntary”, if by voluntary you mean they could keep their weapons without consequence.

Jon

thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

Many guns can be held legally in Australia. Confiscation of items held illegally. Australia does not honor gun ownership the way the US does, and thus thd law can be changed to restrict types of weapons that can be held. Confiscating something illegally held no doubt upset gun lovers, but not the population at large.

Restricting guns seems inherently offensive to many in the US - I get this. In Australia, that response seems to have been largely absent, but for a much smaller pro-gun group. I conclude the Australuan people simply took a different view of the common good. That’s their right as a free people.

 

[Rau]

And women are far too often raped, many of those rapes take place on college campuses, which are often “gun-free zones”, much to the advantage of a large male rapist and the disadvantage of his smaller female victim.

As my 25 year old petite niece says, she is willing to give up her gun rights when men give up testosterone.

The rape culture we hear about on US college campuses is about more than testosterone. A small can of mace might be a better safeguard though.

 

[JonNC]

Many guns can be held legally in Australia. Confiscation of items held illegally. Australia does not honor gun ownership the way the US does, and thus thd law can be changed to restrict types of weapons that can be held. Confiscating something illegally held no doubt upset gun lovers, but not the population at large.

Restricting guns seems inherently offensive to many in the US - I get this. In Australia, that response seems to have been largely absent, but for a much smaller pro-gun group. I conclude the Australuan people simply took a different view of the common good. That’s their right as a free people.

Oh, Australian can do as it pleases. They decided that government power was more important than individual rights.
I don’t recall seeing where you live?

Jon

 

[Rau]

Please find pot smoking in the constitution. Now here is where I agree with the legal pot crowd. The central government should allow states to deal with something like that.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means something. Where I agree with Rau is that the constitution is open to amendment. Progressives such as Hillary want to confiscate using statute, or by reinventing the meaning of the constitution using the courts. Neither of these approaches changes the right.

Jon

There you go again, elevating things written in your constitution to something far above the mere decision of men.

I am at least glad you acknowledge here that the people may review and change the constitution. I am surprised that there is constant discussion of law changes in the US, but not, as far as I am aware, a movement to have a discussion about the gun provisions in the Constitution, what it means given historical context, and whether it truly serves the people well now. Perhaps too many Americans are inclined to view the Constitution as sacrosanct and fail to reason it’s true nature.

 

[Rau]

Oh, Australian can do as it pleases. They decided that government power was more important than individual rights.
I don’t recall seeing where you live?

Jon

What individual “right”? The Australians didn’t have any constitutionally provided right about guns, AFAIK. Thus, the legislature (voted into and out of power regularly by the people) can make rules about what goods can be imported, transacted commercially etc. That establishes the Law. In all countries, the Law routinely restricts individual freedoms.

I no more advocate legislating contrary to the constitution than you would. And what would be the point - the court would strike down such a law. The constitution itself is properly the thing to be debated.

I’ve not addressed where I live. Why would it matter?

 

[JonNC]

The rape culture we hear about on US college campuses is about more than testosterone. A small can of mace might be a better safeguard though.

Oh a choice of a 9mm.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What individual “right”? The Australians didn’t have any constitutionally provided right about guns, AFAIK. Thus, the legislature (voted into and out of power regularly by the people) can make rules about what goods can be imported, transacted commercially etc. That establishes the Law. In all countries, the Law routinely restricts individual freedoms.

I no more advocate legislating contrary to the constitution than you would. And what would be the point - the court would strike down such a law. The constitution itself is properly the thing to be debated.

I’ve not addressed where I live. Why would it matter?

You want to address American gun policy. I’d be interested in yours

Jon