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

[GEddie]

The constitution is fundamental to defining (among other things) the limits of government in most if not all of the anglosphere. This does not mean that all provisions of a Constitution are equally important and relevant to that aim or to other aspects of the common good.

The difference being that the USA has no principle of governance other than the USC, while in those nations linked to the English monarchy, the monarchy itself (even if only formally) is the center of governance.

Everybody governing in the USA does so wholly by the provisions of the USC. That is why it is sacrosanct, and amended so very rarely (about once a generation, apart from the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights; adopted at the inception of the USC).

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

If the Constitution had mentioned “weapons”, that may well be the focus of debate!

“Arms” as used in this context in the 1700s means weapons.

 

[Holly3278]

I believe that we should definitely have strict background checks before allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, it won’t prevent all acts of violence but it will hopefully reduce acts of gun violence.

 

[Rau]

Not as defined by the USSC; else guys would own tanks and Apache helicopters.

I just remembered, Roe v Wade was a decision of the USSC, ostensibly based on the USC. That should rattle one’s confidence in these institutions.

But it serves to remind us - neither the USC nor the USSC has the final word on legal matters in the US. The US Citizens do.

 

[Rau]

I believe that we should definitely have strict background checks before allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, it won’t prevent all acts of violence but it will hopefully reduce acts of gun violence.

It makes sense. Odd that one would argue against background checks by observing they are less than 100% effective and thus prefer a null process (0% effective).

 

[Rau]

The difference being that the USA has no principle of governance other than the USC, while in those nations linked to the English monarchy, the monarchy itself (even if only formally) is the center of governance.

Everybody governing in the USA does so wholly by the provisions of the USC. That is why it is sacrosanct, and amended so very rarely (about once a generation, apart from the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights; adopted at the inception of the USC).

ICXC NIKA

I don’t have sufficient understanding of British Law to make definitive comment. But my understanding is that the role of the monarchy is about as minimal as you can imagine. It is procedural and ceremonial. I cannot see any relevant at all to the matters here in debate.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It sounds like an infringement to me. Maybe Jon can explain why it’s not?

I refer you to the 1939 SCOTUS case United States v. Miller. The SCOTUS ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not part of ordinary military equipment and therefore not protected by the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Rau]

I refer you to the 1939 SCOTUS case United States v. Miller. The SCOTUS ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not part of ordinary military equipment and therefore not protected by the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment.

So this says there is no right to own a damaged/modified gun unless the military damage and modify guns in the same way?

But is the corollary that the citizens can own the same equipment as the military?

 

[starshiptrooper]

So this says there is no right to own a damaged/modified gun unless the military damage and modify guns in the same way?

But is the corollary that the citizens can own the same equipment as the military?

They can own the equipment necessary to act as a militia.

 

[Rau]

They can own the equipment necessary to act as a militia.

Necessary? What does that imply? It suggests to me the right to equip oneself akin to the military.

A militia as at the time the constitution was written, or at any time? If the latter, that’s a very broad brief.

I come back to jon’s conclusion that the right is broad, and limiting the weaponry the citizens can hold seems contrary to that right.

Thus, wouldn’t it be the case that if the citizens want to argue for a less armed society, they should review the constitution, not legislated gun controls?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Necessary? What does that imply? It suggests to me the right to equip oneself akin to the military.

A militia as at the time the constitution was written, or at any time? If the latter, that’s a very broad brief.

The 1st Amendment applies to the internet, likewise the 2nd Amendment protects my modern firearms.

Thus, wouldn’t it be the case that if the citizens want to argue for a less armed society, they should review the constitution, not legislated gun controls?

That is what they should be doing, but the anti-gunners typically have no respect for the Constitution.

 

[Rau]

…That is what they should be doing, but the anti-gunners typically have no respect for the Constitution.

. I don’t understand. I’m saying that if one disagrees with an armed society, then change the Constitution to limit the right to bear arms. This implies no disrespect for the constitution, just a view that lesser rights to guns may be more in keeping with the common good.

 

[starshiptrooper]

. I don’t understand. I’m saying that if one disagrees with an armed society, then change the Constitution to limit the right to bear arms. This implies no disrespect for the constitution, just a view that lesser rights to guns may be more in keeping with the common good.

If the “common good” (if such a thing really exists) requires the disarmament of honest citizens, perhaps we ought to reevaluate what is common and what is good.

 

[Rau]

If the “common good” (if such a thing really exists) requires the disarmament of honest citizens, perhaps we ought to reevaluate what is common and what is good.

Or we should think more holistically and learn from experience?

 

[GEddie]

If the “common good” (if such a thing really exists) requires the disarmament of honest citizens, perhaps we ought to reevaluate what is common and what is good.

What kind of a society necessitates people to be armed as a matter of course? Is it really a society at all, or just an aggregate held together by fear and compulsion?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Or we should think more holistically and learn from experience?

Experience told me that civilian disarmament typically precedes a mass slaughter and that criminals since they are lawbreakers do not obey gun laws.

What kind of a society necessitates people to be armed as a matter of course? Is it really a society at all, or just an aggregate held together by fear and compulsion?

A polite society as the saying goes.

This was an expectation in the United States until relatively recently. Lacking a standing army, the Americans maintained a militia system. Even today, men in a certain age range are considered part of the militia.

 

[Rau]

Experience told me that civilian disarmament typically precedes a mass slaughter and that criminals since they are lawbreakers do not obey gun laws.

Perhaps more recent and relevant experience should be considered? The wisdom of enabling citizens to hold all kinds of military weapons is worthy of review.

 

[GEddie]

Experience told me that civilian disarmament typically precedes a mass slaughter and that criminals since they are lawbreakers do not obey gun laws.A polite society as the saying goes.

This was an expectation in the United States until relatively recently. Lacking a standing army, the Americans maintained a militia system. Even today, men in a certain age range are considered part of the militia.

Yeah.

“Be polite to me or I will shoot you in the head.”

And we wonder why this country is in this rapidly descending hand basket.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JonNC]

If the “common good” (if such a thing really exists) requires the disarmament of honest citizens, perhaps we ought to reevaluate what is common and what is good.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Experience told me that civilian disarmament typically precedes a mass slaughter and that criminals since they are lawbreakers do not obey gun laws.A polite society as the saying goes.

This was an expectation in the United States until relatively recently. Lacking a standing army, the Americans maintained a militia system. Even today, men in a certain age range are considered part of the militia.

One need only look back less than 100 years to how disarmed citizens were brutalized by their own governments, virtually all of them socialist states. This recent history, and there is no reason to believe that human nature has changed one iota, or that absolute power no longer corrupts absolutely.

Jon