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

[Cathoholic]

Rau.

You said:

QUOTE:
Constitutions are important . . . but not irreformable.

I would suggest you going back and re-reading what I said.

I never said Constitutions were “irreformable”.

This is either a straw man or a misunderstanding on your part.

I affirm America CAN change the Constitution.

That’s precisely WHY earlier when you said. . .

QUOTE:
Constitutions are important documents by virtue of their unique place in the legal framework. Important, but not irreformable.

My reply was (here) . . .

QUOTE:
I’ll give you that point in principle (although I disagree with what you seek).

I am not saying the Constitution is “irreformable”.

But I am saying tossing the Second Amendment is ill advised.

And I am also saying Judicial activism over ANY of the Constitution is illicit.

I am also warning about executive and legislative actions that USURP the Constitution.

And I am concerned even about other illicit Executive branch actions like RE-DEFINING people praying the Rosary in front of an abortuary as “TERRORISTS”. (this serves as an example—there could be many such examples if I were to enumerate them—of an illicit or at least irresponsible action of the executive branch)

But again. I am not saying the Constitution is “irreformable”.

---

You also said:

QUOTE:
I note more gun control is advocated by the respondents to this web poll by a margin of greater than 2 to 1.

Catholic Answers Forums polls are absolutely irrelevant to the law abiding American citizen’s Constitutional rights.

---

You said:

QUOTE:
(In Australia) “there is no constitutional right to own weapons, . . .

Australia’s “rights” were not germane to my argument. (They don’t even have a Constitution in Australia - see here)

American politicians (such as Hillary and others) wanting Australian style gun confiscation IS relevant to what I said.

And I stand by what I said.

---

You also said (emphasis mine) . . . .

(In Australia concerning their guns that were taken away by their own Government)

There is in Australia “apparently no one arguing for it (gun rights)”.

I don’t think Australia has ever had gun “rights”. Just gun “privileges”.

But in America we are not “subjects” but citizens. (admittedly they may call themselves “citizens” in Australia)

And SOME in Australia DO at least lament the fact that the Government TOOK their firearms by legal fiat (under a “Buy Back Program” euphemism. And RE-DEFINING the same “Buy Back Program” doesn’t change it).

(And again in a “buy back” program in many cases there is no “buy” as you are FORCED by power of Government to “sell” and there is no “back” as the Government didn’t “own” the guns to begin with)

Aside from THAT also being irrelevant, you are wrong on that point (“no one arguing for it”) too (here). At least SOME Australians don’t like it one bit and if not arguing “for” their firearms at least they lament the fact that they were TAKEN AWAY.

And once you forfeit your rights, they will not easily be given back as the Brits have found out (here).

 

[Rau]

But I am saying tossing the Second Amendment is ill advised.

The validity of discussing and considering Constitutional amendment bears repeating given statements from others on the thread to the effect that the Constitution is “sacrosanct” and that to amend it would be “subversive”. Your language of “tossing” it or “trashing” it suggests to me (I could be wrong) an inappropriate reticence to view the Constitution as the utilitarian document it surely is. Or perhaps this is just your close attachment to the particular amendment in question coming through.

I am not saying the Constitution is “irreformable”.

The more of us who repeat this remark the better. It is the elephant in the room in this discussion.

Catholic Answers Forums polls are absolutely irrelevant to the law abiding American citizen’s Constitutional rights.

I note the Catholic Bishops in the US also call for gun regulation. It’s not for them to address the legal path to get there. As we’ve agreed, Constitution amendment is possible, and depending on legal opinion and what regulation is proposed, may be required.

They don’t even have a Constitution in Australia

I found their Constitution by Google. *constitutional amendment *to recognise in their Constitution * their aboriginal peoples.] What they don’t have is a “constitutional right to own firearms”.

In Australia concerning their guns that were taken away by their own Government

Legally owned weapons were not “taken away”. I am sure you would expect your government to deal with persons having illegal weapons - bazookas, grenade launchers, etc. Not sure what your view would be about illegal guns eg. fully automatic assault weapons. I know some argue that there is a constitutional right to own these too (though either the court disagrees, or no one has taken that issue to the court.)

I don’t think Australia has ever had gun “rights”. Just gun “privileges”.

If it’s not in their constitution, then what can/can’t be owned (an idea much wider than guns of course) is determined by the Law. Because gun’s don’t rate a mention in their Constitution, they’d be treated like any other good - dangerous goods at that. Like chemicals, explosives, etc. Laws are made (voted by the legislature - which in turn is voted by the people) - to best serve the interests of the people.

And again in a “buy back” program in many cases there is no

“buy” as you are FORCED by power of Government to “sell” From what I have read of the Australian program, the only “forcing” was for weapons held contrary to the Law. Seems fair for the government to offer payment for (legal) weapons people are under no compulsion to give up, and to forgive the criminal acts of those who have acquired or held illegal weapons (in return for surrendering the weapon) - don’t you think?*

 

[GEddie]

But in America we are not “subjects” but citizens. (admittedly they may call themselves “citizens” in Australia)

One can be both, there is no contradiction.

A “subject” is someone who holds allegiance to a monarch. As USAniks, we don’t, since 1776. Canadians and Aussies do.

But Canadians and Aussies are also citizens in their respective nations, because they hold voting and representational rights therein.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Cathoholic]

I mentioned no Constitution in Australia

Rau pointed out they do. Rau is correct.

Australia has a “Constitution” but has no “Bill of Rights” for their people.

I should have said Australia has no “Bill of Rights”. Thanks for the correction Rau.

With emphasis mine, here is where former Australian Prime Minister John Howard made that statement (that I cited here is where I cited it] but should have quoted) . . . .

QUOTE:
In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws . . .

. . . Our challenges were different from America’s. . . . Australia, . . . does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)​

Rau:

QUOTE:
I note the Catholic Bishops in the US also call for gun regulation.

Go ahead and note it. We already HAVE “Gun regulation”.

But now don’t try to imply this is some sort of magisterial proclamation to support disarming good law abiding citizens here.

This from Catholic Answers . . . .

QUOTE:

. . . . Conclusion

We thus arrive at the following takeaways:

1. Church teaching supports the right of individual self-defense, including the use of lethal force when necessary. It does not expressly address the means by which this may be carried out, but it is a reasonable inference that if a gun is the best way you have to defend yourself, you may use it.
2. The Church’s magisterium has not made any pronouncements regarding ordinary people possessing firearms for self-defense purposes, though the general ethos both at the Holy See and among the U.S. bishops seems to favor handgun restriction.
3. Therefore, this is an area in which, in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s words, there may be “a legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics.

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-does-the-church-say-about-gun-control

 

[Rau]

But now don’t try to imply this is some sort of magisterial proclamation to support disarming good law abiding citizens here.

I’ve not sought to imply this at all, though you may have inferred it.

Nevertheless, thd leadership of the Catholic Church both in the US and more widely have expressed their prudential judgement, and I think that is properly mentioned and deserves some respect on a CAF forum.

 

[Upgrade25]

My opinions don’t hold much water due to my age, but I’ll chip in anyways. I and my family shoot guns. AR15s, an ak, etc. We don’t intend to harm anyone. It is fun. We also won’t be hurt if a whack job comes after us.

I have considered the comparisons between gun rights/violent video games and abortion/SS"M" rights and don’t find them fitting. The most you can say is that defiling the body or killing a child is the same as… Killing pixels or putting holes through a target? That’s a pretty big difference.

I also think that the fact that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Clinton, believes that “Some religions will have to change,” as well as the fact that self defense is allowed in the Church(as well as hobby!), that it would be better to be armed. She does have a bit of a history against her foes, and the Church could be dealt serious blows under someone like that.

Before I’m accused of being a Trump supporter, I’m not. I think I’m glad I’m not old enough to vote.

I understand some may think my family influences my beliefs, and to an extent, that’s true, but I have developed the critical thinking skills to become a practicing Catholic from a cultural, not practicing Catholic upbringing, which has caused quite the conflicts.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy. So someone with suicidal tendencies will have to spend a little more time getting a weapon. That extra time may be just the time needed for the bout of depression (which does come and go) to pass.

Here are more facts about suicide:

It is the 10th leading cause of death in the US overall.
On average there are 113 suicides every day.
Firearms account for about 50% of all suicides.
For every suicide there are about 25 attempts at suicide.
11% of all teenage deaths are due to suicide.

My guns are safely locked up and I am in no danger of committing suicide, I am far too fond of myself. In short, giving up my guns will not affect the suicide rate one way or the other.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My guns are safely locked up and I am in no danger of committing suicide, I am far too fond of myself. In short, giving up my guns will not affect the suicide rate one way or the other.

It isn’t all about you. If a law is enacted, it will be for everyone. Not everyone will be a conscientious as you. That’s why I said the reason was statistical.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It isn’t all about you.

My happiness is my highest purpose.

If a law is enacted, it will be for everyone. Not everyone will be a conscientious as you. That’s why I said the reason was statistical.

So because other people are incapable of using guns responsibly, I should give up mine? By that logic, because some Muslims commit terrorism, we should throw them out of the country.

What happens when I refuse to comply because I do not misuse my guns? What level of violence are you willing to use to make me obey?

 

[Cathoholic]

Rau mentioned . . .

Nevertheless, thd leadership of the Catholic Church both in the US and more widely have expressed their prudential judgement, and I think that is properly mentioned and deserves some respect on a CAF forum.

I don’t see anybody DISRESPECTING the Bishops here.

No problem. “Prudential judgment” is fine with me.

St. Gabriel Possenti, pray for us (learn about him here).

 

[JonNC]

My happiness is my highest purpose.So because other people are incapable of using guns responsibly, I should give up mine? By that logic, because some Muslims commit terrorism, we should throw them out of the country.

What happens when I refuse to comply because I do not misuse my guns? What level of violence are you willing to use to make me obey?

This is the elephant in the room that the progressive authoritarians are ignoring. They assume that Americans will just politely and willingly turn in their firearms.
The Minutemen defended their right to keep and bear arms prior the existence of the second amendment. Americans will defend that right even if the second amendment is subverted, either in the courts or by repeal.

Molon labe

Jon

 

[Rau]

This is the elephant in the room that the progressive authoritarians are ignoring. They assume that Americans will just politely and willingly turn in their firearms.
The Minutemen defended their right to keep and bear arms prior the existence of the second amendment. Americans will defend that right even if the second amendment is subverted, either in the courts or by repeal.

Molon labe

Jon

Why would you label repeal as a subversion? How is it possible for the will of the people to to be subversive? The “Americans” you refer to would be in the minority.

Are you saying if the majority were to vote to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment, the minority would not accept that change?

 

[GEddie]

Why would you label repeal as a subversion? How is it possible for the will of the people to to be subversive? The “Americans” you refer to would be in the minority.

Are you saying if the majority were to vote to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment, the minority would not accept that change?

I’m not sure what to believe in all of this, but as described, that will never happen.

No-one likes to give up a “right”, however dubious, once it is secure. The right to arm oneself is not going away while the democratic process remains.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure what to believe in all of this, but as described, that will never happen.

No-one likes to give up a “right”, however dubious, once it is secure. The right to arm oneself is not going away while the democratic process remains.

ICXC NIKA

My interest is in the “what if”, since Jon raised it.

 

[JonNC]

Why would you label repeal as a subversion? How is it possible for the will of the people to to be subversive? The “Americans” you refer to would be in the minority.

Are you saying if the majority were to vote to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment, the minority would not accept that change?

Perhaps you could identify where you are from and give us that example.

But yes, just like I would consider thus for an attempt to strip the people of any constitutionally protected right. Note, the rights are protected by the constitution, not established by them. My right to due process exists irrespective of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights simply requires the government to honor and protect it. Confiscating that protection is subversion of the right.
One of the underlying principles of the American constitutional representative republic is to prevent the majority from denying the rights of the minority. We are not a democracy.

Jon

 

[Rau]

So, it would be intrinsically wrong to lessen any right in the Constitution, even if it be the will of the majority to accept a lesser right, say, believing it would make for a better society? That’s an interesting idea.

Do you take the view it is wrong to deny the people fully automatic weapons?

 

[JonNC]

So, it would be intrinsically wrong to lessen any right in the Constitution, even if it be the will of the majority to accept a lesser right, say, believing it would make for a better society? That’s an interesting idea.

Do you take the view it is wrong to deny the people fully automatic weapons?

This assumes, falsely I think, a couple of things: one being that to reduce constitutional rights and therefore increase government power is ever good thing, and two that the majority has that power. Even if a constitutional amendment is offered, it is the states that would decide that, not a referendum or plebiscite. It takes 3/4 of the states to successfully pass a constitutional amendment

Jon

 

[GEddie]

This debate is precisely why the founding Americans did not institute democracy. The country is not governed by majority rule, but by federal rule.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JonNC]

This debate is precisely why the founding Americans did not institute democracy. The country is not governed by majority rule, but by federal rule.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, under the constitutional limits in the enumerated powers

Jon

 

[Rau]

This assumes, falsely I think, a couple of things: one being that to reduce constitutional rights and therefore increase government power is ever good thing, and two that the majority has that power. Even if a constitutional amendment is offered, it is the states that would decide that, not a referendum or plebiscite. It takes 3/4 of the states to successfully pass a constitutional amendment

Jon

That does seem to avoid the issue somewhat but I can respond.

The requirement to have both a majority of people and majority of States (determined by the votes in each State) is not unusual for constitutional change in a federal structure. Whether the proposed change will actually be better for society or not is surely a matter for the people to decide? And if they decide thusly, who can deny their wish? Their capacity to modify the view on individual rights expressed in the constitution is identical to those who first expressed a view. Those rights are made by man, and they can be revised by man. They are not greater than that.

I have not seen the word “democratic” denied application to federal structures other than in this thread on a couple of occasions. The US is democratic - ultimate power vests in the people, according to rules the people established.

I reject the idea that “more government power” is always “bad”. Societies are formed by a process of giving up some individual freedom and empowering certain authorities. That was done because it was seen to be good for the whole. The balance of individual freedom vs group authority will always be debated, but there is no basis to claim perfection of the status quo, or that less government control is always better.

PS. Is it inconsistent with the 2nd amendment to prevent citizens owning fully automatic weapons, or does the amendment limit itself to type of guns?