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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A true democracy is one of the classic Athenian type, where average citizens govern by direct vote.

We do not have that, because there is no protection of minority rights (and because it was partly a mirage anyway --only a small contingent of males participated in governance).

We are a democratically representational republic.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
A true democracy is one of the classic Athenian type, where average citizens govern by direct vote.

We do not have that, because there is no protection of minority rights (and because it was partly a mirage anyway --only a small contingent of males participated in governance).

We are a democratically representational republic.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I don’t believe this assessment of the nature of US democracy bears on the capacity of the people, acting under the rules set by the people, to amend their constitution.
 
Rau said:
I don’t believe this assessment of the nature of US democracy bears on the capacity of the people, acting under the rules set by the people, to amend their constitution.
Click to expand...
Very difficultly done, considering that since the adoption of the USC (with the first ten amendments) in 1791, amendment has succeeded roughly once per generation.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Very difficultly done, considering that since the adoption of the USC (with the first ten amendments) in 1791, amendment has succeeded roughly once per generation.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that. But the people have the power to act, and to do so is not subversive as has been suggested. It is the people exercising their power.
 
Rau said:
I don’t doubt that. But the people have the power to act, and to do so is not subversive as has been suggested. It is the people exercising their power.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t. Not directly. There are two ways to amend the constitution. Neither is by referendum or plebiscite.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Remember again, the constitution does not provide or establish rights. It only protects them. The rights themselves exist antecedent to government. The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights the founders considered critical. Attempts to do away with these rights I consider subversive to individual liberty.

Jon
 
Rau said:
I don’t believe this assessment of the nature of US democracy bears on the capacity of the people, acting under the rules set by the people, to amend their constitution.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Is not a democracy. Article IV section 4 guarantees the states a republican for of government.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
No, they don’t. Not directly. There are two ways to amend the constitution. Neither is by referendum or plebiscite.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Remember again, the constitution does not provide or establish rights. It only protects them. The rights themselves exist antecedent to government. The Bill of Rights enumerates the rights the founders considered critical. Attempts to do away with these rights I consider subversive to individual liberty.

Jon
Click to expand...
Whatever the process, and regardless of practical difficulty, the people may call for it, and it may be exercised. Most laws also have the effect of limiting individual freedoms, so you may views all such laws as “subversive to individual freedoms” but that is not a constructive view to take for anyone proposing to live within a society. Were such an attitude always held preeminent, there could be no society, just individuals.

The people gave themselves (or declared themselves to have) a right to hold guns, and the people (via due process) may review it, limit it and change it. To say otherwise is to declare the people not free at all.

I am yet to understand whether the restrictions on ownership by citizens of fully automatic weapons is an infringement of the 2nd amendment, or if not, why not. Does anyone know the answer?
 
JonNC said:
The U.S. Is not a democracy. Article IV section 4 guarantees the states a republican for of government.

Jon
Click to expand...
The US is not the only federation. The form of democracy is prescribed in light of its structure as a federation of states, but I have not heard such structures describes as “undemocratic”, or not a democracy. Such a statement would rely on a narrow definition for “democracy”.
 
Rau said:
The US is not the only federation. The form of democracy is prescribed in light of its structure as a federation of states, but I have not heard such structures describes as “undemocratic”, or not a democracy. Such a statement would rely on a narrow definition for “democracy”.
Click to expand...
Find the term democracy or a derivative of it in the Constitution. It isn’t there because the founders opposed democracy. For the first 150 years, even US senators were not elected by popular vote.

** Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant. ** - James Madison
 
JonNC said:
Find the term democracy or a derivative of it in the Constitution. It isn’t there because the founders opposed democracy. For the first 150 years, even US senators were not elected by popular vote.

** Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant. ** - James Madison
Click to expand...
You hold to a narrow interpretation of the word democracy. One wonders why you are satisfied with the people having any right to vote at all!
 
“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” Ronald Reagan

I’m guessing President Reagan did not exclude the US from this acclamation.

“Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.” F.D.R.

Which people was FDR addressing?
 
Rau said:
“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.” Ronald Reagan

I’m guessing President Reagan did not exclude the US from this acclamation.
Click to expand...
The modern culture has blended the two terms, but the meanings are different in significant ways.
You are conflating the use of certain democratic principles with democratic governance. Of course there are votes, but note the protections such as the Electoral College, and the original selection of US senators by the state legislatures.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
The modern culture has blended the two terms, but the meanings are different in significant ways.
You are conflating the use of certain democratic principles with democratic governance. Of course there are votes, but note the protections such as the Electoral College, and the original selection of US senators by the state legislatures.

Jon
Click to expand...
I suspect I could find a quote from a great many presidents applauding US Democracy.

We live in modern times Jon and need to adapt in many ways to suit, and, to be understood, we need to use language with its present meaning. At least we don’t need to disagree that the US operates on “democratic principles”.

At the end of the day, I think you are trying to argue that what is in reality within the power of the people to change is not within their power, or should not be. But I think that is somewhat self-serving, driven by a desire that there be no change. Long-standing though the tradition of gun ownership may be, and difficult though the process of change may be, it is wrong and misleading to seek to elevate it to a place beyond the proper reach of the people.
 
I have the right to defend myself. Guns are one of the most effective means. Mere possession of a firearm harms nobody. So what precisely needs to be decided by the votes of other people?
 
starshiptrooper said:
I have the right to defend myself. Guns are one of the most effective means. Mere possession of a firearm harms nobody. So what precisely needs to be decided by the votes of other people?
Click to expand...
As set out above:
"The people gave themselves (or declared themselves to have) a right to hold guns, and the people (via due process) may review it, limit it and change it. To say otherwise is to declare the people not free at all. "

Can you answer my question as to whether the restriction on the ownership of fully automatic weapons infringes the 2nd amendment? Was that restriction an improper use of legislative power?
 
Rau said:
As set out above:
"The people gave themselves (or declared themselves to have) a right to hold guns, and the people (via due process) may review it, limit it and change it. To say otherwise is to declare the people not free at all. "
Click to expand...
You are free to make your own choice about owning a gun. You are not allowed to make my choice for me, even if you and your buddies outvote me because that is contrary to freedom.
Can you answer my question as to whether the restriction on the ownership of fully automatic weapons infringes the 2nd amendment? Was that restriction an improper use of legislative power?
Click to expand...
Yes, mere possession of an automatic weapon harms nobody. If there is no victim, there is no crime and therefore no need to make a law.
 
starshiptrooper said:
You are free to make your own choice about owning a gun. You are not allowed to make my choice for me, even if you and your buddies outvote me because that is contrary to freedom.
Click to expand...
You are dodging the issue.
Yes, mere possession of an automatic weapon harms nobody. If there is no victim, there is no crime and therefore no need to make a law.
Click to expand...
And yet there is a law! You may not own fully automatic weapons. Why has this law not been struck down?
 
There already exists a system of background checks for the purchase of all firearms from a licensed dealer and for private purchases in many states. No more legislation is needed.
 
Rau said:
I suspect I could find a quote from a great many presidents applauding US Democracy.

We live in modern times Jon and need to adapt in many ways to suit, and, to be understood, we need to use language with its present meaning. At least we don’t need to disagree that the US operates on “democratic principles”.

At the end of the day, I think you are trying to argue that what is in reality within the power of the people to change is not within their power, or should not be. But I think that is somewhat self-serving, driven by a desire that there be no change. Long-standing though the tradition of gun ownership may be, and difficult though the process of change may be, it is wrong and misleading to seek to elevate it to a place beyond the proper reach of the people.
Click to expand...
The most important quote on the nature of American governance is :
Article IV section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

One thing that does not "adapt " is the very basic human and civil right to the means necessary to self defense and defense of liberty, which is of course firearms. This, and the other enumerated rights are not subject to the whims of current desires to oppress individual rights. The desire to protect basic human and civil rights for is more than self serving. It serves the rights of future generations, our posterity. The right to keep and bear arms is just one of the protected rights under attack today. Free speech, religious free exercise, due process, just to name a few, are all under attack, and the arguments for “changing” them are similar to yours. And the results of diminishing individual rights in exchange for greater government power is always tyranny.

** I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! ** - Barry Goldwater

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top