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

[LeafByNiggle]

It is not arbitrary in the United States. And we didn’t get that view on our own. The colonists knew that to be a right as British citizens, and fought against attempts to confiscate them. They didn’t need the constitution-to-come-later to know they had that right. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

You are still talking only about the US, and those who formed it. If the right to own a gun was universal, you would expect it to be recognized by more people But you easily ignore everyone outside of the US. So it is not surprising that you would think this right is inherent.

Why were the founders so intent in defending certain rights as to enumerate the as protected in the constitution? Why were they so overly impressed?

Because they thought it was a good idea. But why were the founders of so many other countries not intent on enumerating this right? You can’t argue for the inherent nature of the right by taking only about the US.

The language of the document isn’t an establish g of arbitrary rights.

Of course. That’s the way the document was written. Perhaps those who wrote it did think it should be an inherent right. But why should we pay more attention to what they think and ignore what so many other people think? Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;13983818]You are still talking only about the US, and those who formed it. If the right to own a gun was universal, you would expect it to be recognized by more people But you easily ignore everyone outside of the US. So it is not surprising that you would think this right is inherent.

Why? There has never been a time when the rest of the world has enjoyed the level of freedom we have. Are we to lower our level of liberty? I don’t ignore them. I consider many nations to be exactly what we should not be.

Because they thought it was a good idea. But why were the founders of so many other countries not intent on enumerating this right? You can’t argue for the inherent nature of the right by taking only about the US.

If you can name a country that limits government more, and protects individual rights better, I’d love to hear about it? Jefferson’s words, endowed by their creator, applies to all, despite our occasional flaws here. That other places to not honor them is not something to be emulated, but criticized. They didn’t enumerate many of the rights protected here. Is that an excuse for giving them up as well? Should we sink to the lowest common denominator?

Of course. That’s the way the document was written. Perhaps those who wrote it did think it should be an inherent right. But why should we pay more attention to what they think and ignore what so many other people think? Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary

So, each and every right we have that others do not are arbitrary, and subject to confiscation? That is far more arbitrary than the belief in the rights protected for Americans.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There has never been a time when the rest of the world has enjoyed the level of freedom we have. Are we to lower our level of liberty?

Why not? Is liberty the only good? There are many liberties I can think of that are bad. I think you would even agree that some of them are bad. Just calling something a liberty does not automatically make it a good thing.

Jefferson’s words, endowed by their creator, applies to all, despite our occasional flaws here.

The words you refer to are in the Declaration of Independance, which does not cite the right to bear arms as one of those rights endowed by their creator. And even if they did, Jefferson was just a man, who can be right or wrong.

 

[Rau]

Not at all, my rights by definition are mine by right. They are not privileges that I hold at the sufferance of others.

The right was given by the society in which you find yourself. It is not from God. You hold it for so long as the society does not form a view to change it. You do not hold a right to acquire tanks and canons - the society did not grant you that right.

Because the courts get it wrong. Dredd Scott, Roe v. Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson and so on.

It is interesting to imagine society with the free availability of fully automatic weapons, which you believe it is also your right to carry.

 

[Rau]

Why not? Is liberty the only good? There are many liberties I can think of that are bad. I think you would even agree that some of them are bad. Just calling something a liberty does not automatically make it a good thing.

That right. Why is it routinely forgotten that it is in the nature of communal living that some individual freedoms - whether or not they are inherently good - are better forgone or modified or limited in the interests of the community? Of course these things have to be examined case by case, but how can one assert that more individual freedom is always better? Better for whom?

 

[Rau]

To try to remove constitutionally protected rights is indeed subversive.

Jon

Nonsense. Those rights are not from God, they were made up by men believing they were a good idea. Should said individual rights be determined, by the people, to be contrary their common best interests, the people are free to seek to remove individual rights, by the proper process. The founders have no greater say than the people today.

 

[Rau]

If the change to the Constitution was actually accomplished in this way, I suspect that no one would have a problem with it.

Unfortunately many changes to the Constitution were made by judges, or the Supreme Court which “unearthed” things in the Constitution that had lain undiscovered for over 200 years, such as the right to abortion, or gay marriage.

Agreed. In a similar vein, one wonders how much firepower the framers envisioned would be associated with “bearing arms”. If there is a limit, how is it to be identified? Certainly one posters believes the 2nd amendment extends to the right to own fully automatic weapons (notwithstanding these are illegal).

 

[Rau]

If the change to the Constitution was actually accomplished in this way, I suspect that no one would have a problem with it.

yes. Trouble is, we have people peddling a line that it is not permissible, or improper, to seek such a change. As if to do so is to challenge something “sacred”, something from God. Perhaps this is a tactic to encourage the status quo? Convince people that the status quo has been “ordained” and we may not question it.

 

[LucyEm]

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.

Wow - what an idea! Translation: “Individual freedoms always trump community decisions”. Makes you wonder how we can be a coherent society at all.

 

[JonNC]

Nonsense. Those rights are not from God, they were made up by men believing they were a good idea. Should said individual rights be determined, by the people, to be contrary their common best interests, the people are free to seek to remove individual rights, by the proper process. The founders have no greater say than the people today.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

With all due respect, I will take Jefferson’s word on the origin of rights over yours. The founders have a far greater say than those who are not citizens here. The best interests of each individual is the preservation of the individual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

With all due respect, I will take Jefferson’s word on the origin of rights over yours.

Those words of Jefferson were about just three specific rights. The three mentioned. These were the unalienable ones. He did not say all conceivable rights are in the same category. He did not say all rights were unalienable. In particular, the Bill of Rights was still several years from being written. And even at that, Jefferson was just a man. He did not know what we know.

 

[LucyEm]

yes. Trouble is, we have people peddling a line that it is not permissible, or improper, to seek such a change. As if to do so is to challenge something “sacred”, something from God. Perhaps this is a tactic to encourage the status quo? Convince people that the status quo has been “ordained” and we may not question it.

Funny how the voting on the Poll is heavily in favour of strict background checks, but very few posters will put their “name” to it in the discussion. Makes me think you’re onto something - as if people are very hesitant to question the holy 2nd amendment!! You’d think it was in amongst the Ten Commandments! “Keep holy the Sabbath”; “Keep thine armoury fully stocked and up to date…” It’s not there people!! Some men, a long time ago, thought it was important to allow the citizens to be armed. It’s OK to rethink whether, on balance, that’s really a good idea in modern society.

Gee, we’re taking about owning “very dangerous” goods. And some folks want to complain that some court has denied us a “right” to own “extremely dangerous” goods by saying we can’t have fully automatic weapons. Sheesh. Where does it end?

 

[JonNC]

Why not? Is liberty the only good? There are many liberties I can think of that are bad. I think you would even agree that some of them are bad. Just calling something a liberty does not automatically make it a good thing.

The words you refer to are in the Declaration of Independance, which does not cite the right to bear arms as one of those rights endowed by their creator. And even if they did, Jefferson was just a man, who can be right or wrong.

Well, you may wish to submit to tyranny, I do not. Individual rights, and their protection are the foundation of good government. There may be some liberties that are bad, though none are enumerated in the Constitution. What’s worse, however, is strong central government.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, you may wish to submit to tyranny…

I wish to submit to legitimate authority acting for the common good - like the catechism says I should.

 

[LucyEm]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

With all due respect, I will take Jefferson’s word on the origin of rights over yours. The founders have a far greater say than those who are not citizens here. The best interests of each individual is the preservation of the individual rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Jon

Come again? Which inalienable rights was Jefferson speaking of? Anything I feel is a right? Anything the framers declared a right? C’mon Jon, you know that ain’t right. I’m pretty sure owning an M16 wasn’t what he had in mind!! I’m even surer that one was not on the Creator’s mind.

 

[LucyEm]

…Individual rights, and their protection are the foundation of good government. …

Very true. But some rights are more important than others. Some do really go to our humanity as children of God. And then there’s those made up by men, like the one about owning guns. It might have been a good idea for a time. But it’s just an idea. And like Rau said, it’s certainly not from God!

 

[JonNC]

Those words of Jefferson were about just three specific rights. The three mentioned. These were the unalienable ones. He did not say all conceivable rights are in the same category. He did not say all rights were unalienable. In particular, the Bill of Rights was still several years from being written. And even at that, Jefferson was just a man. He did not know what we know.

“…among these…”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Very true. But some rights are more important than others. Some do really go to our humanity as children of God. And then there’s those made up by men, like the one about owning guns. It might have been a good idea for a time. But it’s just an idea. And like Rau said, it’s certainly not from God!

So, who decides which enumerated rights can be be discarded? If they take my right to firearms, is it okay if they take yours to due process?

Jon

 

[Rau]

So, who decides which enumerated rights can be be discarded? If they take my right to firearms, is it okay if they take yours to due process?

Jon

Who tells the people what societal rules they may adopt Jon? I kind of think the people will likely continue to favour “due process”. As for the unfettered right to own firearms - maybe they’ll consider that one’s worth thinking some more about. Like the other poster said, not all “rights” are equal.

 

[JonNC]

Come again? Which inalienable rights was Jefferson speaking of? Anything I feel is a right? Anything the framers declared a right? C’mon Jon, you know that ain’t right. I’m pretty sure owning an M16 wasn’t what he had in mind!! I’m even surer that one was not on the Creator’s mind.

Some of them are enumerated in the constitution. Check the Bill of **Rights **. Not the bill of interesting ideas, or privileges made available by government that can just as easily be rescinded. Owning an M16 is hyperbole, since automatic weapons are rarely owned by civilians. That said, tools in and of themselves are neither evil nor good. An AR15 can be used by a mother to protect her children from an intruder, a sportsman to shoot a target, a radical Islamic terrorist to shoot unarmed innocent people. The gun does not know or influence the intent of the user. That’s where the good or evil is. Even an M16 can be used for good or evil.

Jon