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.
LeafByNiggle said:
I know the Bill of Rights says this, but it’s just the Bill of Rights. It is not a sacred document.

If the scope of what you are saying is limited to US law, then the Bill of Rights becomes a foundational document, and worthy of being referenced to support the points it supports. But if the scope of what you are saying is universal, and you claim it applies to all people, then the Bill of Rights is just the thoughts of one group of men.
Click to expand...
What’s curious is how often progressives tell us religion doesn’t matter. I respect your dramatically different approach.
That said, I’ve already made it clear that what other countries do is their choice, though I continue to believe that the rights enumerated are worthy of all humans.

Jon
 
Rau said:
Great. A document of men, of mortal man’s intellect alone. As Lucy said, it’s not holy scripture. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Click to expand...
I never claimed it was. It is a governing document. But if you think there is another that more closely reflects church teaching, please present it.

Jon
 
ricmat said:
Here’s the situation as I see it (I’m late to getting on this thread, maybe this has been mentioned already):

So long as “someone” can buy a gun, gun control won’t work - so is the real end-game really “no one” instead of “some?”

A specific example would be the SB shootings where the bad guy had a friend buy him the murder weapons. That’s all it takes to totally subvert ANY background checks. Find someone not on the list(s) to buy it for you.

The only solution is for EVERYBODY to be on the “no gun” list.

Game, set, match. Checkmate.
Click to expand...
The terrorists in Paris had absolutely no difficulty in getting guns. Even though they are forbidden.
 
JonNC said:
I never claimed it was. It is a governing document. But if you think there is another that more closely reflects church teaching, please present it.

Jon
Click to expand...
You’ve consistently implied that rights therein are above review, calling any such initiative subversive. That was wrong.
 
JonNC said:
Hey, maybe you could tell us about yours , since ours is do deficient 😉

Jon
Click to expand...
No need to be country specific - The Bills of Rights and the Constitutions of all countries which incorporate rights determined by men - All are subject to review by men.
 
Here’s my thoughts. I coached recreational girls soccer for 11 years. I had to submit to a background check every year. I also have to have a background check along with a drug screening every year for my job as an in home service technician. But I can easily purchase any kind of weapon that can kill a vast amount of people. Yup, same thing right?? Not in my book. A background check does not prohibit the Second Amendment. Unless a person has a record. And isn’t already a law that a felon can’t possess a firearm?? Wouldn’t that infringe on that person’s 2nd Amendment rights?
 
JonNC said:
What’s curious is how often progressives tell us religion doesn’t matter. I respect your dramatically different approach.
That said, I’ve already made it clear that what other countries do is their choice, though I continue to believe that the rights enumerated are worthy of all humans.

Jon
Click to expand...
That is understandable. I think the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights are pretty neat too, and worthy of being considered by adoption by other countries. But it is just my belief. I don’t claim that God ordains it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is understandable. I think the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights are pretty neat too, and worthy of being considered by adoption by other countries. But it is just my belief. I don’t claim that God ordains it.
Click to expand...
That is understandable too. The founders’ approach was contrary to the practice in Europe, where monarchs claimed to by rule divine right: God gives power to the monarch who provides whatever rights he chooses to the people. The founders model is God grants rights to the people who consent to certain limited powers be given to government for their own mutual benefit. Government has no power save that given it in by the states the constitution.
The very basis of American governance is undermined by the idea that government controls rights.

Jon
 
Rau said:
No need to be country specific - The Bills of Rights and the Constitutions of all countries which incorporate rights determined by men - All are subject to review by men.
Click to expand...
Leaf, as I recall, has chided me that I’m not willing to consider what other countries do. You, OTOH, seem to want to hide what you’re does.
In some countries, that subject to review is exclusive to a ruling class. Is that what your country does? Is that what you propose?

Jon
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The terrorists in Paris had absolutely no difficulty in getting guns. Even though they are forbidden.
Click to expand...
In fact, terrorists and criminals and outlaws pay no attention to rules, regulations and laws.

Only the law abiding citizens and subjects obey the law.
 
JonNC said:
Leaf, as I recall, has chided me that I’m not willing to consider what other countries do. You, OTOH, seem to want to hide what you’re does.
In some countries, that subject to review is exclusive to a ruling class. Is that what your country does? Is that what you propose?

Jon
Click to expand...
Who cares? - its not the topic of the thread. In any event, I do know we have not bestowed rights to own anything in particular, let alone guns.

I’m not asking you to review what other counties do - just to be open to review the status quo in your own country.

I don’t understand the reference to “ruling class”. I suppose dictatorships and similar (China, Saudi Arabia etc.?) have those. I assume the US, the major western countries including mine, don’t.
 
=Rau;13987182]Who cares? - its not the topic of the thread. In any event, I do know we have not bestowed rights to own anything in particular, let alone guns
Click to expand...
Oh, it is indeed, if we are considering what others do. So, your country denies property rights?
I’m not asking you to review what other counties do - just to be open to review the status quo in your own country.
Click to expand...
Kind of a one-sided conversation.
I don’t understand the reference to “ruling class”. I suppose dictatorships and similar (China, Saudi Arabia etc.?) have those. I assume the US, the major western countries including mine, don’t
Click to expand...
When rights become the dictates of government instead of protected even from the majority, you end up with a ruling class.

Jon
 
Rau said:
No. But doesn’t grant a right to own tanks, C4, M16s. Etc. Couldn’t see the need for it I suppose!
Click to expand...
Well, neither does the U.S. :rolleyes:

Can you own .45 revolver or a 12 gauge shotgun? How about a 38 semiautomatic pistol?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
When rights become the dictates of government instead of protected even from the majority, you end up with a ruling class.
Click to expand...
Oh, so “ruling class” is a dramatic reference to the legislature/government?

Clearly the US ruling class is alive and well then, having control over your access to recreational drugs, movements of private aircraft, and countless other “freedoms”.

The right to own guns is (only partially, it seems, ;)) beyond your “ruling class” because the people / their representatives chose to place it there. It is not beyond the reach of the people to review and change, if they wish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top