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

[JonNC]

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.

In the United States, where we are willing to openly debate our nation’s constitutional representative republic, rights sometimes have limits. Age, for example, citizenship as another. So the attempt to use extreme examples is irrelevant.

A ruling class can indeed develop among elected officials and bureaucracy. You keep forgetting that majority rule is not always the rule of law. Our history of slavery in southern states is a good example why.
The reach, strategically, is a distant one, fortunately

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

And yet by being a part of a community, you surrender many freedoms in exchange for other benefits.

Says who?

**By any and all means, regardless of consequences?**No, that is contrary to Catholic moral theology.

That is a strawman argument, I never claimed that.

which is how you support your “right” to own fully automatic weapons, tanks, grenade launchers and so forth. Got it!

Do you disagree with my point that rights expand with technology?

You forget that the right to guns in society was bestowed by man. It did not pre-exist, as though from God.

Wrong, gun rights are the implementation of my right to self-defense.

True of all rights established by man.

In which case, the precise term to describe your position is ‘privilege’. If you want to argue that my gun rights are reality are privilege, fine but the burden of proof is one you.

There is clearly great misunderstanding about the nature of rights, and their status according to their source. Had the Bill of Rights explicitly addressed the rights of women to terminate their unborn child, would that mean that murder of the unborn is now an absolute right that cannot be questioned? Would society be “not permitted” to re-think that particular right?

If you took your position that rights are privileges granted by other people seriously, you would favor abortion as the child’s use of the mother’s womb is granted by her.

Has God been ‘snookered’ by the Bill of Rights? What say the Catholics here?Clearly, rights bestowed by man are subject to review by Man and cannot be taken to be absolute as those from God.

You keep claiming that my right to own a weapon is given by other people. You have not presented an actual argument for it.

What happens if I refuse to give up my guns since I do not initiate violence against others. Are you going to send people with guns to take them from me? That hypocrisy alone would justify my right to own weapons.

Good to know! According to another poster, the 2nd amendment grants a right to own M16s.

Time for another lesson in Constitution 101. The 2nd Amendment states, “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If it meant to indicate that this was a privilege given by the government, it would have stated that explicitly, legalese cannot afford ambiguity. The implication is that the right exists prior to any government recognition or denial of that right.

 

[JonNC]

=starshiptrooper;13988586]Says who?That is a strawman argument, I never claimed that.Do you disagree with my point that rights expand with technology?Wrong, gun rights are the implementation of my right to self-defense.In which case, the precise term to describe your position is ‘privilege’. If you want to argue that my gun rights are reality are privilege, fine but the burden of proof is one you.If you took your position that rights are privileges granted by other people seriously, you would favor abortion as the child’s use of the mother’s womb is granted by her.You keep claiming that my right to own a weapon is given by other people. You have not presented an actual argument for it

This is the precise reason progressives want to remove God from the equation. Either they argue that there is a separation of church and state, so God cannot be referenced, or they use Rau’s argument. Either way, the intent is to make rights into privileges that are granted by government and can just as easily be taken away.

What happens if I refuse to give up my guns since I do not initiate violence against others. Are you going to send people with guns to take them from me? That hypocrisy alone would justify my right to own weapons.

That is exactly what they will do. Gun control only applies to law abiding citizens who are not part of the ruling class. Criminals are not covered, and law enforcement is not. They WILL send armed agents when they know who has guns. That’s why they want universal registration. It will be easier to find them.

Time for another lesson in Constitution 101. The 2nd Amendment states, “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If it meant to indicate that this was a privilege given by the government, it would have stated that explicitly, legalese cannot afford ambiguity. The implication is that the right exists prior to any government recognition or denial of that right.

The scenario is being forced-changed. Think about the language about health care. “Everyone has a right to health care. The government must provide it because it is a right.”
IOW, we gave you a new right, the government will pay for it, so vote for us. And oh, by the way, you may have to wait in long lines, or never see a doctor at all (see the VA).

Rights in the progressive realm are only privileges granted by government and the ruling class.
Jon

 

[Rau]

… If you want to argue that my gun rights are reality are privilege, fine but the burden of proof is one you.

The proof is simple. Who wrote the document that declares (bestows) this right? Was it written with divine guidance? QED.

If you took your position that rights are privileges granted by other people seriously, you would favor abortion as the child’s use of the mother’s womb is granted by her. You keep claiming that my right to own a weapon is given by other people.

Again, you make the error of claiming that all rights are absolute and from God. The one’s proposed by mortal man alone are mere human proposal. And they apply only in the relevant jurisdiction. A woman not wanting to share her womb knows how to achieve that and without violating what is truly a God given right - to life.

What happens if I refuse to give up my guns since I do not initiate violence against others. Are you going to send people with guns to take them from me? That hypocrisy alone would justify my right to own weapons.

One hopes that you would either:

• exit the society that has taken a position contrary to your personal position; OR
• submit to the will of the people (as you do in all manner of other matters).

The 2nd Amendment states, “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If it meant to indicate that this was a privilege given by the government, it would have stated that explicitly, legalese cannot afford ambiguity. The implication is that the right exists prior to any government recognition or denial of that right.

Constitutional provisions stand outside the legislature and government. They are the framework in which the government (and other institutions of society) must operate. I’m no lawyer - but I don’t disagree with your assertion that the 2nd amendment ought to mean you can own an arsenal of M16s! In fact, I think it bears repeating. But such provisions are not outside the will of the people to revise.

 

[Rau]

Either way, the intent is to make rights into privileges that are granted by government and can just as easily be taken away.

Not all rights are of equivalent standing. The Right to Life. The Right to own a gun. The right to drive a truck. We enable governments to grant some. Some come from our constitutional framework. Some from God. Two out of three have been determined by the people.

They WILL send armed agents when they know who has guns. That’s why they want universal registration. It will be easier to find them.

Sounds like an episode of the X-Files!

 

[Theo520]

They WILL send armed agents when they know who has guns. That’s why they want universal registration. It will be easier to find them.

I would have placed it ‘like an episode from the History Channel’,
from one of many possible historic documentaries.

 

[Rau]

I would have placed it ‘like an episode from the History Channel’,
from one of many possible historic documentaries.

And you should add “…and I think the US government and our elected officials turning against the people in tyranny is something we need to be concerned about and arming the citizenry is the right precaution to take”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The proof is simple. Who wrote the document that declares (bestows) this right? Was it written with divine guidance? QED.

Non sequitur, as I pointed out, the language prohibits the government from infringing on a right that already exists.

Again, you make the error of claiming that all rights are absolute and from God. The one’s proposed by mortal man alone are mere human proposal. And they apply only in the relevant jurisdiction. A woman not wanting to share her womb knows how to achieve that and without violating what is truly a God given right - to life.

The right to weapons is the means of implementing the right to self-defense. An attack on the means is an attack on the right itself.

One hopes that you would either:

• exit the society that has taken a position contrary to your personal position; OR
• submit to the will of the people (as you do in all manner of other matters).

I will take a 3rd option. I will emulate the epic deeds of the Founding Fathers and fire another shot that will be heard around the world.

poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45870

Constitutional provisions stand outside the legislature and government. They are the framework in which the government (and other institutions of society) must operate. I’m no lawyer - but I don’t disagree with your assertion that the 2nd amendment ought to mean you can own an arsenal of M16s! In fact, I think it bears repeating. But such provisions are not outside the will of the people to revise.

Rewrite the laws all you want. It does not take away my rights. Molon labe!

 

[Rau]

Non sequitur, as I pointed out, the language prohibits the government from infringing on a right that already exists.The right to weapons is the means of implementing the right to self-defense. An attack on the means is an attack on the right itself.I will take a 3rd option. I will emulate the epic deeds of the Founding Fathers and fire another shot that will be heard around the world.

poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45870Rewrite the laws all you want. It does not take away my rights. Molon labe!

You are missing the point (over and over again…). You are talking about the government infringing, or laws being changed. That would be improper if it contradicts constitutional rights. I am talking about the right of the people to amend the rights they have granted themselves - not by legislation, but by amendment at the source. After all, they estalished those rules - they can revise them.

Your “limit the means eliminates the right to self-defence” idea is patently flawed. Do you believe you can do anything you wish in preparation for a possible future event of self-defence?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Non sequitur, as I pointed out, the language prohibits the government from infringing on a right that already exists.

Already exists? The right to a gun did not exist before it was established by law. I know you think it did, but you are incorrect in thinking that.

The right to weapons is the means of implementing the right to self-defense.

The right to self defense means the moral right to do what you need to do at that time. It does not imply any right to do something in anticipation of the act of self defense.

 

[JonNC]

Not all rights are of equivalent standing. The Right to Life. The Right to own a gun. The right to drive a truck. We enable governments to grant some. Some come from our constitutional framework. Some from God. Two out of three have been determined by the people.

Sounds like an episode of the X-Files!

No one has mentioned a right to drive a truck, but certainly that is not considered an uninfringable right.
Maybe not all rights are of equal standing where you come from, but all constitutionally protected rights in the United States have that quality of equality. Again, under the American model, government does not have power to grant rights. Government only has power granted to it by the people who have the rights antecedent to government. If government has the power to grants rights, they have the power to rescind them, making them privileges not rights. We can see the damage that is done when government claims it can establish rights - Roe v Wade, ACA, and others.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Already exists? The right to a gun did not exist before it was established by law. I know you think it did, but you are incorrect in thinking that.

The right to self defense means the moral right to do what you need to do at that time. It does not imply any right to do something in anticipation of the act of self defense.

Of course the right pre-existed government. Government hasn’t always recognized the right, and the 20tg century is a great example of what happens when civilians are at the mercy of government.

Concurrent with any right is the right to access the tools needed to exercise that right. A free press has the right to printing presses, and as technology advances, the new tools- computers - are covered.

Jon

 

[Rau]

No one has mentioned a right to drive a truck, but certainly that is not considered an uninfringable right.
Maybe not all rights are of equal standing where you come from, but all constitutionally protected rights in the United States have that quality of equality. Again, under the American model, government does not have power to grant rights. Government only has power granted to it by the people who have the rights antecedent to government. If government has the power to grants rights, they have the power to rescind them, making them privileges not rights. We can see the damage that is done when government claims it can establish rights - Roe v Wade, ACA, and others.

Jon

You twist the discussion away from the point, pretending I’m arguing that which I’m not.

Your right to own guns was granted to the people by the people. There are other rights you enjoy which are granted by government eg. The right to drive a big truck on the roads. These rights are of different standing.

The latter right can be rescinded by the government eg. It declares some road only suitable for light vehicles.

The constitutionally defined rights defined by the people are not open to the government to override, but are subject to review by the people. Owning guns is such a right.

 

[JonNC]

You twist the discussion away from the point, pretending I’m arguing that which I’m not.

Your right to own guns was granted to the people by the people. There are other rights you enjoy which are granted by government eg. The right to drive a big truck on the roads. These rights are of different standing.

The latter right can be rescinded by the government eg. It declares some road only suitable for light vehicles.

The constitutionally defined rights defined by the people are not open to the government to override, but are subject to review by the people. Owning guns is such a right.

My right to own a gun came before the government. The states may review the constitutional protection of that right, but not the right itself.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My right to own a gun came before the government.

How do you figure your right to own a gun came before any human law that said so?

 

[Rau]

My right to own a gun came before the government. The states may review the constitutional protection of that right, but not the right itself.

Jon

Constitutions and such framing documents typically precede the government. So that point is irrelevant.

The people, via the approved process, can review the right of citizens to own guns; they may eliminate it or amend it.

 

[Rau]

How do you figure your right to own a gun came before any human law that said so?

“Laws” are legislative instruments-so not sure it’s the appropriate descriptor for a constitutional provision. But regardless, men established the right and men can review it.

 

[JonNC]

How do you figure your right to own a gun came before any human law that said so?

How do you figure it didn’t? The right to self defense has with it the obvious right to the tools necessary.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“Laws” are legislative instruments-so not sure it’s the appropriate descriptor for a constitutional provision. But regardless, men established the right and men can review it.

Men don’t establish rights. Again, Jefferson was right: rights are an endowment. If men establish and can rescind them, they are not rights, but privileges.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Constitutions and such framing documents typically precede the government. So that point is irrelevant.

The people, via the approved process, can review the right of citizens to own guns; they may eliminate it or amend it.

The men at Lexington and Concord were defending a right that the government was trying to rescind. Only the constitutional protection of rights can be reviewed, not rights themselves.

Jon