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

[Rau]

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

So be it! Either way, men can change what men have made.

Men, not God, established the right to own guns in your society. They thought about it, believed to be a good idea and wrote it down. Had they not done so, we’d not be having this discussion, and Anericans would own guns within the constraints of laws passed by their legislature.

Jon - you are taking an utterly untenable position. Either your passion for gun ownership is clouding your reasoning, or you are being deliberately mischievous.

 

[JonNC]

Less than 60 years ago, within my lifetime, people still understood the nature of rights, what rights are and where they come from.

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." – John F. Kennedy

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So be it! Either way, men can change what men have made.

Men, not God, established the right to own guns in your society. They thought about it, believed to be a good idea and wrote it down. Had they not done so, we’d not be having this discussion, and Anericans would own guns within the constraints of laws passed by their legislature.

Jon - you are taking an utterly untenable position. Either your passion for gun ownership is clouding your reasoning, or you are being deliberately mischievous.

Why are you questioning motives? I contend the exact same thing for all of the rights enumerated, not only the second amendment. I stand with Catholics and others who are having their religious free exercise rights rescinded by the Heath care mandates. I stand with everyone on college campuses who are having their speech rights rescinded by speech codes. I stand opposed to the brown shirt tactics of those who are disrupting Trump’s right to speak, and I would do the same if the same tactics were used against Clinton.
This is the problem with the idea that rights are from man. Man can take them away if they are from man. As we can see in the current congressional debate this week. Not only are some proposing to limit gun rights, but they want to rescind due process rights to do it. When one right topples , none remain safe. Find a way to keep the bad guys from getting guns, without trashing everyone’s rights in the process.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Why are you questioning motives? I contend the exact same thing for all of the rights enumerated, not only the second amendment. I stand with Catholics and others who are having their religious free exercise rights rescinded by the Heath care mandates. I stand with everyone on college campuses who are having their speech rights rescinded by speech codes. I stand opposed to the brown shirt tactics of those who are disrupting Trump’s right to speak, and I would do the same if the same tactics were used against Clinton.
This is the problem with the idea that rights are from man. Man can take them away if they are from man. As we can see in the current congressional debate this week. Not only are some proposing to limit gun rights, but they want to rescind due process rights to do it. When one right topples , none remain safe. Find a way to keep the bad guys from getting guns, without trashing everyone’s rights in the process.

Jon

Rights are not good because men proposed them and gave them the status of a “right”. Their goodness needs to be judged - case by case. What if “a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy” had been written down in the Bill of Rights? Would you feel obligated now to defend that because it is written down as a right, or would you seek to judge the merits? And if you and many fellow citizens concluded that the unfettered right to murder the unborn were not good, would you wish to have that right reviewed?

 

[JonNC]

Rights are not good because men proposed them and gave the the status of a “right”. Their goodness needs to be judged. What if “a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy” had been written down in the Bill of Rights? Would you feel obligated now to defend that because it is written down as a right, or would you seek to judge the merits? And if you and many fellow citizens concluded that the unfettered right to murder the unborn were not good, would you wish to have that right reviewed?

Any “right” that interferes with another person’s is not a right, but license. So, abortion isn’t a right, by definition, in the first place. That’s one reason it is incorrect to think men can create rights. Abortion is not a right, it is a license because another person loses his or her life. No one loses their life because I own a gun, or have due process, or free speech.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Any “right” that interferes with another person’s is not a right, but license. So, abortion isn’t a right, by definition, in the first place. That’s one reason it is incorrect to think men can create rights. Abortion is not a right, it is a license because another person loses his or her life. No one loses their life because I own a gun, or have due process, or free speech.

Jon

Your premise about the personhood of the unborn is rejected by many pro-abortionists who are entirely adamant about their “rights”.

It is not about what you call it. It’s about the right of the people to decide what rights they will insist upon in their society. There was no obligation to adopt a right of gun ownership by the citizenry. There is no external test that the BoR would have failed, no “higher” set of rights it would have failed to cover, had it omitted that item, or expressed a more limited variant of it. It is no more and no less than the decision of a group of men.

 

[JonNC]

Your premise about the personhood of the unborn is rejected by many pro-abortionists who are entirely adamant about their “rights”.

It is not about what you call it. It’s about the right of the people to decide what rights they will insist upon in their society. There was no obligation to adopt a right of gun ownership by the citizenry. There is no external test that the BoR would have failed, no “higher” set of rights it would have failed to cover, had it omitted that item, or expressed a more limited variant of it. It is no more and no less than the decision of a group of men.

Some of them reject the personhood of the newly born, as well. So what? Are these the people you are giving a veto power over rights to?

There is no obligation to observe any rights. We see this all the time. Socialist states are notorious for this. That doesn’t mean that rights independent of humans don’t exist. Clinton may very well win the next election and immediately set out to (try to) confiscate firearms. That doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist. It only means that she is a tyrant

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Jon

That’s the part that is not obvious. The catechism paragraphs 2263-2265 deal with legitimate defense. That is where I go to find out what self defense means. These paragraphs speak of the act of self defense. It says nothing about a right to guns.

 

[JonNC]

That’s the part that is not obvious. The catechism paragraphs 2263-2265 deal with legitimate defense. That is where I go to find out what self defense means. These paragraphs speak of the act of self defense. It says nothing about a right to guns.

Does it say anything against appropriate tools for self defense? If not, does that mean a 104 pound 18 year old girl has to fend off two 180 guys with her bare hands?

The right does not come without a right to the means.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does it say anything against appropriate tools for self defense?

No. That does not mean access to tools for self defense is an enumerated right (in the Catechism, even though it is an enumerated right in the Constitution).

The right does not come without a right to the means.

Jon

The “right” mentioned in the catechism is only mentioned as an exception to the commandment “thou shall not kill”. In paragraph 2265 it states:

*The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. *

This is the only mention of “means” to defense, when it mentions “arms”. It is noteworthy that the only time “arms” (i.e. guns) are mentioned is as the prerogative of “those who legitimately hold authority”, i.e. the government. The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not just a communal right. But you will find no statement like that in the catechism, and paragraph 2265, where you would expect to find mention of the individual right to “arms”, we find nothing like that.

 

[JonNC]

No. That does not mean access to tools for self defense is an enumerated right (in the Catechism, even though it is an enumerated right in the Constitution).

The “right” mentioned in the catechism is only mentioned as an exception to the commandment “thou shall not kill”. In paragraph 2265 it states:

*The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. *

This is the only mention of “means” to defense, when it mentions “arms”. It is noteworthy that the only time “arms” (i.e. guns) are mentioned is as the prerogative of “those who legitimately hold authority”, i.e. the government. The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not just a communal right. But you will find no statement like that in the catechism, and paragraph 2265, where you would expect to find mention of the individual right to “arms”, we find nothing like that.

Or not mentioned because it is a common sense means to exercise that right.

Jon

 

[GEddie]

The terrorists in Paris had absolutely no difficulty in getting guns. Even though they are forbidden.

Most lunatics and bad-guys don’t have the ‘advantage’ of belonging to terror cells with international supply chains.

 

[Rau]

.That doesn’t mean that rights independent of humans don’t exist. Clinton may very well win the next election and immediately set out to (try to) confiscate firearms. That doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist.
Jon

Of course we have “rights” not of human making - those that stem from God and our status as children of God. It is simply that to accumulate weapons within our society is not one of these. It too is a right in the US society - a right instituted and acknowledged by men. I presume arbitrary confiscation of weapons by Clinton would be challengesble under the constitution, demonstrating the existence of that man-established right. But that picture can be changed if the US people wish to do so.

 

[JonNC]

Of course we have “rights” not of human making - those that stem from God and our status as children of God. It is simply that to accumulate weapons within our society is not one of these. It too is a right in the US society - a right instituted and acknowledged by men. I presume arbitrary confiscation of weapons by Clinton would be challengesble under the constitution, demonstrating the existence of that man-established right. But that picture can be changed if the US people wish to do so.

And you know it is not how? Did God not give us our sentient status? Are the the tools we devise and use part of His graces to us? The Church affirms our right to defend ourselves and the ability to use various tools to that end.
Any arbitrary attempt at confiscation may be met with challenges other than the SCOTUS. That is my greatest fear.

Jon

 

[ricmat]

Most lunatics and bad-guys don’t have the ‘advantage’ of belonging to terror cells with international supply chains.

The San Bernardo shooter was a terrorist and did not have an international supply chain. He had a friend (who it seems was not on any no-buy lists) who bought the guns for him.

So long as “some body” is NOT on one of the no-guns lists, gun control won’t work. Because that “some body” can be bribed or otherwise be coerced.

The “end game” of “common sense gun control” is actually for none of the good guys to have guns (except for the police).

 

[GEddie]

The San Bernardo shooter was a terrorist and did not have an international supply chain. He had a friend (who it seems was not on any no-buy lists) who bought the guns for him.

So long as “some body” is NOT on one of the no-guns lists, gun control won’t work. Because that “some body” can be bribed or otherwise be coerced.

The “end game” of “common sense gun control” is actually for none of the good guys to have guns (except for the police).

Point taken. In America, a would-be terrorist has no need for a supply chain of any length. Arming oneself is, sadly, apparently easier than obtaining intercity transportation.

My response was to the post that said that the Paris terrorists were able to arm themselves despite draconic gun laws. But again, international terror cells can overcome things like that. They have time and money on their side.

There are many (mostly in America) who say that the answer is to arm everybody; but given that mass-shootings have been very rare in European countries and are almost a daily occurrence in America, I have misgivings.

ICXC NIKA

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are many (mostly in America) who say that the answer is to arm everybody; but given that mass-shootings have been very rare in European countries and are almost a daily occurrence in America, I have misgivings.

ICXC NIKA

I agree that arming everybody is not a solution. But for a different reason. Terrorist mass shootings have been used by both sides of the gun debate, but if you look at the numbers, the number of people killed by ordinary homicides, domestic disputes, accidents, suicides, far outnumbers the sensational shootings at Orlando, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. Arming everybody would increase the number of domestic violence shootings for sure, and the number of accidental shootings. Even if every single act of terrorist shootings could be prevented by arming everybody, we would end up with far more people dead.

 

[ricmat]

Point taken. In America, a would-be terrorist has no need for a supply chain of any length. Arming oneself is, sadly, apparently easier than obtaining intercity transportation.

My response was to the post that said that the Paris terrorists were able to arm themselves despite draconic gun laws. But again, international terror cells can overcome things like that. They have time and money on their side.

There are many (mostly in America) who say that the answer is to arm everybody; but given that mass-shootings have been very rare in European countries and are almost a daily occurrence in America, I have misgivings.

ICXC NIKA

So you agree that the end-game is for no one to have guns? And that the terrorists will always have guns, because they will ignore the laws?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you agree that the end-game is for no one to have guns? And that the terrorists will always have guns, because they will ignore the laws?

We don’t need to go to one extreme or the other. Well armed law enforcement officers is a lot more trustworthy than trusting to the judgement of my neighbor who likes to imagine himself a vigilante.

 

[ricmat]

We don’t need to go to one extreme or the other. Well armed law enforcement officers is a lot more trustworthy than trusting to the judgement of my neighbor who likes to imagine himself a vigilante.

That doesn’t seem to have worked out well in Paris, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc.

The killers had a lot of time to kill before the police showed up.

Perhaps you need to find better neighbors? Or perhaps your neighbor is truly crazy in which case he really shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. In which case, the background checks we already have should have worked.

Again, if a vigilante / terrorist / crazy person / etc. wants to get a gun despite the law saying he can’t have one, he’ll find a way to get it. All that more gun control does it take away the ability of good guys to defend themselves against those who ignore the no-gun law.

Did you ever notice that the terrorists or crazy people rarely go into situations where the good guys have more guns than they do? No, they head for the signs that say “no gun zone.”