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.
There were HUMONGOUS gigantic battles and wars that the Church used to try to defend itself.

Lepanto.

Tours.

Vienna.

The Crusades.

And even so, the Church was wiped out in Egypt, the Holy Land, Turkey, North Africa.

And elsewhere.

See the maps here:

youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Without massive fighting, the Church would have been wiped out.
 
GEddie said:
Beyond the fact that having training requirements to own a gun would be unacceptable to gun proponents, anyhow.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Actually, “gun proponents” seem to be all for training. That’s why there are so many gun ranges. 50 years ago I was at a Boy Scout camp and firearm training was required.
jmcrae said:
Cars, when being used according to their design, don’t kill people.

Guns, when being used according to their design, do kill people.

That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
That’s the difference in the minds of some people because some people have been brainwashed to think that guns, all by themselves, kill people. I grew up in a family that had a couple of shotguns, and in a culture where everybody (except me) went deer hunting or ground hog hunting or squirrel hunting or rabbit hunting, or pheasant hunting.

According to you, we were using guns in a disordered action - killing all those varmints when in fact we should have been killing people with them because that’s what they were designed for. Are you kidding?
 
Robert_Sock said:
The real problem is that we live in a society that stuffs aggression and violence down our throats. The values of peace and love are far below these values. If you want to change our society and make it more peaceful and loving, we must alter the above negative key values, and truly choose peace and love.
Click to expand...
On this I totally agree. It is not guns. There were lots of guns when I was a kid in the 60’s. As we’ve seen faith and civility decline in our culture, as we’ve seen the value of life decline in the last 40 years, we have seen a dramatic change in the way some people deal with conflict. This is change that needs to occur.

Jon
 
jmcrae said:
Actually, they do. You can’t sell a car to a drunk driver, for example.

Cars, when being used according to their design, don’t kill people.

Guns, when being used according to their design, do kill people.

That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
Guns, when used as designed, provide food, entertain through sport, and yes, defend the defenseless, stop the aggressor, both of which may or may not be human. And just like a car, a gun can be misused.

Jon
 
We already have strict background checks…Start enforcing the existing laws rather than passing more.
 
ricmat said:
Actually, “gun proponents” seem to be all for training. That’s why there are so many gun ranges. 50 years ago I was at a Boy Scout camp and firearm training was required.

That’s the difference in the minds of some people because some people have been brainwashed to think that guns, all by themselves, kill people. I grew up in a family that had a couple of shotguns, and in a culture where everybody (except me) went deer hunting or ground hog hunting or squirrel hunting or rabbit hunting, or pheasant hunting.

According to you, we were using guns in a disordered action - killing all those varmints when in fact we should have been killing people with them because that’s what they were designed for. Are you kidding?
Click to expand...
You were probably using rifles; not hand guns, or military grade weapons. Big difference.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
There were HUMONGOUS gigantic battles and wars that the Church used to try to defend itself.

Lepanto.

Tours.

Vienna.

The Crusades.

And even so, the Church was wiped out in Egypt, the Holy Land, Turkey, North Africa.

And elsewhere.

See the maps here:

youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Without massive fighting, the Church would have been wiped out.
Click to expand...
Those were soldiers, fighting in armies; not teenagers waving loaded handguns around the neighbourhood.
 
We’ve let Obama negate the rest of the Constitution…Why not the Second Amendment too?
 
Rau said:
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.
Click to expand...
They can establish those rules and like any other unjust rule, I will ignore it at my discretion. If you want to send agents of the state to confiscate my weapons, so be it. Any bloodshed will be on your hands. I have no desire for conflict, I have no desire to initiate violence. However, I will not comply with threats.
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?
Click to expand...
That is a strawman with no connection to my position.
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, did the first guy who designed and manufactured a weapon have to ask his neighbors for permission? :rolleyes:
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.
Click to expand...
That is similar to claiming that freedom of expression exists but that the government can restrict what ideas can be expressed on either newspapers or the internet.
Robert_Sock said:
The real problem is that we live in a society that stuffs aggression and violence down our throats. The values of peace and love are far below these values. If you want to change our society and make it more peaceful and loving, we must alter the above negative key values, and truly choose peace and love.
Click to expand...
You can give peace a chance. I will cover you just in case it does not work out.
 
jmcrae said:
You were probably using rifles; not hand guns, or military grade weapons. Big difference.
Click to expand...
Yes we were using 22 rifles, and shotguns as I mentioned. Although a friend had a 22 revolver that he used to shoot at rabbits. It’s one trigger pull per shot. I guess that makes it an assault pistol according to the new PC dictionary.

Of course, an AR15 really looks BAD because it’s black and has all kinds of scary indentations and handgrips and such.

But to the point I was making, which you didn’t respond to above, I guess we need to be forgiven for shooting at rabbits and squirrels when (according to you) guns were designed to kill humans.

I suppose that some people think that barbecue forks, bathtubs, ovens, and chain saws, were designed to kill people too since it’s been in the news.

Or maybe it’s the person that kills, and not the barbecue fork that’s at fault.
 
In my humble opinion, the continued effort on the part of a portion of our so-called leaders to adopt demonstratively inefficacious restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms is, at the bottom, part of a long-term effort to abolish the nation-state. One could include the global-warming alarmism, borderless immigration policies, and very much more in the same bag. I’ll close with: Hip Hip Hooray for the UK.
 
ricmat said:
But to the point I was making, which you didn’t respond to above, I guess we need to be forgiven for shooting at rabbits and squirrels when (according to you) guns were designed to kill humans.
Click to expand...
No, you were not. And you are missing my point on purpose, so I’m out -I’ve had my say, and those who want to think can think, and those who just want to live in fear may spend their lives in the attic with their guns at the ready to kill any unlucky kid who happens to take a wrong turn through their sight lines.
 
jmcrae said:
No, you were not. And you are missing my point on purpose, so I’m out -I’ve had my say, and those who want to think can think, and those who just want to live in fear may spend their lives in the attic with their guns at the ready to kill any unlucky kid who happens to take a wrong turn through their sight lines.
Click to expand...
If that happens in your neighborhood, then you live in a very scary place with people waving guns all over the place and ready to kill for any reason.

Maybe you should find a quieter area.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…to the same extent that a raven is like a writing-desk…
Click to expand...
It just makes the point more clear. A right is a sanction to action. If you cannot possess the means to exercise your right, you do not have the right.
 
starshiptrooper said:
It just makes the point more clear. A right is a sanction to action. If you cannot possess the means to exercise your right, you do not have the right.
Click to expand...
That is flawed reasoning. We have the right to defend others and ourselves, don’t we? And that right comes from a higher source than the right to own guns. And yet - we are not morally free to exercise that right by any means, and regardless of consequences. We need to consider how we might act, and the likely consequences, in our societal context.

What you may do when your life is threatened and how you might take precautions against a possible future threat - all in the context of society as a whole - are also entirely different things. You are conflating them.
 
jmcrae said:
Actually, they do. You can’t sell a car to a drunk driver, for example.
Click to expand...
Ownership of a car is different from drunk driving.

You could buy a fleet of cars … perhaps to rent them out … and still not be allowed to operate one.
 
Rau said:
Gun practices are matters for prudential judgement. But there are numerous statements from conferences of bishops framed in that light.
Click to expand...
My entire point was the men, the humans want them banned.

They however do not make it a teaching, just an opinion, which I say they can never change that.
 
LethalMouse said:
My entire point was the men, the humans want them banned.

They however do not make it a teaching, just an opinion, which I say they can never change that.
Click to expand...
What is remarkable about that ? What would you imagine a “teaching” on such a subject to say? The availability of guns in modern society is a matter for prudential judgement. We all must make judgements about morality when the determining factor of the morality of our choices lies in the “circumstances/consequences” of those choices. As you know, moral acts must be well-intentioned, not intrinsically evil, and produce more good than harm. The latter is always a matter of judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top