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

[GaryTaylor]

prudential judgement.

True, but ramming gun laws through in the middle of the night by demand and capitalizing off of fear mongering in the name of public safety and political expediency is an issue. And as a result its neglecting the 5th amendment while wrongly addressing the 2nd and for sure isn’t prudence. Further the optics of this fear mongering and politics of Islam have caused sales to spike. In my mind the state is unintentionally forming a militia. These AR-15 sales are unprecedented. So much for prudence hey?

 

[Robert_Sock]

You can give peace a chance. I will cover you just in case it does not work out.

If a person truly values peace and brotherly love, one must turn to religion because these values are not to be found in secular society.

 

[Bill1940]

Returning to the original question: What is wrong with having background checks for gun ownership? The expansion of background checks beyond purchases made at gun shops would extend federal control of what ordinary people do between their friends and relatives. If one trades one firearm for another with a friend, it would be considered a crime. How can anyone not see the tyrannical absurdity of that? I see the current controversy as a clever ruse to distract attention away from the current Administration’s foreign policy and domestic security failures while advancing their ideological determination to substantially disarm the population. Do not lose sight of the matter of self-defense. It is a fundamental right of all human beings. Depriving people of the means of self-defense comes easily to those who deny the existence of God and Man created in His image.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Returning to the original question: What is wrong with having background checks for gun ownership? The expansion of background checks beyond purchases made at gun shops would extend federal control of what ordinary people do between their friends and relatives. If one trades one firearm for another with a friend, it would be considered a crime. How can anyone not see the tyrannical absurdity of that? I see the current controversy as a clever ruse to distract attention away from the current Administration’s foreign policy and domestic security failures while advancing their ideological determination to substantially disarm the population.** Do not lose sight of the matter of self-defense. It is a fundamental right of all human beings**. Depriving people of the means of self-defense comes easily to those who deny the existence of God and Man created in His image.

Human right to own a gun is hogwash. If people have a right to anything it’s food and shelter, with 9,500 children dying every day due to malnutrition.

 

[JonNC]

Human right to own a gun is hogwash. If people have a right to anything it’s food and shelter, with 9,500 children dying every day due to malnutrition.

Of course people have a right to food and shelter. That would s not the issue. Self defense and the tools to do that are also a right. It isn’t a situation where one right eliminates another.

Jon

 

[Robert_Sock]

Of course people have a right to food and shelter. That would s not the issue. Self defense and the tools to do that are also a right. It isn’t a situation where one right eliminates another.

Jon

You’re correct in saying that the elimination of one right does not necessarily affect other rights, but why such powerful emotions in those who fear that their right to a gun may be in jeopardy? Are there any laws governing my right to live in a gun free society?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do not lose sight of the matter of self-defense. It is a fundamental right of all human beings. Depriving people of the means of self-defense comes easily to those who deny the existence of God and Man created in His image.

You are misunderstanding the moral right to self defense. It is not a right to any specific means. Guns had not yet been invented in the first century. Yet the right of self defense applied to them as well. The right to self defense does not mean the right to guarantee success. It is the right to try without being culpable of sin. That is all it means. Anything more that you add to it is just your opinion.

If the right to self defense depended on having a gun, then we would have to conclude that a peasant without the resources to buy a gun does not have the right to self defense. You don’t want to claim that, do you?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I wouldn’t read the right to self defense as the right to a gun. That’s far too limiting. The right to self defense is the right to choose methods that are sufficient to the environment one lives in. The first century environment obviously didn’t include guns, but the concept is the same, only they carried swords then. Jesus told Peter to put the sword away, He didn’t tell Peter to get rid of it. I don’t seem to recall any sword-control debates back then, do you?

Today, we have guns. A lot of them. Too many, according to some. The bad guys already have them, often in violation of laws that already exist, yet no law, existing or new, will compel those bad guys to give them up. Those who speak of the “right to live in a gun-free society”, what will you do to compel that? Anything you say will only appeal to those who think as you do. Will you then authorize the state to go into everyone’s house? A state that does that is most certainly a totalitarian state, do you want that?

The right to self defense isn’t the right to succeed in that self defense, that is a straw man argument. Yes one can fail to defend one’s own life, but at least he had a better chance with a weapon than without one. Seconds vs minutes.

 

[ricmat]

Are there any laws governing my right to live in a gun free society?

Please, go ahead. But don’t drag the rest of us along with you.

To live in a gun-free society is to make yourself a slave to gangsters, burglars, muggers, kidnappers, murderers, and oh yeah, terrorists.

They will have guns even in a “gun free society.” Unless you’re living in Wonderland.

Outside of Wonderland, what stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right to self defense isn’t the right to succeed in that self defense, that is a straw man argument. Yes one can fail to defend one’s own life, but at least he had a better chance with a weapon than without one. Seconds vs minutes.

There is no human right to do whatever you think is necessary to better your chances in some future confrontation. It just doesn’t exist. I can believe, however, that you think it should be a right.

 

[Bill1940]

QUOTE=Zzyzx Road;13998247
The right to self defense is the right to choose methods that are sufficient to the environment one lives in. The first century environment obviously didn’t include guns, but the concept is the same, only they carried swords then. Jesus told Peter to put the sword away, He didn’t tell Peter to get rid of it. I don’t seem to recall any sword-control debates back then, do you?

As I understand the history, a Jew in Roman occupied territory was not permitted to be armed.

 

[JonNC]

You’re correct in saying that the elimination of one right does not necessarily affect other rights, but why such powerful emotions in those who fear that their right to a gun may be in jeopardy? Are there any laws governing my right to live in a gun free society?

Sure you need not own a gun. That is your right, but the powerful emotions regards the protected right to keep and bear arms have their roots in the very purpose of tgat right: the right to defend our liberty, our freedom, the other right, from tyranny both foreign and domestic.

If you desire to live in a gun free society, you must first understand that simy disarming law-abiding citizens doesn’t even begin to do that. It isn’t even a good beginning. Governments, criminals, foreign rogue entities will still have guns. Those law-abiding citizens, without that right, are subject to the will of the most powerful of the entities I mentioned. It robs all liberty and security. That’s the reason for the strong emotion.

Jon

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

There is no human right to do whatever you think is necessary to better your chances in some future confrontation. It just doesn’t exist. I can believe, however, that you think it should be a right.

Do I have the right to life?

If yes, then the question is, do I have the right to defend that life? Do I have the right to defend the lives of those close to me who cannot defend themselves?

If yes to that, then why does that right stop short of the right to acquire weaponry that I would consider sufficient to exercise my right to self defense? If I can’t acquire the weaponry sufficient to defend my life and my family’s lives, then my right to self defense has been degraded and by extension, my right to life has also been degraded.

If you want to draw a line somewhere, who should have authority to define that line?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do I have the right to life?

If yes, then the question is, do I have the right to defend that life? Do I have the right to defend the lives of those close to me who cannot defend themselves?

The catechism already says people have a natural right to exercise self defense, so that much is already agreed.

If yes to that, then why does that right stop short of the right to acquire weaponry that I would consider sufficient to exercise my right to self defense?

Because the right to acquire weaponry is a different right. It is not implied by the right to exercise self defense. So no one is drawing an arbitrary line. The distinction is already there in the difference between the two separate rights.

If I can’t acquire the weaponry sufficient to defend my life and my family’s lives, then my right to self defense has been degraded…

No, your right to exercise self defense is a freedom from sin if you should happen to need to act in that manner. That is still true, even when you do not have all the weapons you think you need.

If you really think the right to self defense as specified in the catechism requires the right to have a gun, please answer this question: Is the right to self defense only for those people who have enough money to buy a gun? Your reasoning would seem to say yes.

 

[Rau]

Returning to the original question: What is wrong with having background checks for gun ownership? The expansion of background checks beyond purchases made at gun shops would extend federal control of what ordinary people do between their friends and relatives. If one trades one firearm for another with a friend, it would be considered a crime. How can anyone not see the tyrannical absurdity of that? I see the current controversy as a clever ruse to distract attention away from the current Administration’s foreign policy and domestic security failures while advancing their ideological determination to substantially disarm the population. Do not lose sight of the matter of self-defense. It is a fundamental right of all human beings. Depriving people of the means of self-defense comes easily to those who deny the existence of God and Man created in His image.

Many dangerous goods are often subject to a system of registration. Explosives come to mind. Quietly trading the item with a friend can’t lawfully be done without registering the transaction. Friends and relatives can’t maintain c4 stockpiles either. I appreciate you feel there is a reason to view guns differently.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Australians did a really good job of significantly reducing gun deaths by reducing the number of guns. It can work.

Some people in the US seem fearful all the time, worrying about self-defense. The gun culture imprisons the people in a vicious cycle of fear. Would it not be nice to at least try and strive for freedom from fear?

 

[JonNC]

Australians did a really good job of significantly reducing gun deaths by reducing the number of guns. It can work.

Some people in the US seem fearful all the time, worrying about self-defense. The gun culture imprisons the people in a vicious cycle of fear. Would it not be nice to at least try and strive for freedom from fear?

Sure. Let’s start with disarming criminals, governments, etc. and go from there.

Gun ownership is not about being fearful. It about not needing to be afraid. Its about being prepared. It’s about living free.

thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
Jon

 

[LethalMouse]

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.

Because those who seek to take away.

It is not a matter of my judgement if Rau’s judgment takes away my ability to make a decision.

As it stands it is the actions of men that would take away. Men who in many cases wield power in the circles of Rau. They think as Rau does. Ergo they want to take away. They can not take away as anything but man.

If they are ONLY allowed to take away as man and not teaching than it can not be an objective good to take away.

And since taking away is objectively bad, we have the free will of those who cast the vote to steal.

Perhaps you will say “stealing” in this instance is “subjective”…

But if one person does not want taken from and what they do not want taken is no one’s but theirs and God’s and it is only taken by man. It is unequivocally simply and concisely stealing.

Stealing as you know is in fact a sin.

Ergo what is mine is mine second and God’s first. If it is taken unwillingly not by God, it is stolen. Especially when the motives are interwoven between ignorance, malice, and the lack of personal issue (ie: taking from me because of another). If I commit the crime then by all means take, but if I am innocent and you take, you are guilty of sin.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

If you want to argue that firearms are an immoral means of self-defense, fine. The burden of proof is on you. If they are not shown to be an immoral means, than the only immorality is on your part for attempting to disarm the people.

 

[Rau]

Because those who seek to take away.

It is not a matter of my judgement if Rau’s judgment takes away my ability to make a decision.

As it stands it is the actions of men that would take away. Men who in many cases wield power in the circles of Rau. They think as Rau does. Ergo they want to take away. They can not take away as anything but man.

If they are ONLY allowed to take away as man and not teaching than it can not be an objective good to take away.

And since taking away is objectively bad, we have the free will of those who cast the vote to steal.

Perhaps you will say “stealing” in this instance is “subjective”…

But if one person does not want taken from and what they do not want taken is no one’s but theirs and God’s and it is only taken by man. It is unequivocally simply and concisely stealing.

Stealing as you know is in fact a sin.

Ergo what is mine is mine second and God’s first. If it is taken unwillingly not by God, it is stolen. Especially when the motives are interwoven between ignorance, malice, and the lack of personal issue (ie: taking from me because of another). If I commit the crime then by all means take, but if I am innocent and you take, you are guilty of sin.

I’m not arguing “take it away”, I’m inviting people who propose to live in society to consider which of their many, many freedoms (as individuals) they agree to do without. They already agree to limit their freedoms in many ways in exchange for the betterment of society.

Beyond that, I’ve no clue what you are talking about. Below is link to the CCC on the morality of human acts. Note the essential role of circumstances/consequences, and the obligation on us to make judgements about them,
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm