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

[LeafByNiggle]

Now you are making an unsubstantiated claim. In some African situations, famine and starvation has been intentionally used as a political weapon. It’s been used in Syria.

That is usually done as a act of war, against a rebelling faction. It is more properly counted as an act of war than as an act of a government killing its own people. Even still, famines are not caused by guns, so disarming government does not addresses famines. The ridiculous claim that government kills more of its own people than are killed by homicides - is still just a ridiculous claim. Certainly you don’t claim that it true for the US?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No one is talking about reducing anything but restricting already suspect people on the FBI watch list…

Well, yes, that issue has been raised. But the main topic of this thread is background checks, and gun control in general.

Me too, a right given by God, and your right to protect that right-life and by legal self defense.

It has been claimed many times in this thread that God has decreed that man has the right to posses guns, but no one has backed it up. Please don’t bother saying it again unless you can back it up.

If a threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.

Under the right circumstances, the use of force that might be lethal is allowed by God. If you have a gun in your hand, the implication is that under the proper circumstances, you may use that gun, even if it results in a death. On that much we agree. The only question is whether this right of action at the time of an imminent threat automatically translates into the right to keep any weapon you may want, in anticipation of such a need.

Its also true if we throw all guns in the ocean no one will be shot by a gun, but it is not true crime will stop.

No, but accidental shootings would stop. And there is good reason to suppose that some crime will be discouraged.

 

[ricmat]

And there is good reason to suppose that some crime will be discouraged.

Gun smuggling?

It will happen. And just like drug smuggling leads to a huge number of other related crimes, so would gun smuggling.

Of course, if your end-game is for the government to have total control over everything that everybody does and thinks, then this fits right in. We need more government and less freedoms so we can be protected, and only the government can do it. A great plan.

 

[JonNC]

That is usually done as a act of war, against a rebelling faction. It is more properly counted as an act of war than as an act of a government killing its own people. Even still, famines are not caused by guns, so disarming government does not addresses famines. The ridiculous claim that government kills more of its own people than are killed by homicides - is still just a ridiculous claim. Certainly you don’t claim that it true for the US?

Do you have evidence that, in the last century, more people were killed by other citizens than by the over 260 million killed by their own governments? You can repeat over and over again, “it’s a ridiculous claim”, and that doesn’t provide evidence.

Governments with guns, such as in the Horn of Africa, can and does control where food relief goes. Yes, governments do use food as a weapon against its own people.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

savedarfur.org/the-conflict/sudan/

. To this day, the Sudanese government continues its long-standing policy of attacking innocent civilians. In addition to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, forces under the command of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir have carried out attacks against civilians in the disputed Abyei territory, and South Kordofan and Blue Nile States.

Throughout its offensives, the Sudanese government continues to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own civilians. Well over a million civilians have been displaced or severely affected by violence throughout the last two years.

Indiscriminate aerial bombardments and ground attacks are preventing farmers from planting crops in the southern border regions of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and denial of international humanitarian aid has set up a crisis that could near famine conditions.

There are some that consider the state more compassionate, more reliable, than individuals. I see zero evidence of that

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you have evidence that, in the last century, more people were killed by other citizens than by the over 260 million killed by their own governments? You can repeat over and over again, “it’s a ridiculous claim”, and that doesn’t provide evidence.

No, the one who makes the outrageous claim that governments in general are killing their own people in numbers that exceed the homicide rate has the burden to prove it. But I earnestly suggest you not waste your time on that hopeless endeavor. Remember why we got down this rabbit hole. It was to support the equally ridiculous claim that we should be disarming governments rather than citizens. Ultimately it was to decide what to do about gun control in the U.S. As such, unjust governments in the Horn of Africa controlling food relief has no bearing because it is not a gun control issue, and it is not in the U.S. So unless you have some evidence that the U.S. Government should be disarmed, you are wasting your time on this side thread.

Now, getting back to the OP thread, do you have any comments on regulations with background checks?

 

[Rau]

I’m surprised American’s see such a direct relevance for them in the behaviour of African despots. I suppose there will always be events somewhere in the world, or sometime in history, that some can point to as imminent risks to be guarded against, no matter when or where we live. “To ignore history is to repeat it” is a much misused saying!

 

[JonNC]

I’m surprised American’s see such a direct relevance for them in the behaviour of African despots. I suppose there will always be events somewhere in the world, or sometime in history, that some can point to as imminent risks to be guarded against, no matter when or where we live. “To ignore history is to repeat it” is a much misused saying!

Are you of the opinion that African despots differ from European despots or Asian despots or South American despots? Are you convinced that North America is immune from despotism?

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

Legitimate authority (what you call society) has the moral right, according to the catechism, to pass laws and regulations on any matter concerning the common good, as long as those laws and regulations do not violate any moral precept, such as requiring someone to deny their faith.

Ah yes, the old “common good” chestnut. It is ambiguous meaning both everything and nothing. It is however been used consistently by tyrants to deny individual rights. Of course it would appear here. The common good, (if such a thing exists) is the sum total of individual rights since society is made up of (hopefully) consenting and rational individuals. Since no individual’s rights trump another individual’s rights, you will have to come up with a better justification for disarming me.

For example, society can regulate how close to the property line you are allowed to build a garage in the city. The right of society to regulate the placement of a garage does not depend on the act of building a garage being immoral. So why would you think society’s right to regulate guns is dependent on the using of guns being immoral? Why would you think society has the right to regulate building codes, but not the right to regulate the keeping of guns?

Now where did I say that society has the right to decide what I can and cannot do on my private property? Society is made up of individuals. What is immoral for one is immoral for all. Since the individual may only use force in defense of life, liberty, and property, society may only use force when life, liberty or property is in jeopardy.

Strawman argument. Rau was not arguing that firearms are an immoral means of self-defense.

He was strawmanning my argument first.

I repeat: The question on foot is a different one. Whether it is a moral course for a society to make available to all comers, or nearly so, guns. This a matter for prudential judgement. Every society can judge this course of action and make its decision. Arguably your society did this long, long ago. It is a free society, and able to review that choice at any time.

I am a free man and I will disregard that society’s edicts if they infringe on my rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Ah yes, the old “common good” chestnut. It is ambiguous meaning both everything and nothing. It is however been used consistently by tyrants to deny individual rights. Of course it would appear here. The common good, (if such a thing exists) is the sum total of individual rights since society is made up of (hopefully) consenting and rational individuals.

I refer you to the catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1905 and following for a more authoritative definition of the common good. The Church most certainly does teach that there is such a thing, and that it is determined by legitimate authority - not by each individual deciding for himself what it should be.

Since no individual’s rights trump another individual’s rights, you will have to come up with a better justification for disarming me.

I personally have no authority to disarm you, but legitimate authority (I.e. Government) does have that authority, according to the catechism.

Now where did I say that society has the right to decide what I can and cannot do on my private property?

Now you are disputing the legitimacy of building codes? Hardly anyone disputes that. Look closely at the catechism and see if you can find any support for your very limited government philosophy.

 

[Rau]

…I am a free man and I will disregard that society’s edicts if they infringe on my rights.

That’s fine so long as you accept you forfeit the benefits of society.

The society gave you the right to guns and withholds other rights. I assume it is only the right to guns over which you take this extreme stance?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It has been claimed many times in this thread that God has decreed that man has the right to posses guns, but no one has backed it up. Please don’t bother saying it again unless you can back it up.

Oh I never said that. but I am saying …

Nelson Lund
University Professor, George Mason University School of Law

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/not-a-second-class-right-the-second-amendment-today-nelson-lund/interp/2

 

[JonNC]

That’s fine so long as you accept you forfeit the benefits of society.

The society gave you the right to guns and withholds other rights. I assume it is only the right to guns over which you take this extreme stance?

That’s not what the founders of the American republic believed. They believed, as I do, that rights do not come from other people. Rights come from God. The constitution does not grant rights. It protects them.
I don’t speak for starship, but every one of the enumerated rights deserves an extreme stance of defense. As Barry Goldwater so rightly said, “…extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…”

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Life is God given by the catechism Leaf is what I said, to protect life, speech and religion is predicated on the belief in human equality and dignity. A formed conscience of a person can become familiar with the moral law whose author is God himself so in truth we have interconnected concepts predicted on life itself and conscience. Probably as close to this concept early on was Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?

Hes speaking in relation to freedom which is again predicated on life.

 

[Rau]

… rights do not come from other people. Rights come from God. The constitution does not grant rights. It protects them.

Jon

I’m sorry Jon, but I believe that is nonsense. As explained before, labelling an idea a “right” does not mean it comes form God. Writing something down in the framing documents of the US does not establish that idea as a “right from God”.

In the US context, we only read of the right to hold guns in the framing documents for US society. We don’t find it in Scripture. Had it not been written down in the framing documents for US society, we would not be having this discussion. I don’t see the people in other countries, where no such right is granted, clamouring about their “God-given right to own guns”.

 

[JonNC]

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…”
Thomas Paine

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington

Jon

 

[Rau]

…from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies **prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable **… the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good."
George Washington

Tell this to those dying at the hands of gun violence inflicted by fellow US citizens. Tell them that is what George had in mind.

 

[JonNC]

Tell this to those dying at the hands of gun violence inflicted by fellow US citizens. Tell them that is what George had in mind.

It’s interesting how you criticize extreme defense of rights, then offer this extreme misrepresentation of Washington’s intentions.

Actually, that’s not what he had in mind, as you well know. What he had in mind was the avoidance of what happens and has happened in despotic countries. No one, other than some empowered in governments, believes that individuals have the right to misuse their right to arms to hurt others, anymore than one has the right to hurt others using their speech, or press, or other rights.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry Jon, but I believe that is nonsense. As explained before, labelling an idea a “right” does not mean it comes form God. Writing something down in the framing documents of the US does not establish that idea as a “right from God”.

In the US context, we only read of the right to hold guns in the framing documents for US society. We don’t find it in Scripture. Had it not been written down in the framing documents for US society, we would not be having this discussion. I don’t see the people in other countries, where no such right is granted, clamouring about their “God-given right to own guns”.

I think it is explained quite well that the right to self-defense includes by necessity the right to the tools needed. The right to free press cannot be practiced without the right to printing presses, computers, ink, paper, etc. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

Where does scripture prohibit the right to the tools needed to self defense?

Jon

 

[LethalMouse]

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

I’d rather give Rau the chance to hurt me, than to get together in a group of me, Rau, and 8 others…

Then 7 of the 10 decide to take away something and Rau is one of 3 who woukd feel taken from.

I would rather not take from you Rau even if you hurt me, for my doing good and your doing bad are issues we will be judged and dealt with for unto ourselfs.