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

[Rau]

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

If you can square that away with Catholic principals concerning morality, please explain it to me. Please explain how the judgement about the consequences of an armed to the teeth citizenry, somehow, don’t matter, despite consequences residing in one of the 3 fonts of morality. The best you can argue is that the consequences of an armed citizenry is “good”. *

Do you see harm in every citizen having a printing press? Is it just the same with inherently dangerous goods, like guns?

The point is not what Scripture prohibits - but rather to note that it does not express the right you claim is from God.*

 

[Rau]

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.

Again - I am unclear what you are trying to say.

I’d suggest the 10 of “us” can make the rules under which we’ll live as a group. As did the framers of the US society. If we can’t do that, we may need to part company. Or if a bunch of us no longer find those rules satisfactory, we can explore processes to revise them. And once again, if we can’t live with the result, some may have to party company or sign up again.

 

[Rau]

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 acquire specific armaments to mount a self-defence in future is not from God. God takes no position on that whatsoever. This is a right the US framers wrote down. It’s one that US citizens are free to review at any time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“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

You need to decide in what context you are arguing. If you are arguing in the context of American law, then quoting people as authorities on American law as you are doing would be appropriate. But if you are attempting to argue in the universal context of human rights given by God, you have to stop quoting these men as authorities. They have no authority outside of American law, and I am free to set my own personal opinion up against theirs. So quoting them as authorities does nothing to advance your cause with me.

Even though you are not Catholic, there ought to be plenty of common Christian principles that we would have to agree on, so why not start there and look for justification for your view exclusively in those principles?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh I never said that. but I am saying …

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

As a secular legal authority, this source is probably as good as any other. But if you base your argument on the authority of such people, your conclusion will only apply to US law. And I suspect you want it to apply universally, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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 do not recognize the authority of the US founders outside of the borders of the US. And then only in secular legal matters. I look to the catechism for my morals.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think it is explained quite well that the right to self-defense includes by necessity the right to the tools needed

It has never been “explained”, only claimed. I reject that claim.

The right to free press cannot be practiced without the right to printing presses, computers, ink, paper, etc. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

The right to a free press is an invention my man. It does not exist in scripture.

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

Jon

Where does scripture prohibit legimtately authorities from regulating those tools?

 

[GaryTaylor]

As a secular legal authority, this source is probably as good as any other. But if you base your argument on the authority of such people, your conclusion will only apply to US law. And I suspect you want it to apply universally, right?

The link was an example of correct US understanding of the Constitution followed by Catholic teaching in the following post. All rights are predicated on life by our conscience including the right to defend life, freedom and speech and religion and all are intimately connected, Which is right by US law linked and by the Church.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his dept

Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

“Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths”

I think it is explained quite well that the right to self-defense includes by necessity the right to the tools needed

Jon is correct its OT teaching with David further by Christ and nuanced from OT to NT by Christ and conscience in Church teaching.

Its absolute that just war is a fact and so is the death penalty with rare cases where pure evil must be put down. The fact David used whatever tools existed only indicates obviously no guns existed. But David and Sword control was non sequitur.

1 Samuel 25:13:

And David said to his men, “Every man strap on his sword!” And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage.

Psalm 144:1, [David]- “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…”

Luke 22:35-38 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The fact one believes different in the US with law which YOU mention or with the Church teaching is quite understandable after all don’t we have those who promote the oddities of the Catholic-Democrat, Apparently life isn’t a right to them so it really should be no secret at this point variance exists. If life isn’t God given then nothing else is predicated by God on it either. Should be no secret in sequence how we arrived here.

catholics4truth.com/2016/01/07/the-new-catholic-heretic-the-democrat/comment-page-1/

Democrats, first and foremost, defy Jesus Christ in that they are the champions of the ‘culture of death.’ Democrats federally fund Planned Parenthood, performing thousands of abortions daily all across our nation. Democrats are the party of the HHS mandate, which forces Christian businesses to coerce employees into paying for contraceptives and abortifacients. Democrats are also the party of the coming storm: increased legality concerning euthanasia, and the growth of the cloning business.

Democrats are also iconoclasts. Democrats are the party of gay ‘marriage,’ holding the key to Pandora’s box, which might broaden marriage in strange and scary ways such as polygamy and pedophilia. Democrats, moreover, against the sacred words of Scripture, and the perennial teaching of the Apostles, ‘normalize’ homosexuality, making it acceptable through propaganda, and the enormous pressure of political correctness.

Thanks

 

[GaryTaylor]

Man fashioned tools to live and I would have think with a sharp point and a rock was probably among the first tools used. The way humans make and use tools is perhaps what sets our species apart more than anything else in hunting gathering and protection of life. Its a documented fact.

“So the hominids at this time, based on all the evidence that we have, had small australopithecine-sized brains, but nevertheless they figured out how to cut through often tough hide to efficiently get the meat off the bones and break the bones open for the marrow,” said paleoanthropologist Henry Bunn at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

This was the extent of the technology for nearly a million years. “It was probably very ad hoc — when you needed a stone tool and you didn’t have one, just made one, then dropped it,” said paleoanthropologist Thomas Wynn at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

So to be clear tools and weapons are mutually exclusive.

 

[LethalMouse]

Again - I am unclear what you are trying to say.

I’d suggest the 10 of “us” can make the rules under which we’ll live as a group. As did the framers of the US society. If we can’t do that, we may need to part company. Or if a bunch of us no longer find those rules satisfactory, we can explore processes to revise them. And once again, if we can’t live with the result, some may have to party company or sign up again.

So, Rau if you vote to take away from me and I say that I will just stay in my house and not bother you…

Will your law provide that?

Or will your law come get me and force comply?

If I do not open my door will you break it down?

If I do not let go of my stuff will you force it from my hand?

You suggest we “part ways”

So my only option to keep some of my stuff if Rau decides to take it, is to lose my house, my land, etc?

Now with a fully claimed earth were someone claims dominion over every inch and has an army to enforce it…where can I go where I am not subject to whims of the corrupt?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, Rau if you vote to take away from me and I say that I will just stay in my house and not bother you…

Will your law provide that?

Or will your law come get me and force comply?

If I do not open my door will you break it down?

If I do not let go of my stuff will you force it from my hand?

You suggest we “part ways”

So my only option to keep some of my stuff if Rau decides to take it, is to lose my house, my land, etc?

Now with a fully claimed earth were someone claims dominion over every inch and has an army to enforce it…where can I go where I am not subject to whims of the corrupt?

What you are describing is much more general than gun control. You are challenging the very right of people to form legitimate government on any matter whatsoever. You are essentially advocating anarchy. This is clearly in conflict with the catechism, which in many places confirms the moral validity of legitimate authority and our responsibility toward that authority. Are you sure you want to take on that task?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What you are describing is much more general than gun control. You are challenging the very right of people to form legitimate government on any matter whatsoever. You are essentially advocating anarchy. This is clearly in conflict with the catechism, which in many places confirms the moral validity of legitimate authority and our responsibility toward that authority. Are you sure you want to take on that task?

What came to mind with his thinking is the Patriot Act. I think he has a point. I think the mistaken thinking is challenging the right of people to form government. I expect that but we also are called to be a balance with overreaching government gone astray by the very principles we have discussed above.

A government advocating a law as we see historically doesn’t make them always right as with Hitler or slavery or abortion and on and on. I doubt one would argue “confirms the moral validity of legitimate authority” in such cases.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think it is explained quite well that the right to self-defense includes by necessity the right to the tools needed

I also think for the sake of progress and right thinking we all need to concede this point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I also think for the sake of progress and right thinking we all need to concede this point.

I most certainly do not concede it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What came to mind with his thinking is the Patriot Act. I think he has a point. I think the mistaken thinking is challenging the right of people to form government. I expect that but we also are called to be a balance with overreaching government gone astray by the very principles we have discussed above.

A government advocating a law as we see historically doesn’t make them always right as with Hitler or slavery or abortion and on and on. I doubt one would argue “confirms the moral validity of legitimate authority” in such cases.

Quite right. And the catechism and other Church documents do address that issue. Fairly complete criteria are laid out that say when a government is no longer acting legitimately, or for the common good. There are even conditions on when it might be morally valid to institute a revolt against such a government. So the Church has never said that every government is legitimate and must be obeyed. But the conditions on declaring a revolution are quite strict and do not give license to every anarchist movement one might decide to launch.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I most certainly do not concede it.

I see, did you say you had a rational reason though? How are we ever going to make progress if we can’t agree on the obvious?

 

[Rau]

I also think for the sake of progress and right thinking we all need to concede this point.

An individual facing an aggressor can access whatever tool appropriate to defend himself (subject to the consequences being proportionate).

That is an entirely different question to the following: “Is it a wise, or moral, choice to grant all citizens in society relatively unfettered access to weaponry?” If the reasonably foreseeable consequences for all persons of that choice are (on balance) good, then the choice may very well be a moral one. If the foreseeable consequences are (on balance) bad, then the choice is certainly immoral. That is the moral theology we as Catholics accept, and note that views on “individual rights” are simply not part of the analysis. Individuals may of course form different, good faith, judgements as to the goodness or otherwise of consequences of this choice, but that is really all that should be in debate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But the conditions on declaring a revolution are quite strict and do not give license to every anarchist movement one might decide to launch.

And imho as indicated right above this is what your invoking and by government advocation of bureaucracy marked at the moment by red tape as your their representative!!!

 

[LethalMouse]

What you are describing is much more general than gun control. You are challenging the very right of people to form legitimate government on any matter whatsoever. You are essentially advocating anarchy. This is clearly in conflict with the catechism, which in many places confirms the moral validity of legitimate authority and our responsibility toward that authority. Are you sure you want to take on that task?

No, not at all am I an advocate of anarchy. But I do not support taking from Rau. If Rau needs taken from it would be weighed with heavy thought and consideration beyobd flagrant emotional, ignorance, and knee jerk reactions.

Laws are necessary and many could be highly simplified. There is unfortunately so much horrible and not just in the acts of the criminal but in the justification of the self righteous.

To law to take beyond morality that me and Rau share of our faith is a grave matter for consideration. One that Rau is more inclined to follow the will of Rau and I am not willing to follow the will of LM.

To say Rau has commited crimes and needs tempered is something to consider. But to go alll minotiry report and implement things to make an innocent Rau my chained house pet is not something to consider.

In this law is what we can not do. If you break that law then you deal with it. But it is not what you can not do just to make it falsely harder for you to not do what is already not allowed.

So someone else brought up cars, some people have driven through crowds… driving through crowds is illegal, cars are not.

Some people use the internet to steal, to exploit children, to do many things that are terrible. These things are illegal, the internet is not.

I would not take Rau’s car because John Doe drove through a crowd

I would not take Rau’s internet because someone stole my bank money, or exploited etc…

This is not anarchy, this is a civilization of laws and not a civilization of slavery.

 

[GaryTaylor]

An individual facing an aggressor can access whatever tool appropriate to defend himself (subject to the consequences being proportionate).

That is an entirely different question to the following: “Is it a wise, or moral, choice to grant all citizens in society relatively unfettered access to weaponry?” .

I conceded this point already in my link above and no one disagrees we should not have nuclear weapons in our home or for personal use as stated by the Professor above. No one is arguing the validity of the second amendment to bear arms either. The question is only what arms or tools are they allowed to have under the understandable conditions of citizenship? Which leads to here…

If the reasonably foreseeable consequences for all persons of that choice are (on balance) good, then the choice may very well be a moral one. If the foreseeable consequences are (on balance) bad, then the choice is certainly immoral. That is the moral theology we as Catholics accept, and note that views on “individual rights” are simply not part of the analysis. Individuals may of course form different, good faith, judgements as to the goodness or otherwise of consequences of this choice, but that is really all that should be in debate.

I see no conflict of thinking here and its pretty much like thinking with my posting.