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

[LeafByNiggle]

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?

I hope we can agree on the obvious. But maybe the reason we do not agree on this point is that this point has not been clearly stated, so that you think it is one thing I I think it is another. So let me try to clarify the point that you say is obvious. Is this your point? -

“The moral right to self-defense includes, implies, and requires a corresponding right to own specific weapons in anticipation of some future need of those weapons for self defense.”

If I have misstated your point, please correct it. But if I have fairly represented your point, it is certainly not obvious from a moral point of view. It may be obvious on a practical point of view - that is, one cannot likely be successful in self defense in some cases if the appropriate weapon was not procured in advance. But that is a practical question - not a moral question. And that is the only question I was addressing when I said I did not concede the point as stated.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One more point as in my mind we are stuck on a very old point which most of us are familiar with too…

military.com/daily-news/2016/06/22/veterans-add-voices-to-gun-control-debate-after-orlando-attacks.html

It makes no difference with a long rifle thus semi-auto so when we talk military and civilian we have a distinction. Look I’m all for transparency but our present administration has us caught up in nonsensical conversation and intentionally which I’m sorry they are affecting the progress we all seek. Had that NOT been the case Collins law for example would have passed, at least the draft in Congress. But they were to busy with bs and well, bureaucracy to be real with us and in fact to safeguard us by sound thinking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I hope we can agree on the obvious. But maybe the reason we do not agree on this point is that this point has not been clearly stated, so that you think it is one thing I I think it is another. So let me try to clarify the point that you say is obvious. Is this your point? -

If I have misstated your point,

You have misstated the point made, which is…

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. Which addressed this point…

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

Your response…

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

And wrongly I might add. But then again perhaps you have a valid response we will hear.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14001352]It has never been “explained”, only claimed. I reject that claim.

Nor has it been disputed adequately. And in light of the position of the founders, that rights come from God, and the means to exercise those rights are included, your rejection of that claim holds only that of personal viewpoint.

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

The interconnectedness of individual liberties and rights means that they have to be viewed and evaluated , not singularly, where they can be picked off one by one by statists that are opposed to individual rights, but collectively where they each contribute to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unfettered by oppressive large central government.

Where does scripture prohibit legimtately authorities from regulating those tools?

The balance of regulating those tools falls exclusively under the premise that then right of the individual is always primary of the power of the state. If regulating the means to exercise a right has the effect of rendering that right ineffective or outside of access, then that regulation is unconstitutional and tyrannical. Regulating or taxing newsprint, for example, that makes it difficult to access is tyrannical.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Quite nicely leads too…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

To paraphrase Cruz, without life there is no liberty, and without liberty there is no pursuit of happiness, and without the right to protect life there can be no life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The thinking is very deliberate and predicated on life.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

One more point as in my mind we are stuck on a very old point which most of us are familiar with too…

military.com/daily-news/2016/06/22/veterans-add-voices-to-gun-control-debate-after-orlando-attacks.html

It makes no difference with a long rifle thus semi-auto so when we talk military and civilian we have a distinction. Look I’m all for transparency but our present administration has us caught up in nonsensical conversation and intentionally which I’m sorry they are affecting the progress we all seek. Had that NOT been the case Collins law for example would have passed, at least the draft in Congress. But they were to busy with bs and well, bureaucracy to be real with us and in fact to safeguard us by sound thinking.

On these practical points of prudential judgement I might tend to agree with you. It is only on the more absolute and general positions of morals, etc, that we disagree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have misstated the point made, which is…

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.

Well, no one can disagree with that. But that is nothing at all like the point you seemed to be making earlier, and it does not lead to the endpoint which I think you are striving for, which is to establish the government does not have the right to regulate guns. When I asked if this was a fair statement of your point, it was the endpoint I was referring to. By making your point this obvious documented fact, you have set up a very difficult task for yourself, to go from this seeming non-sequitur all the way to your ultimate desired endpoint.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Nor has it been disputed adequately. And in light of the position of the founders, that rights come from God

As I said many times before, the founders have no authority to say what comes from God. They can only offer their opinion, which is no more authoritative on the subject of God than my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

As I said many times before, the founders have no authority to say what comes from God. They can only offer their opinion, which is no more authoritative on the subject of God than my opinion.

And neither do you or I. Therefore, as the founding of the nation begins with the premise that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, to undermine that premise has the affect of undermining the very rights established, not by man for each other, as those are not rights at all since they are subject to man’s rescinding them, but antecedent to man and governments established among them.
It may be true that the several states can, through a constitutional amendment authorized by either of the two methods, remove the constitutional protections of those rights (since that is all the constitution does is provide protections for the enumerated rights), but it cannot eliminate the rights themselves, and free men in this country will stand to protect their individual rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

This, from a Brit, no less:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

• St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

If, in fact, the first law of nature is the right of self defense, then the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is an attack on that very first law of nature.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And neither do you or I. Therefore, as the founding of the nation begins with the premise that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights

It is notable that the right to own guns was not listed as one of those unalienable rights.

… to undermine that premise…

except that I am not undermining that premise.

It may be true that the several states can, through a constitutional amendment authorized by either of the two methods, remove the constitutional protections of those rights (since that is all the constitution does is provide protections for the enumerated rights), but it cannot eliminate the rights themselves

Circular reasoning. You are trying prove that the right to own a gun is an inherent human right, but to do so you start by assuming as a premise that it is an inherent human right. Do you know what it means to prove something? Saying the thing you want to prove over and over, maybe in different words, does not qualify as a proof.

This, from a Brit, no less:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

• St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

There you go again, appealing to an authority who has no authority.

If, in fact, the first law of nature is the right of self defense, then the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is an attack on that very first law of nature.

Jon

Inappropriate use of the word “then”, since the first part of the sentence does not imply the second part. The right to self defense is the right to try, not the right to guarantee success.

To look at another inherent right, “the pursuit of happiness”. Notice that they did not say “the achievement of happiness”. The pursuit is an inherent human right. The achievement of what you are pursuing is not. Similarly, the right to self defense is the right to take action when threatened. It is not the right to that action succeeding in defending yourself or others.

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14002655]It is notable that the right to own guns was not listed as one of those unalienable rights.

Not explicitly, but it is certainly expressed in the right to life.

except that I am not undermining that premise.

I didn’t say you were.

Circular reasoning. You are trying prove that the right to own a gun is an inherent human right, but to do so you start by assuming as a premise that it is an inherent human right. Do you know what it means to prove something? Saying the thing you want to prove over and over, maybe in different words, does not qualify as a proof.

I’m not under an obligation to prove it, but it is not circular reasoning to begin with the fact that humans have rights that include the tools needed to exercise those rights.

There you go again, appealing to an authority who has no authority.

You sound like a protestant criticizing the Church Fathers.
I’m not appealing to an authority. I am adding tom the mountains of evidence that rights are not subject to the contemporary whims of the most recent statist viewpoint.

Inappropriate use of the word “then”, since the first part of the sentence does not imply the second part. The right to self defense is the right to try, not the right to guarantee success.

I made no comment about a guarantee of success. I am affirming the fact that a right includes the right to the tools needed to exercise that right. Denial of the means is a denial of the right.

To look at another inherent right, “the pursuit of happiness”. Notice that they did not say “the achievement of happiness”. The pursuit is an inherent human right. The achievement of what you are pursuing is not. Similarly, the right to self defense is the right to take action when threatened. It is not the right to that action succeeding in defending yourself or others.

See above. In fact, it is the progressive misrepresentation of what rights are that gives the false notion that rights are given by government, that this means a guarantee of success, and that others are required to provide the means.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not appealing to an authority. I am adding tom the mountains of evidence that rights are not subject to the contemporary whims of the most recent statist viewpoint.

It may seem that way, but that is because I have been explicitly refraining from posting links to authors, politicians, philosophers, and Church leaders, who agree with my view, which I most certainly could do. But then the discussion would degenerate into who could post the most confirming opinions. Since there are virtually limitless commentaries on this issue on the Internet, both of us could produce a “mountain” of confirming evidence for our side. It would become a contest as to who has more time to waste finding links that support our particular belief. I think maybe arm-wrestling would be a more appropriate solution than that. Or maybe rock, paper, scissors.

I made no comment about a guarantee of success. I am affirming the fact that a right includes the right to the tools needed to exercise that right.

But that’s the same thing. Since you never know for sure what weapons you will need for some future confrontation, the “tools needed” are just a guess. No matter how you guess, you still might not have enough fire power. That is, you cannot guarantee success. Since you are OK with not guaranteeing success, I suggest that you settle for what you can accomplish with your fists, or maybe a big dog - or better locks on your house, or by yelling really loud. In many cases these tools are enough.

Denial of the means is a denial of the right.

That would only be true if we know ahead of time what means were required. Or if every single means was denied to you. Since neither of those is true, the right of self defense is not denied by limiting certain weapons and not others.

 

[JonNC]

=Le

afByNiggle;14002754]It may seem that way, but that is because I have been explicitly refraining from posting links to authors, politicians, philosophers, and Church leaders, who agree with my view, which I most certainly could do. But then the discussion would degenerate into who could post the most confirming opinions. Since there are virtually limitless commentaries on this issue on the Internet, both of us could produce a “mountain” of confirming evidence for our side. It would become a contest as to who has more time to waste finding links that support our particular belief. I think maybe arm-wrestling would be a more appropriate solution than that. Or maybe rock, paper, scissors

.
So, therefore, we trust the conclusions of the framers, as well we should.

But that’s the same thing. Since you never know for sure what weapons you will need for some future confrontation, the “tools needed” are just a guess. No matter how you guess, you still might not have enough fire power. That is, you cannot guarantee success. Since you are OK with not guaranteeing success, I suggest that you settle for what you can accomplish with your fists, or maybe a big dog - or better locks on your house, or by yelling really loud. In many cases these tools are enough.

and a publishers has no idea for sure what new tool he has to acquire in the future. That doesn’t mean he gives up printing, or lets the state dictate his decisions on what he may or may not need.
That I am okay with not guaranteeing success doesn’t mean I want to intentionally disarm my daughter, for example, so that her chances of failing grow dramatically when confronted by a large man with cruel intentions, or the chances of our people maintaining individual liberties in the face of tyranny, foreign or domestic.

That would only be true if we know ahead of time what means were required. Or if every single means was denied to you. Since neither of those is true, the right of self defense is not denied by limiting certain weapons and not others.

This is why the constitution didn’t say the right to keep and bear muskets, or the right to pens and paper. They knew the means to exercise and defend rights would change over time.

The right is certainly denied if the means needed in the current era are denied, just like if computers are denied the local paper, or the internet denied websites with a particular view, even if pencils and pens were still available.

Just as importantly, since the very reason for the constitution is to limit government, to limit it to provide for the general defense and promote the general welfare using the specific enumerated powers, then turning the power of government lose to exclude civilian tools of self defense as in arms, computers as in the free press, is contrary to the purpose of the government and the document itself. IOW, it is subversive.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Can it be immoral to exercise a “right”? Yes, it can be. Here is an example.

Does legitimate authority have the right to impose capital punishment? I imagine we all
agree “Yes”. Does this mean that adopting capital punishment for the worst crimes is moral? No, it does not mean that.

To be moral, Catholic Moral Theology requires - among other things - that an act/choice be anticipated to deliver more good than harm. This is what underpins treatment of capital punishment in the Catechism. While capital punishment is a just punishment in appropriate circumstances, the circumstances (including consequences) - all of them, not just the seriousness of the crime - matter. The specifics of the crime do not themselves determine the morality of the act.

The comparison being drawn is not between applying capital punishment and use of a gun for self defence, but rather between adopting capital punishment and enabling an armed citizenry in our current society. They are distinct moral matters, but like all moral assessment, the criteria to be met for a choice to be moral are the same. That the choice is held to be the exercising of a “right” is not sufficient.

 

[LethalMouse]

Can it be immoral to exercise a “right”? Yes, it can be. Here is an example.

Does legitimate authority have the right to impose capital punishment? I imagine we all
agree “Yes”. Does this mean that adopting capital punishment for the worst crimes is moral? No, it does not mean that.

To be moral, Catholic Moral Theology requires - among other things - that an act/choice be anticipated to deliver more good than harm. This is what underpins treatment of capital punishment in the Catechism. While capital punishment is a just punishment in appropriate circumstances, the circumstances (including consequences) - all of them, not just the seriousness of the crime - matter. The specifics of the crime do not themselves determine the morality of the act.

The comparison being drawn is not between applying capital punishment and use of a gun for self defence, but rather between adopting capital punishment and enabling an armed citizenry in our current society. They are distinct moral matters, but like all moral assessment, the criteria to be met for a choice to be moral are the same. That the choice is held to be the exercising of a “right” is not sufficient.

The difference is positive action. So here for example your capital punishment is a positive action being done.

I would gladly respect a greater variance of discussion as to any positive action taken via a gun in exercise of a right. But the simple fact that one holds something in their possesion is a bit different.

This stands that my having a gun as I exist, does not have any action. Should I use the gun in any particular way, that would be a matter for moral discussion and consideration.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14003112]Can it be immoral to exercise a “right”? Yes, it can be. Here is an example.

Does legitimate authority have the right to impose capital punishment? I imagine we all
agree “Yes”. Does this mean that adopting capital punishment for the worst crimes is moral? No, it does not mean that.

First, authority does not have rights. Authority has powers. Only individuals have rights. The powers that authority has comes from the consent of the people. Only those powers do they have. And the people have the right to take power away from authority.

To be moral, Catholic Moral Theology requires - among other things - that an act/choice be anticipated to deliver more good than harm. This is what underpins treatment of capital punishment in the Catechism. While capital punishment is a just punishment in appropriate circumstances, the circumstances (including consequences) - all of them, not just the seriousness of the crime - matter. The specifics of the crime do not themselves determine the morality of the act.

The comparison being drawn is not between applying capital punishment and use of a gun for self defence, but rather between adopting capital punishment and enabling an armed citizenry in our current society. They are distinct moral matters, but like all moral assessment, the criteria to be met for a choice to be moral are the same. That the choice is held to be the exercising of a “right” is not sufficient.

The difference of course is that, again, you are comparing a power to a right.

In the case of the United States, the constitution has delegated a limited power to the legislative branch to set by statute punishment for crimes, and for the executive to sign such statutes. The limit is set in the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
there are numerous rights involved, including the one I mentioned above. Some would be the provision of counsel (this is the only right the state is required to provide because of the threat of removing other individual rights), due process, trial by jury, an appears process, double jeopardy protection, etc. The state can indeed set the death penalty, because it has that power. It cannot eliminate the rights involved because it does not have the power to eliminate rights.

Finally, no one is “enabling” an armed citizenry. We are not dependent on the permission of government to have and bear arms, nor should we expect government to provide them for us. An armed citizenry has the right to exist without the enabling of or the expectation of enabling by government, because government has no power to enable or eliminate rights, and keeping and bearing arms is a right which is antecedent to and outside of government authority.

Jon

 

[Rau]

The difference is positive action. So here for example your capital punishment is a positive action being done.

I would gladly respect a greater variance of discussion as to any positive action taken via a gun in exercise of a right. But the simple fact that one holds something in their possesion is a bit different.

This stands that my having a gun as I exist, does not have any action. Should I use the gun in any particular way, that would be a matter for moral discussion and consideration.

That misses the point entirely.

Should capital punishment be on the books at all in modern societies? Should modern societies offer unfettered access to weaponry? These are the choices to which I refer. And neither opposes the generic “right” to impose capital punishment or to defend oneself with a gun.

 

[JonNC]

The difference is positive action. So here for example your capital punishment is a positive action being done.

I would gladly respect a greater variance of discussion as to any positive action taken via a gun in exercise of a right. But the simple fact that one holds something in their possesion is a bit different.

This stands that my having a gun as I exist, does not have any action. Should I use the gun in any particular way, that would be a matter for moral discussion and consideration.

Precisely. I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right is not a license to use it in such a way that another’s rights are denied them. “The right to swing my arm ends at your nose”. Nor should my right be held subject to confiscation because others immorally abuse their right.

The government has the power to set the death penalty. We can argue whether or not, or when and when not, it is moral to use that power. What the government cannot do is eliminate the rights of individuals, including protection from cruel and unusual punishment, dues process, etc.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right is certainly denied if the means needed in the current era are denied.

I noticed you added “in the current era” to say that guns are what is required today. But there is no way to tell what weapons are needed until the need arises. Actually, for most people, the need for a lethal weapon will not come up ever in their entire lives. The “need” is a statistical need, not a particular need, like the need for a computer or printing press, which can be predicted in advance by anyone planning on publishing. So it is meaningless to even talk about “the needs of the current era” because they cannot be predicted exactly. Therefore if restrictions are placed on guns, you can’t know for sure if anyone’s right to self-defense has been denied.

 

[Rau]

First, authority does not have rights. Authority has powers. Only individuals have rights. The powers that authority has comes from the consent of the people. Only those powers do they have. And the people have the right to take power away from authority.

The difference of course is that, again, you are comparing a power to a right.

In the case of the United States, the constitution has delegated a limited power to the legislative branch to set by statute punishment for crimes, and for the executive to sign such statutes. The limit is set in the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
there are numerous rights involved, including the one I mentioned above. Some would be the provision of counsel (this is the only right the state is required to provide because of the threat of removing other individual rights), due process, trial by jury, an appears process, double jeopardy protection, etc. The state can indeed set the death penalty, because it has that power. It cannot eliminate the rights involved because it does not have the power to eliminate rights.

Finally, no one is “enabling” an armed citizenry. We are not dependent on the permission of government to have and bear arms, nor should we expect government to provide them for us. An armed citizenry has the right to exist without the enabling of or the expectation of enabling by government, because government has no power to enable or eliminate rights, and keeping and bearing arms is a right which is antecedent to and outside of government authority.

Jon

The 2nd amendment enables an armed citizenry. Were it not there, we’d not be having this discussion at all.

The issue I am addressing is not about legislation or government or powers or “right”. It is about the morality of human choices. The 2nd amendment was a human choice made in framing the society. To leave it be is another choice.

Do you reject the Catholic principles that underpin what determines the morality of our choices? If you accept them, then all that remains is to argue the armed citizenry leads to more good than harm. That last point is an issue for prudential judgement, not a moral principle. [Note: we can take as a given that the Intention in enabling the armed citizenry was good.]