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

[LethalMouse]

Well, I certainly did not mean it as an insult.

I didnt evem see your original mention, just figured I would toss out why someone might buck against the term

No hurt on my end

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Guns are a lethal weapon. It should have never been so easily accessible to the public, especially assault rifles. In our constitution, we were guaranteed the right to bear arms. Honestly, the rifles or guns from that time period were not as highly effective at killing large numbers of people as guns are now. There is no reason a lethal weapon should be that easily accessible.

 

[JonNC]

Guns are a lethal weapon. It should have never been so easily accessible to the public, especially assault rifles. In our constitution, we were guaranteed the right to bear arms. Honestly, the rifles or guns from that time period were not as highly effective at killing large numbers of people as guns are now. There is no reason a lethal weapon should be that easily accessible.

Availability of “assault rifles”'is extremely limited in the U.S.

Do you apply the same standards you list here to government as well?

Jon

 

[PelagiathePenit]

Availability of “assault rifles”'is extremely limited in the U.S.

Do you apply the same standards you list here to government as well?

Jon

Meaning? Do I think the government should have less access to guns too?

 

[LethalMouse]

Meaning? Do I think the government should have less access to guns too?

I would note, if we did that, I would still have a gun… just you would not.

Power corrupts, absolute power does what?

 

[SilverShadow22]

Guns are a lethal weapon. It should have never been so easily accessible to the public, especially assault rifles. In our constitution, we were guaranteed the right to bear arms. Honestly, the rifles or guns from that time period were not as highly effective at killing large numbers of people as guns are now. There is no reason a lethal weapon should be that easily accessible.

You can’t undo the knowledge of how to make them. The only way to keep things even is for responsible people to own them and have the skills to use them. Having everyone armed to roughly the same level creates a stasis where no one class (citizen, government, criminal, military, police, et al) can easily attain the upper hand. If the power balance tips drastically, someone will always take advantage of that to seize control.

And yes, I know this creates escalation, but there’s no way to avoid that.

The inventor of the Gatlin gun thought it was so terrible a weapon, men would end all wars for fear of using it.

He obviously underestimated human nature.

But letting the government have Gatlins and keeping the citizens restricted to muzzle loading muskets is a recipe for tyranny… And in some cases, that all but happened. If every town’s ‘militia’ (citizenry) has a Gatlin, the army (police, mafia, name a group… Any group) knows it wouldn’t be an easy fight if they decide to go rogue or follow a tyrant or commit general mayhem and conquest. So you have in most cases… A peaceful stasis.

And, uh… Pretty much anything is a so called ‘lethal weapon’…

Pencils, ball bearings, kitchen knives, hammers, cyanide, six or seven plants growing on our property, certain choke holds, my teeth, a balcony window, swimming pools, bathtubs, hair dryers IN the bathtub, plastic bags, wire, string, a syringe filled with air, clay flower pots…

I don’t own a gun. (Not yet.) But rest assured that given just cause, I WOULD find a way to kill someone.

If I didn’t have a conscience, or if I were bent on mayhem, a gun would actually be my last choice. Too loud, too obvious, too limited. So unless you want to ban EVERYTHING that can possibly be turned to ill - which is itself, everything - you need to change your argument.

Everything I listed has a legitimate everyday use, and so you would argue that their benefit outweighs their risk of harm. Your false premise comes in when you assume guns have no legitimate use.

Putting the brakes on a tyrannical government is their first, best, and highest use. Defense of country, home, person, loved ones, and property are all very very valid uses. Even target practice is a valid use.

You have no more right to restrict guns than you do to tell me I can’t sharpen my knives.

 

[JonNC]

Meaning? Do I think the government should have less access to guns too?

Well, yeah. Guns are lethal regardless of the possessor, and in the last century, governments killed over 260 million of their civilians. I can’t see any justification for only governments ( and of course criminals) to have guns.

Jon

 

[mikekle]

You can’t undo the knowledge of how to make them. The only way to keep things even is for responsible people to own them and have the skills to use them. Having everyone armed to roughly the same level creates a stasis where no one class (citizen, government, criminal, military, police, et al) can easily attain the upper hand. If the power balance tips drastically, someone will always take advantage of that to seize control.

And yes, I know this creates escalation, but there’s no way to avoid that.

But letting the government have Gatlins and keeping the citizens restricted to muzzle loading muskets is a recipe for tyranny… And in some cases, that all but happened. If every town’s ‘militia’ (citizenry) has a Gatlin, the army (police, mafia, name a group… Any group) knows it wouldn’t be an easy fight if they decide to go rogue or follow a tyrant or commit general mayhem and conquest. So you have in most cases… A peaceful stasis.

Putting the brakes on a tyrannical government is their first, best, and highest use.

This is the very reason why Govt is on a public ‘campaign’ to try and convince as many people as possible they are right about guns and ‘they’ are the only ones who should have access to ‘certain’ types of weapons…oh yea, Law enforcement too! LOL

In essence, they have found a way around any possible revolution…simply ‘brainwash/ condition’ the public into believing what they want them to believe…its brilliant when you think about it, but sad so many Americans are being that easily duped.

I think a lot of people forget to consider…a tyrannical Govt is never going to come out and admit they ARE tyrannical, they are going to try to disguise this as much as possible.

 

[Hobbes42]

When Socialists speak of “common sense gun laws” they mean we (government and those politically connected) have guns, and you don’t.

The general public has caught onto this and is why restrictive legislation is defeated in all except socialist states.

Ah yes, “der ervil gubmint terk err gerns”. It’s all a Communist conspiracy, there be Reds hiding at every corner, in each manhole to take away the freedom of good, virtuous Christian Americans living in their wonderful city on a hill.

It’s all part of a vast communist conspiracy.

 

[JonNC]

Ah yes, “der ervil gubmint terk err gerns”. It’s all a Communist conspiracy, there be Reds hiding at every corner, in each manhole to take away the freedom of good, virtuous Christian Americans living in their wonderful city on a hill.

It’s all part of a vast communist conspiracy.

Could be fascists, too. Same difference.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is the very reason why Govt is on a public ‘campaign’ to try and convince as many people as possible they are right about guns and ‘they’ are the only ones who should have access to ‘certain’ types of weapons…oh yea, Law enforcement too! LOL

In essence, they have found a way around any possible revolution…simply ‘brainwash/ condition’ the public into believing what they want them to believe…its brilliant when you think about it, but sad so many Americans are being that easily duped.

I think a lot of people forget to consider…a tyrannical Govt is never going to come out and admit they ARE tyrannical, they are going to try to disguise this as much as possible.

While it is the moral right of the people to rise up and revolt against a truly tyrannical government, it is also the right of a legitimate non-tyranical government to regulate the means to such a revolution. It is the community’s form of the right to corporate self-defense.

Also, according to the Catechism, the standard for determining that a government is illegitimate and not acting for the common good and a moral target for revolution, is extremely high. See sections 1897-1917, and especially section 2243, which is quoted here:
*Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. *

 

[SilverShadow22]

While it is the moral right of the people to rise up and revolt against a truly tyrannical government, it is also the right of a legitimate non-tyranical government to regulate the means to such a revolution. It is the community’s form of the right to corporate self-defense.

Also, according to the Catechism, the standard for determining that a government is illegitimate and not acting for the common good and a moral target for revolution, is extremely high. See sections 1897-1917, and especially section 2243, which is quoted here:
*Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. *

And we are almost there right now.

One more impossibly stupid president acting more dictator than leader, and I’ll be 100% convinced that there’s no way to get a decent human being into power other than a full reset.

I’m 90% convinced right now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And we are almost there right now.

One more impossibly stupid president acting more dictator than leader, and I’ll be 100% convinced that there’s no way to get a decent human being into power other than a full reset.

I’m 90% convinced right now.

Please tell me how convinced you are of condition #3, and support that position with a reasonable argument. Then show how you can justify condition #4. These are the conditions I think are the hardest to meet.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Please tell me how convinced you are of condition #3, and support that position with a reasonable argument. Then show how you can justify condition #4. These are the conditions I think are the hardest to meet.

I don’t have to justify anything because we aren’t there yet.

 

[starshiptrooper]

This is false. Legitimate government draws its power from God, not from the people. For example, a benevolent monarchy could be a legitimate government, according to the catechism, even though it does not hold elections or offer a direct way for the people to give their assent to that power. Since your premise is false, all that you derived from it is equally false.

Unless God is going to come down and give a prophet some stone tablets with laws written on them and perform signs and wonders, we have no practical means of determining which governments are divinely approved now do we? Since we are all both equal in the eyes of God, and independent, the only moral foundation for government is consent.

I do not see how my comment about the legitimacy of building codes is a bandwagon fallacy.

You said that hardly anyone disputes the legitimacy of building codes. That is the bandwagon fallacy because a bad idea is still a bad idea even if it is unquestioned by everyone.

Good. Then we can conclude that the idea of very limited government powers is an area that people of good faith can adopt or not, as they see fit. You are free to adopt it. I am free to reject it.

You are the one who tried to justify your argument as more Catholic, not me.

OK, so you are a libertarian. We get it.

I prefer to be called a minarchist or a classical liberal. The current Libertarian party is too concerned with celebrating degenerate behavior instead of simply realizing that it is best dealt with when the state is not involved.

While it is the moral right of the people to rise up and revolt against a truly tyrannical government, it is also the right of a legitimate non-tyranical government to regulate the means to such a revolution. It is the community’s form of the right to corporate self-defense.

When statists like yourself discuss the 4th Amendment, they often say, “If you have nothing to hid, there is no reason to object to a search.” It is time to flip that argument on its head. If the government is not tyrannical, it has no reason to fear a revolt and thus no reason to regulate the means of revolution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Unless God is going to come down and give a prophet some stone tablets with laws written on them and perform signs and wonders, we have no practical means of determining which governments are divinely approved now do we? Since we are all both equal in the eyes of God, and independent, the only moral foundation for government is consent.

The sections of the Catechism that I cited imply that all governments are empowered by God, except those very strictly defined ones against which it is moral to revolt. So unless you can make a case for all five requirements listed, it is immoral to take up arms against your government.

When statists like yourself…

Now, now. Name-calling is against the rules of the forum.

… they often say, “If you have nothing to hid, there is no reason to object to a search.” It is time to flip that argument on its head. If the government is not tyrannical, it has no reason to fear a revolt and thus no reason to regulate the means of revolution.

That argument was no good flipped on its head or right-side up.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented along the lines that Christians are the best subjects and the worst patriots.

In the name of charity, kindness, patience, and pacifism, they allow themselves to be used and abused until they finally, finally reach the unbearable and break.

For all that he got wrong, I agree with this sentiment. Hiding behind ‘peace’ and ‘order’, we allow our laws to become twisted, our rights to be whittled away, our children slaughtered, our culture corrupted to utter rot, and lie in a gluttonous stupor of our own decadence, until finally, finally, we realize that the only thing left for them to take is our lives.

By that time, if there’s a single sane and able-bodied American left (because we’re so busy glutting on calories while simultaneously starving of nutrients), the situation will be so horrible that assuring those ‘conditions’ for a ‘just revolt’ will be all but impossible.

We’re either going to fall to tyranny, or snap awake at the last possible moment and have rampant chaos as everyone panics at once.

… Maybe we should have pushed back a little sooner, hmmm? But we were all so distracted by the shiny promises of industry…

 

[starshiptrooper]

The sections of the Catechism that I cited imply that all governments are empowered by God, except those very strictly defined ones against which it is moral to revolt. So unless you can make a case for all five requirements listed, it is immoral to take up arms against your government.

Wrong, you apparently missed paragraph 1901. “If authority belongs to the order established by God, the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” In other words, the strongest among you may not wear a crown.

Now, now. Name-calling is against the rules of the forum.

Accurate term is accurate given your comments on the primacy of the state over the individual.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wrong, you apparently missed paragraph 1901. “If authority belongs to the order established by God, the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.” In other words, the strongest among you may not wear a crown.

Here is a little more thoughtful commentary on 1901. It addresses the question “Is Democracy the Only Acceptable Form of Government?” in the negative by saying

St. Thomas warns that if society tries to mandate virtue disproportionately to its citizens, they will rebel and commit greater vices. Consequently, since all human societies will be imperfect, any form of government that orders itself according to natural law, virtuous order, and the natural rights – as seen by Natural Law – of its citizens is acceptable. To be clear, there is no utopia or utopian government is Catholic political thought.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented along the lines that Christians are the best subjects and the worst patriots.

In the name of charity, kindness, patience, and pacifism, they allow themselves to be used and abused …

My hero, Jesus, allowed himself to be used and abused on Good Friday. I think none the less of Him for that. I care more about what He thinks than what Rousseau thinks.

For all that he got wrong, I agree with this sentiment. Hiding behind ‘peace’ and ‘order’, we allow our laws to become twisted, our rights to be whittled away, our children slaughtered, our culture corrupted to utter rot, and lie in a gluttonous stupor of our own decadence, until finally, finally, we realize that the only thing left for them to take is our lives.

By reserving armed rebellion for only the most extreme cases, I am in no way advocating a passive response in other ways. There are many active things that can be done when the rulers are not acting for the common good. Things such as encouraging like-minded people, recruiting people to our view, voting, campaigning, petitioning, etc. There is no reason a Christian should cut back in these efforts, just because he is reluctant to pick up a gun and start shooting police.

By that time, if there’s a single sane and able-bodied American left (because we’re so busy glutting on calories while simultaneously starving of nutrients), the situation will be so horrible that assuring those ‘conditions’ for a ‘just revolt’ will be all but impossible.

So, you are advocating skipping some of the conditions of the catechism because you think there will never be a better opportunity to revolt than now? Well, my view is that following the catechism is more important than missing an opportunity to revolt.

… Maybe we should have pushed back a little sooner, hmmm? …

Yes, push back, by all means! But not by armed rebellion, unless and until all 5 conditions have been satisfied.