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

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14017057]No compromise on individual rights, eh? I would think that the right to spend my own money the way I want is an individual right. Yet when we live in a society, one of the things that society may legitimately do is levy taxes. Suppose my state decides to spend some tax money on building an expressway right through my favorite park. It is not how I would choose to spend my money. If what you are saying is true, the state has no right to compromise my individual right to spend my money as I see fit. You have essentially ruled out all taxes. That can’t be right, can it?

There is a constitutional amendment granting the central government the power to impose an income tax.

But you are right in one sense. There are certain, very few, individual rights that no legitimate government can morally take from me. One of those is the right to life. Your task is to prove that the right to remain anonymous about my guns is one of those rights. Do you really think you can make that case that anonymity is one of those basic fundamental human rights?

It is my task. There is enough evidence that registration often leads to confiscation. As I said, the issuing of concealed carry licenses requires states to know who has those particular firearms. I have no problem with that. In every instance you seem to take the position that individual rights are to be questioned. I take the position that government power should always be questioned.

As a general goal I can applaud efforts in that direction. But I would not turn it into an absolute. If you found out that an unusually large number of weapons were being accumulated at a mosque in your town, would you be just as supportive of their right to anonymity?

Is there reason to believe that they are planning to use said weapons in an illegal way?
Or Re we profiling here?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a constitutional amendment granting the central government the power to impose an income tax.

But didn’t you just say that government should not compromise individual rights? Just because it’s a constitutional amendment does not automatically make it moral, does it?

It is my task. There is enough evidence that registration often leads to confiscation.

“Often”? Like, half the time? Or 10% of the time? You seem to be discussing the wisdom of registration. That is a different question. I am only interested in discussing the morality of registration, since your initial objection to registration was on moral grounds. If you want to argue that registration is ineffective, I won’t dispute it. But I will dispute it if you claim that registration is immoral.

As I said, the issuing of concealed carry licenses requires states to know who has those particular firearms. I have no problem with that.

Why is one thing moral and the other thing not moral?

In every instance you seem to take the position that individual rights are to be questioned. I take the position that government power should always be questioned.

No, I take the position that everything should be questioned.

Is there reason to believe that they are planning to use said weapons in an illegal way?

Ah! That’s the real difficulty, isn’t it? We can’t always know for sure. We can estimate. We can guess. But unless someone confesses, or we get a lucky break, we only have probabilities to go on. But in the case of terrorism, or revolution, the hazards are so great that even low probabilities are of concern. That is the basis for the rigorous passenger screening at airports. Everyone is subjected to an inconvenient ordeal, even though only a tiny fraction of the people traveling have evil intent. Similarly, it is reasonable to be concerned about a group of people accumulating a large cache of weapons. With the best of investigative techniques, we still might not know for sure.

 

[LucyEm]

The longer the thread goes on, the higher the % of polled who favour background checks.

I think the case has been made (by Leaf and Rau especially) that the standing of this “right” to carry guns in US society today is somewhat less than a “human right”, or a right arising from other than ourselves.

And as Rau pointed out earlier, the critical issue is not about “individual rights”. The critical issue is about choosing the moral course. What is the moral choice in 21st century USA ? I, and I hope many of my countrymen/women will come around to the view that an armed citizenry is unwise - the foreseeable consequences are not good. And individual “rights” is just not part of that moral assessment (to repeat what Rau has already explained).

Unfortunately - the Constitution does make it a challenge to redress the situation.

 

[JonNC]

The longer the thread goes on, the higher the % of polled who favour background checks.

I think the case has been made (by Leaf and Rau especially) that the standing of this “right” to carry guns in US society today is somewhat less than a “human right”, or a right arising from other than ourselves.

And as Rau pointed out earlier, the critical issue is not about “individual rights”. The critical issue is about choosing the moral course. What is the moral choice in 21st century USA ? I, and I hope many of my countrymen/women will come around to the view that an armed citizenry is unwise - the foreseeable consequences are not good. And individual “rights” is just not part of that moral assessment (to repeat what Rau has already explained).

Unfortunately - the Constitution does make it a challenge to redress the situation.

The problem is Rau is wrong. The SCOTUS recognizes it as a right which is antecedent to government. It, like all other enumerated rights, are protected by, not established by the constitution.
As for its morality, considering the willingness of governments throughout history to kill their own citizens, not to mention rule by tyranny, makes it obvious that the moral position is one that recognizes the right of citizens to have the tools to protect their liberty from tyranny, foreign or domestic. It is immoral to deny them this basic human and civil right.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14017278]But didn’t you just say that government should not compromise individual rights? Just because it’s a constitutional amendment does not automatically make it moral, does it?

Where is the lack of taxation an enumerated right? I will agree, however, that income taxes are inconsistent with the American model, just as property taxes are.

“Often”? Like, half the time? Or 10% of the time? You seem to be discussing the wisdom of registration. That is a different question. I am only interested in discussing the morality of registration, since your initial objection to registration was on moral grounds. If you want to argue that registration is ineffective, I won’t dispute it. But I will dispute it if you claim that registration is immoral.

So, why are you the one who gets to dictate the terms of the discussion? It seems to me that both the wisdom and the morality are important issues. As for the morality, see my previous comment about the morality to LucyEm. I would consider it immoral to give the government the tools to make confiscation of firearms easier. Registration at the federal level would do that.

Why is one thing moral and the other thing not moral?

Because of the roles each level of government has. State government does not have the power to rule dictatorially.

No, I take the position that everything should be questioned.

When it comes to rights, I consider that a dangerous position.

Ah! That’s the real difficulty, isn’t it? We can’t always know for sure. We can estimate. We can guess. But unless someone confesses, or we get a lucky break, we only have probabilities to go on. But in the case of terrorism, or revolution, the hazards are so great that even low probabilities are of concern. That is the basis for the rigorous passenger screening at airports. Everyone is subjected to an inconvenient ordeal, even though only a tiny fraction of the people traveling have evil intent. Similarly, it is reasonable to be concerned about a group of people accumulating a large cache of weapons. With the best of investigative techniques, we still might not know for sure.

You seem to underestimate the ability of our law enforcement and espionage communities. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist threats they have thwarted. But since we are talking about morality, it is immoral and tyrannical to confiscate individual rights from all simply because a few abuse them. The problem here is the prospect of confiscating two of them: the right to keep and bear arms, and due process.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

The problem is Rau is wrong. The SCOTUS recognizes it as a right which is antecedent to government. It, like all other enumerated rights, are protected by, not established by the constitution.

Jon

Sure, preceding the US government. So what? Governments come along after framing documents.

And you reckon Scotus is an authority on human rights?! That’s a very funny idea. Men proposed some rights and wrote them down. Scotus later gives tick of approval. Bingo - a human right is born.

Hey - scoutus also takes them away too. They’re the fellas who concluded abortion was a right (or is that a licence?!).

 

[JonNC]

Sure, preceding the US government. So what? Governments come along after framing documents.

And you reckon Scotus is an authority on human rights?! That’s a very funny idea. Men proposed some rights and wrote them down. Scotus later gives tick of approval. Bingo - a human right is born.

Hey - scoutus also takes them away too. They’re the fellas who concluded abortion was a right (or is that a licence?!).

Actually, I don’t. The progressives on the Court, the same ones who wish to eliminate free religious exercise , due process, free speech, and gun rights are the ones who believe they can establish and grant rights (and confiscate them). That is contrary to how this country was founded, and we can see the results. They established a “right” that by design kills. That’s not how rights are supposed to work. But some here are arguing using the same process to eliminate enumerated rights.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

Actually, I don’t. The progressives on the Court, the same ones who wish to eliminate free religious exercise , due process, free speech, and gun rights are the ones who believe they can establish and grant rights (and confiscate them). That is contrary to how this country was founded, and we can see the results. They established a “right” that by design kills. That’s not how rights are supposed to work. But some here are arguing using the same process to eliminate enumerated rights.

Jon

Well Jon, the people established this one about guns, so it follows they can give their Goverment powers to limit it.

 

[JonNC]

Well Jon, the people established this one about guns, so it follows they can give their Goverment powers to limit it.

No, they didn’t. What the people through the constitution established was a protection of that right, not its establishment. However, if you’re okay with rights being confiscated by majority rule, then you cannot complain about:
Abortion
The HHS mandate
The requirement that priests perform gay "marriage " (it is coming)
The requirement that Catholic hospitals and doctors perform abortions (it is coming, too)

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

No, they didn’t. What the people through the constitution established was a protection of that right, not its establishment. However, if you’re okay with rights being confiscated by majority rule, then you cannot complain about:
Abortion
The HHS mandate
The requirement that priests perform gay "marriage " (it is coming)
The requirement that Catholic hospitals and doctors perform abortions (it is coming, too)

Jon

The right was just there was it?? . From God? So that’s what scotus advised was it? You’re saying scotus are theologians or something?? C’mon… Be proud of our history but don’t pretend God guided the very hands of the founders.

I’m ok with the people revising the extent of their claim on man-made rights which don’t serve their interests. I’m not ok with pretending that widespread gun ownership in 21st C USA is a right ordained by God.

 

[JonNC]

The right was just there was it?? . From God? So that’s what scotus advised was it? You’re saying scotus are theologians or something?? C’mon… Be proud of our history but don’t pretend God guided the very hands of the founders.

I’m ok with the people revising the extent of their claim on man-made rights which don’t serve their interests. I’m not ok with pretending that widespread gun ownership in 21st C USA is a right ordained by God.

You effectively dodged the issue. If you’ve read the thread, you will notice that the SCOTUS states the right as an “ancient right”. Again,cut you believe that the founders were wrong when they said we are endowed by our creator with our rights, fine, but then you must accept abortion and the other “rights” the progressive movement "established ". You must also be willing to relinquish your other rights: due process, speech, etc.
Furthermore, I’m willing to consider giving up my arms when government gives up arms and can guarantee that criminals do not have them.

Jon

 

[Bill1940]

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.

You are absolutely correct. I find the so-called discussion of what would work and so on to be inane. Fury will find its weapon. Gun-controllers are insatiable. they will never have enough control until they have us cutting our food with plastic knives. The issue is contemporaneous with and part of the push toward globalization. No more nation-states, no borders, global taxation, energy resources meted out by some UN agency, and all this is antithetical to even a remnant of individual liberty. The good news is that Utopia is “nowhere”, and at some point, people reject it. Brexit Folks!

 

[SilverShadow22]

The right was just there was it?? . From God? So that’s what scotus advised was it? You’re saying scotus are theologians or something?? C’mon… Be proud of our history but don’t pretend God guided the very hands of the founders.

I’m ok with the people revising the extent of their claim on man-made rights which don’t serve their interests. I’m not ok with pretending that widespread gun ownership in 21st C USA is a right ordained by God.

Self defense IS a right ordained by God. You can’t defend yourself if you’re limited to pop guns while everyone else has real weaponry. And that’s exactly what they want: all the good people with nothing but pitchforks, while both government and criminals (nearly one and the same, at this point) have machine guns and tanks.

This is unacceptable.

Hence, any government limitation (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty explicit!!) on our access to weapons serves their interests and not the peoples’, is automatically suspect, and is therefore immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is Rau is wrong. The SCOTUS recognizes it as a right which is antecedent to government.

The SCOTUS also recognizes a women’s right to an abortion, and the right for gay people to marry. I would not trust that just because the SCOTUS says something, it is true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As for its morality, considering the willingness of governments throughout history to kill their own citizens, not to mention rule by tyranny, makes it obvious that the moral position is one that recognizes the right of citizens to have the tools to protect their liberty from tyranny, foreign or domestic.

I would be more concerned about the right of the people to protect themselves from anarchy, which is often the result of those who say they are fighting tyranny.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Where is the lack of taxation an enumerated right?

I did not say it was a right enumerated in the constitution. But it does follow from the right to spend my own money the way I see fit. Regardless of whether that right has been recognized by any legal document, what do you think about it? Do you think there should be a right for me to spend all the money I earn as I see fit, or not?

So, why are you the one who gets to dictate the terms of the discussion?

That was just my way of saying I don’t disagree with you on that question. What? You want to argue about what we agree on too???

It seems to me that both the wisdom and the morality are important issues. As for the morality, see my previous comment about the morality to LucyEm. I would consider it immoral to give the government the tools to make confiscation of firearms easier.

Well, I consider it moral.

Registration at the federal level would do that.

Why do you specify “federal” level? Are you any happier with registration at the state or local level?

Because of the roles each level of government has. State government does not have the power to rule dictatorially.

When I asked “Why is one thing moral and the other thing immoral”, I was referring to your statement that you have “no problem” with registration associated with a concealed carry license, while you do have a problem with registration of guns in general. So it appears your answer is that the concealed carry registration is OK because it is done by the state, but gun registration in general would be done by the federal government. I can see how this might be a states’ rights issue, but I can’t see how it can be a moral issue. If it is immoral for the federal government to register guns, then it would be just as immoral for the State of California to register guns. No?

You seem to underestimate the ability of our law enforcement and espionage communities. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist threats they have thwarted. But since we are talking about morality, it is immoral and tyrannical to confiscate individual rights from all simply because a few abuse them. The problem here is the prospect of confiscating two of them: the right to keep and bear arms, and due process.

Jon

Well, both the right to keep and bear arms and the due process or constitutionally enumerated rights, and therefore do not define morality. Furthermore, even on a legal basis, it is not an issue of due process. Due process refers to the process of determining the guilt of an individual. If everyone is treated the same, there is no guilt presumed, and no violation of due process. You could just as well say that due process is violated by the extensive passenger screening at airports. We are all inconvenienced, even though there is no “due process” showing that any one of us is guilty, or likely to be guilty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, I don’t. The progressives on the Court, the same ones who wish to eliminate free religious exercise , due process, free speech, and gun rights are the ones who believe they can establish and grant rights (and confiscate them). That is contrary to how this country was founded, and we can see the results. They established a “right” that by design kills. That’s not how rights are supposed to work. But some here are arguing using the same process to eliminate enumerated rights.

Jon

So if you don’t think the SCOTUS is an authority on human rights, why do you quote the SCOTUS to support your idea that the right to bear arms is a human right? So try LucyEm’s question once more: Do you consider the SCOTUS to be an authority on human rights?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You effectively dodged the issue. If you’ve read the thread, you will notice that the SCOTUS states the right as an “ancient right”.

The question was not “what did the SCOTUS say”. The question was were they right in what they said. Two different questions. LucyEm was not challenging the fact that the court said this or that, but rather the validity of what they said. You can’t rely on the court as an authority unless you are willing limit the applicability of what they say to US Law.

Again,cut you believe that the founders were wrong when they said we are endowed by our creator with our rights…

Nobody denied the truth of that statement. So yours is a strawman argument.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Self defense IS a right ordained by God. You can’t defend yourself if you’re limited to pop guns while everyone else has real weaponry.

You misunderstand the right of self-defense as explained in the catechism. The right of self-defense is a freedom from sin. It is not a license to own a gun. If you think otherwise, please cite the appropriate section of the catechism and we will see.

Hence, any government limitation (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty explicit!!) on our access to weapons serves their interests and not the peoples’, is automatically suspect, and is therefore immoral.

The “Shall not be infringed” is from the constitution, not the ten commandments. The constitution carries no moral authority - only legal authority, and that only in the US, which is just 4% of the world’s population. The is hardly the place to look for a moral authority that is supposed to apply to all people in all times and places.

 

[starshiptrooper]

It is a straw man only if your initial statement was a straw man, that you should be able to sell a firearm to your brother without any regulation. You stated, “If I sell my gun to my brother whom I have known all his life, who has been harmed?” Unless your brother is a felon, I no one has said that you should not be able to sell a firearm to your brother. Since no one is trying to deny your right to sell a gun to your brother (without cause such as being a felon), you statement was a straw man, and therefore mine is as well, as it was contingent on you making sense.

I was referring back to a question I had asked earlier in the thread about transferring a firearm to my brother without a background check. Leaf picked up on it right away.

The longer the thread goes on, the higher the % of polled who favour background checks.

Bandwagon fallacy, a bad idea is still a bad idea even if 70% of those polled are in favor of it.

I think the case has been made (by Leaf and Rau especially) that the standing of this “right” to carry guns in US society today is somewhat less than a “human right”, or a right arising from other than ourselves.

Their argument is because the right was protected by law in one country, that it is not really a right. I do not find that to be a convincing argument.

And as Rau pointed out earlier, the critical issue is not about “individual rights”. The critical issue is about choosing the moral course. What is the moral choice in 21st century USA ? I, and I hope many of my countrymen/women will come around to the view that an armed citizenry is unwise - the foreseeable consequences are not good. And individual “rights” is just not part of that moral assessment (to repeat what Rau has already explained).

On the contrary, individual rights are the keystone of any moral assessment and they are the principles that guide us in our interactions with each other.

Unfortunately - the Constitution does make it a challenge to redress the situation.

The Constitution is my first line of defense against those who would infringe on my rights. Firearms are my last line of defense. However one cannot exist without the other.