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

[SilverShadow22]

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.

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.

The Church clearly states that one has the right to defend oneself, one’s loved ones, and even one’s property. Not only are we ‘allowed’ to protect the innocent, we have a DUTY to.

And my point remains, which you conveniently neglected. Self Defense is a sad joke if your options are limited to a ridiculous fraction of what your enemies have.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Church clearly states that one has the right to defend oneself, one’s loved ones, and even one’s property. Not only are we ‘allowed’ to protect the innocent, we have a DUTY to.

Everything you have written is completely true. But it does not say anything about a right to own any specific weapon.

And my point remains, which you conveniently neglected. Self Defense is a sad joke if your options are limited to a ridiculous fraction of what your enemies have.

I do not consider the catechism a joke.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Everything you have written is completely true. But it does not say anything about a right to own any specific weapon.

I do not consider the catechism a joke.

I never called the catechism a joke.

You are.

By saying defense has nothing to do with available options.

I consider my position a logical extension of the right to self defense.

This is almost funny, because I’d choose most other weapons over a gun in most cases, but I’m bringing a gun to a gunfight… Or the equivalent thereof. That’s just common sense.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Yes, this is what happens when the progressive model of people establishing “rights”’ is followed. Real rights,cline the right to life is confiscated in favor of a privilege for others.

Jon

 

[LethalMouse]

Everything you have written is completely true. But it does not say anything about a right to own any specific weapon.

I do not consider the catechism a joke.

So under your right to defense we should send unarmed men into war against armed men. Let the pagans have their evil weapons and let us good Christians fight with our bodies because we are morally right?

 

[JonNC]

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?

I consider the Constitution a protection of human man rights, such as the second amendment. The SCOTUS is empowered with the task of making sure laws do not violate those protected rights, that they abide by the letter of that document. To the extent that they do that, they are successfully completing their task. Whether or not anyone thinks they are authorities on human rights is irrelevant.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

Yes, this is what happens when the progressive model of people establishing “rights”’ is followed. Real rights,cline the right to life is confiscated in favor of a privilege for others.

Jon

It’s what happens when you think scotus can discern human rights, ancient or otherwise!! They should confine themselves to the law applicable in the US - all of which was established by men.

 

[JonNC]

I never called the catechism a joke.

You are.

By saying defense has nothing to do with available options.

I consider my position a logical extension of the right to self defense.

This is almost funny, because I’d choose most other weapons over a gun in most cases, but I’m bringing a gun to a gunfight… Or the equivalent thereof. That’s just common sense.

Uncalled for. Leaf is defending a position he believes in, and he does it well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It’s what happens when you think scotus can discern human rights, ancient or otherwise!! They should confine themselves to the law applicable in the US - all of which was established by men.

And that responsibility does not include establishing rights.
Jon

 

[SilverShadow22]

Uncalled for. Leaf is defending a position he believes in, and he does it well.

Jon

I implied no more than he implied…

In fact, I wasn’t referring to the catechism at all. So I have no idea where that even came from.

 

[LethalMouse]

Uncalled for. Leaf is defending a position he believes in, and he does it well.

Jon

Huh? Anyone with a limited reading ability who reads the three post can see he distorted the words she used to negate what she was saying for his own purposes.

 

[LucyEm]

I consider the Constitution a protection of human man rights, such as the second amendment. The SCOTUS is empowered with the task of making sure laws do not violate those protected rights, that they abide by the letter of that document. To the extent that they do that, they are successfully completing their task. Whether or not anyone thinks they are authorities on human rights is irrelevant.

Jon

. The 2nd amendment is a human right because…? C’mon - it’s a right defined by men in the framing documents of this country. That gives it a status - an earthly status. It carries legal implications in the US. Come down to earth.

As a Catholic, I’m more concerned with whether advocating for an armed citizenry is a moral thing to do. I’m with Rau, Leaf - I think it has and will lead to more harm than good. On that basis it’s immoral to pursue it - regardless of which court says it is a right.

 

[LethalMouse]

. The 2nd amendment is a human right because…? C’mon - it’s a right defined by men in the framing documents of this country. That gives it a status - an earthly status. It carries legal implications in the US. Come down to earth.

As a Catholic, I’m more concerned with whether advocating for an armed citizenry is a moral thing to do. I’m with Rau, Leaf - I think it has and will lead to more harm than good. On that basis it’s immoral to pursue it - regardless of which court says it is a right.

So answer this.

Is it moral than to come to me and take mine by force?

Is the pure existence of the gun “immoral enough” to warrant stealing and murder?

 

[LucyEm]

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

. Faulty premise fallacy. And assumes the matter in debate.

Their argument is because the right was protected by law in one country, that it is not really a right.

No. Thats why it is a right (albeit man made) in THAT country. Yet to hear a cogent reason why an armed citizenry is (a) a right from God or (b) a good [moral] idea!

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.

Really? I thought the applicable principles were Love of God and Love of Neighbour? Where did all this focus on “my rights” come from? I think it’s a case of Me, Me, Me…

The Constitution is my first line of defense against those who would infringe on my rights.

Well we must do everything to avoid your rights to weaponry being infringed…

 

[JonNC]

. The 2nd amendment is a human right because…? C’mon - it’s a right defined by men in the framing documents of this country. That gives it a status - an earthly status. It carries legal implications in the US. Come down to earth.

As a Catholic, I’m more concerned with whether advocating for an armed citizenry is a moral thing to do. I’m with Rau, Leaf - I think it has and will lead to more harm than good. On that basis it’s immoral to pursue it - regardless of which court says it is a right.

Through the entire thread, I’ve made the clear and accurate distinction b the second amendment protects from government infringement, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. The constitution establishes no rights. Those rights exist without man’s say so. The constitution is a document among men that protects these rights from government.
The existence of said right is to provide the means to protect individual rights and liberty from tyranny, foreign or domestic. To allow or empower government to eliminate this right is subversive, and tyranny in and of itself.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

So answer this.

Is it moral than to come to me and take mine by force?

Is the pure existence of the gun “immoral enough” to warrant stealing and murder?

Haven’t heard anyone make that suggestion. What’s been suggested is that the people ought to consider restricting the right bestowed in the framing documents such that some control can be lawfully exercised by governments.

 

[LucyEm]

Through the entire thread, I’ve made the clear and accurate distinction b the second amendment protects from government infringement, the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. The constitution establishes no rights. Those rights exist without man’s say so. The constitution is a document among men that protects these rights from government.
The existence of said right is to provide the means to protect individual rights and liberty from tyranny, foreign or domestic. To allow or empower government to eliminate this right is subversive, and tyranny in and of itself.

Jon

You have said this. But repetition does not establish that an armed citizenry in 21st C USA is a right from God. It is a right in the USA by virtue of our framing documents. To claim more than that is hubris.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Haven’t heard anyone make that suggestion. What’s been suggested is that the people ought to consider restricting the right bestowed in the framing documents such that some control can be lawfully exercised by governments.

What that means is that armed agents of the state will be sent out enforce that law. They will take weapons without the consent of the owners and if those owners resist, they will kill them.

If you or I did that, it would be called robbery and murder. If a bunch of guys put on fancy uniforms before doing it, their gang becomes a government and their actions somehow become legitimate.

 

[JonNC]

You have said this. But repetition does not establish that an armed citizenry in 21st C USA is a right from God. It is a right in the USA by virtue of our framing documents. To claim more than that is hubris.

Neither have you established that, simply because it is the 21st century, that the understanding of rights has changed. You haven’t established that in the 60 plus years I have been on the planet that somehow humans in charge of government have miraculously changed from Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Brezhnev, Kim, Mussolini, and a myriad of others that killed over 260 million citizens in the 20th century. You have not shown, no one on this thread has shown, why Americans should trust government anymore than the founders did.
No where has anyone shown that the right of self defense does not include the tools necessary to complete that task in contemporary society. No one has shown to any extent that the morality of citizens owning firearms is less than government sole ownership of arms.
OTOH, history has shown that government should never be trusted with the sole possession of firearms. In fact, government has proven over and over again that the moral position is civilian possession of arms, and that it is constantly government that uses arms immorally. This the founders knew in the 18th century and it is at least as true, probably truer, today.

To claim that it is better for government only to have arms is either incredibly naive, or wreaking with the ulterior motive of promoting oppressive tyrannical government. Those are the only two alternatives. The immorality of the latter is overt.

As for the right, it exists whether or not government recognizes it or not. Rights, by definition, exist without human concurrence.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Haven’t heard anyone make that suggestion. What’s been suggested is that the people ought to consider restricting the right bestowed in the framing documents such that some control can be lawfully exercised by governments.

Should the right of due process be subject to restriction?
How about free speech? The press?
Trial by jury? Right to an attorney?
Search and seizure protection?
Life? Cruel and unusual punishment?
Self incrimination? Habeas corpus ?
Free exercise of religion?

None of these mean anything, they are not safe at all from a government that believes it can confiscate one right. It is the very definition of tyranny.

Jon