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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
starshiptrooper said:
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…
Click to expand...
Have you seen that happening in a lot in modern democracies? Did it happen in Australia - I think you quoted it earlier? No - the Aust government offered a buy-back scheme for lawfully held weapons. And they prosecuted under the law those holding weapons unlawfully. And all this met with the very broad approval of Aussies - 'cause Aussies never gave themselves a right to be armed, and (apparently) don’t hold to the view that God did either!

Governments are required to compensate citizens when they takeover private property lawfully acquired. In the US, we have a long way to go on the gun issue. First, the people need to review where they stand., and whether they still concur with all the rights granted through the framing documents. If they do - then we have the status quo.
 
LucyEm said:
Have you seen that happening in a lot in modern democracies? Did it happen in Australia - I think you quoted it earlier? No - the Aust government offered a buy-back scheme for lawfully held weapons. And they prosecuted under the law those holding weapons unlawfully. And all this met with the very broad approval of Aussies - 'cause Aussies never gave themselves a right to be armed, and (apparently) don’t hold to the view that God did either!

Governments are required to compensate citizens when they takeover private property lawfully acquired. In the US, we have a long way to go on the gun issue. First, the people need to review where they stand., and whether they still concur with all the rights granted through the framing documents. If they do - then we have the status quo.
Click to expand...
Rights are not granted through the framing documents. The framing documents protect rights antecedent to government.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Neither have you established that, simply because it is the 21st century, that the understanding of rights has changed.
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t start with the premise that an armed citizenry is always and everywhere a good thing. You’ve not established that it is. You only say that the founders enabled it in the US. Yeah, we know that.
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.
Click to expand...
Nor have you shown the converse. We each have to judge the right course. But most importantly - the US people have the “right” to judge it too, and no one should be telling the lie that they have no “right” to make that judgement anew, just as the founders made a judgement.
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.
Click to expand...
There is no connection between the morality of an act of self-defence, and the morality of an armed citizenry. In judging all acts - the only question to be asked is whether it is wise (moral). Is it wise to enable the widespread (and with precious few restrictions) arming of citizens in this US society? You believe it is. I do not.

We have seen “rights” widely claimed and applied in a way that could be called tyrannical, abortion being the poster-child. Did our armed citizenry help in curbing that tyranny? Nope. Is it conceivable that it could have helped? Nope. 🤷
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.
Click to expand...
As one of our presidents remarked (it was quoted earlier) - the government is us. You seem to imply the USA has been spared a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Hitler - because the citizenry is armed. That’s hubris.
 
SilverShadow22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The situation that you are defending (the right the keep and bear arms) is not like that. When you go to buy a gun, there is no gunfight. There isn’t even an imminent gunfight. All you have is a chance that maybe you might need a gun. And if you run the numbers, you will see that the vast majority of people in a typical modern nation never have an occasion to actually use lethal force to defend themselves. So the chance that you are providing against by getting a gun is extremely low. Going to a gunfight, as you described it, is an occasion where you are almost guaranteed to need a gun. So our situations are hardly ever a gunfight “or equivalent thereof”.

As for the first part, the only thing that is a logical extension of the right to self-defense is making reasonable plans for having the means for that self-defense. It is not logical to say that the right to self-defense implies the right to any conceivable means of defense. What is reasonable depends on the situation. If you are in a relatively lawless region, like Somalia, it is reasonable to acquire considerable fire power for defense. If you are living in a well-policed gated community with a low crime rate, it may very well be reasonable to have no weapon at all. That is what is logical.
 
JonNC said:
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
Click to expand...
So, do you acknowledge that the decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS are not to be trusted as a source for defining human rights?
 
LethalMouse said:
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?
Click to expand...
Typical strawman argument. Try to rephase it as a real argument and we can have a go at it again.
 
JonNC said:
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
Click to expand...
You are speaking of the function of the SCOTUS in the US form of government. As such, it is completely accurate. But also irrelevant to the general point, if you are still maintaining that the right to have a gun is human right independent of any constitution or secular court ruling.
 
JonNC said:
Rights are not granted through the framing documents. The framing documents protect rights antecedent to government.
Click to expand...
All framing documents do that Jon - they come before government because they frame the role of government too! Duhhh! 🤷 😃

Everything has been said - reread the thread! “Had the framers not written down this one about guns…we wouldn’t be having this discussion”…because by and large, people would not be making some claim that its our God-bestowed right to an armed citizenry. The right is simply not of the standing you would like it to be. Hey- I understand why the pro-gun lobby might want people to believe it comes form a divine source…sure, because if you can make them believe that, they might feel it can’t be reviewed.

It’s only a debate in this country because it was incorporated into this country’s framing documents.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So, do you acknowledge that the decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS are not to be trusted as a source for defining human rights?
Click to expand...
Again, the SCOTUS, the constitution, the people did not establish or define rights. The Declaration makes it clear where our rights come from. Human rights are not established by man. They cannot be taken away by man. Among our human and civil rights is the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

Jon
 
LethalMouse said:
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?
Click to expand...
For an individual to come and take your property by force, that would be immoral. But for a legitimate authority over the community in which you live to establish a rule under which you are not allowed to keep a gun in a way that the community deems to be dangerous, that can be moral, even if it is enacted by force. Legitimate authority does have that right, if it is done justly. Now there are many ways in which the enacting of such a rule could be unjust, in which case it would be immoral. But it depends on the details. You cannot make a blanket statement that says it is immoral for the community rules to deprive you of your gun under any possible circumstances. For example, if one become mentally unstable, his gun may be taken away by force quite morally.
 
LucyEm said:
All framing documents do that Jon - they come before government because they frame the role of government too! Duhhh! 🤷 😃

Everything has been said - reread the thread! “Had the framers not written down this one about guns…we wouldn’t be having this discussion”…because by and large, people would not be making some claim that its our God-bestowed right to an armed citizenry. The right is simply not of the standing you would like it to be. Hey- I understand why the pro-gun lobby might want people to believe it comes form a divine source…sure, because if you can make them believe that, they might feel it can’t be reviewed.

It’s only a debate in this country because it was incorporated into this country’s framing documents.
Click to expand...
Check your history. The right to self defense and arms appears throughout history. The reason we talk about it is because the founders were smart enough to recognize that the right needed to be protected.

I asked earlier. Are you willing to allow government to confiscate rights?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Check your history. The right to self defense and arms appears throughout history.

Jon
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what some people have been calling the bandwagon fallacy? I just learned that one and have been waiting for a good opportunity to try it out.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The situation that you are defending (the right the keep and bear arms) is not like that. When you go to buy a gun, there is no gunfight. There isn’t even an imminent gunfight. All you have is a chance that maybe you might need a gun. And if you run the numbers, you will see that the vast majority of people in a typical modern nation never have an occasion to actually use lethal force to defend themselves. So the chance that you are providing against by getting a gun is extremely low. Going to a gunfight, as you described it, is an occasion where you are almost guaranteed to need a gun. So our situations are hardly ever a gunfight “or equivalent thereof”.
Click to expand...
Right. The morality of pursuing an armed citizenry is a personal matter of judgement, because (at least for men of good will) it turns on the foreseeable consequences. I am with you in perceiving more harm than good - in the circumstances of 21st C USA.
As for the first part, the only thing that is a logical extension of the right to self-defense is making reasonable plans for having the means for that self-defense. It is not logical to say that the right to self-defense implies the right to any conceivable means of defense. What is reasonable depends on the situation. If you are in a relatively lawless region, like Somalia, it is reasonable to acquire considerable fire power for defense. If you are living in a well-policed gated community with a low crime rate, it may very well be reasonable to have no weapon at all. That is what is logical.
Click to expand...
By factoring in utter disdain and palpable distrust of all authority - it seems to me the pro-gun lobby sets out to stack the argument - the very existence of the authorities should be held as “clear and present danger”. Just as claiming the “right” is divine is a manoeuvre to stack the argument.
 
JonNC said:
Again, the SCOTUS, the constitution, the people did not establish or define rights. The Declaration makes it clear where our rights come from. Human rights are not established by man. They cannot be taken away by man. Among our human and civil rights is the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.

Jon
Click to expand...
So, I’m confused as to whether or not you are relying on the Declaration, or the Constitution, or the court to support the validity of this right to bear arms. You say that the constitution did not establish or define the rights. Perhaps I’m not using the right word. How about “validate”? Are you using the constitution to validate the right to bear arms? In any case, what the constitution says cannot be used to support a view that is outside the scope of the US. If you really want to support this view with universal scope, you need to demonstrate some sort of universal support for it - like some common moral code that we can both agree on.
 
JonNC said:
Are you willing to allow government to take away any and all rights?

Jon
Click to expand...
I don’t want anyone to remove those from God. The right not be murdered. The right to not be misrepresented (calumny) and so on.

For all the rest - the people define the principles, of their society. I don’t see a need to review many of the rights the framing documents sets out and/or defend, because they are good things (in my judgment) for a society to hold on to. I don’t know why you keep listing them. That one of those listed rights may be a bad idea does not mean others are. 🤷
 
LucyEm said:
Right. The morality of pursuing an armed citizenry is a personal matter of judgement, because (at least for men of good will) it turns on the foreseeable consequences. I am with you in perceiving more harm than good - in the circumstances of 21st C USA.

By factoring in utter disdain and palpable distrust of all authority - it seems to me the pro-gun lobby sets out to stack the argument - the very existence of the authorities should be held as “clear and present danger”. Just as claiming the “right” is divine is a manoeuvre to stack the argument.
Click to expand...
Who is talking about utter disdain. This is a straw man. Government in America has not been a clear and present danger because of the safeguards the constitution has in place, to limit its power to those enumerated powers, and to prevent it from infringing on protected rights.
It is the progressive movement that has sought to undermine the basic republican principles, and has brought about created “rights” such as abortion, and compromised speech and religion rights. This is the same process progressives are using to confiscate the right to keep and bear arms, and most recently due process rights.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top