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

[LeafByNiggle]

To call the Mujahideen an organized armed force is a bit of a stretch.

Jon

They had weapons more powerful than anything that is being proposed today under the 2nd amendment. I’m not sure you would be all that happy if some of those Mujahideen types started accumulating that kind of weaponry in your neighborhood.

 

[JonNC]

They had weapons more powerful than anything that is being proposed today under the 2nd amendment. I’m not sure you would be all that happy if some of those Mujahideen types started accumulating that kind of weaponry in your neighborhood.

I was referring to your reference to being "organized ". Let’s remember, however, that got guns from governments.

Jon

 

[PatrickKennedy]

The greatest danger to rights is the idea that they evolve, or more accurately, can be evolved. We can see this currently in how religious free exercise is slowly “being evolved” into a right to worship only.

Jon

Well we could intoroduce Droit du seigneur in an effort to suborn evolution

 

[PatrickKennedy]

No. Blame those who use guns in this way. They are solely at fault. All by themselves.
I would assume you, as a citizen of the UK, think US guns were okay when the Yanks came across the pond in WWI and WW II.

Jon

You clearly believe you are at war.

 

[djames99]

None. Good policy

 

[hu324b]

The NRA is so deep in the pockets of politicians - no change can ever happen - they like the money and will tow the line - and some are owned by the NRA - that’s what lobbyist are for get the money out there and buy the Government.

Everything has already been bought and paid for - the NRA expects them to tow the line

 

[JonNC]

You clearly believe you are at war.

Where did I say that? The poster said, “Today in Dallas the USA is suffering the effects of their love of guns. Do not blame those who use guns but those who make a profit from guns.” When one makes a blanket statement about guns, it covers everything. It was American guns that saved the UK twice in the last century.
Guns are not evil. People who sell guns are not evil if they obey the law ( and neither are profits for that matter) . Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil. It is Humans who can be evil, as witnessed the in Dallas last night.

Jon

 

[Peccavi]

When I quoted Jesus as never having a gun I was told it was a bad comparison ? Since when were Catholics allowed to put aside Jesus teachings ? After all he was a man of peace and turning the other cheek. If you can lightly ignore his teachings then what the heck is left ?

 

[JonNC]

The NRA is so deep in the pockets of politicians - no change can ever happen - they like the money and will tow the line - and some are owned by the NRA - that’s what lobbyist are for get the money out there and buy the Government.

Everything has already been bought and paid for - the NRA expects them to tow the line

This is factually wrong. It works the opposite way. There remain elected officials that actually support the constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and the NRA exercises the free speech and redress rights of its members to support those who do. There are plenty of progressive groups that do the same.

Jon

 

[PatrickKennedy]

No debate on here will ever persuade people that a few checks to ensure that the trader isn’t selling a firearm to someone unfit to have one is a good idea. I don’t see the logic but of that is the opinion of the majority in the USA I would support their right to shoot each other all day long

 

[JonNC]

No debate on here will ever persuade people that a few checks to ensure that the trader isn’t selling a firearm to someone unfit to have one is a good idea. I don’t see the logic but of that is the opinion of the majority in the USA I would support their right to shoot each other all day long

Most of the posters have expressed support for the NICS system. The NRA supports it.
But the implication that simply because someone doesn’t means they’re in favor of people shooting each other all day long is rhetorical nonsense.
Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

Those were both instances of organized armed forces, using weapons of the sort that not even the NRA would say should be allowed for the general public.

While opfor in both cases had access to some heavier weaponry supplied by outside intervention, they still did most of the fighting with improvised weapons and basic small arms. In a similar situation in the United States, some local police, regular military, National Guard, state defense forces, and combat vets would be able to supply comparable equipment. Besides, it is a numbers game. You have 1,000,000 or so Army soldiers and Marines. There are 100 times that many gun owners.

We have had lots of rights during history but many of them have had to be removed or amended. Things evolve.

Wrong, rights are yours quite literally by right.

They had weapons more powerful than anything that is being proposed today under the 2nd amendment. I’m not sure you would be all that happy if some of those Mujahideen types started accumulating that kind of weaponry in your neighborhood.

See my comment above. Frankly, if those were Mujahideen, that would mean they were nationalists who would want to establish an Islamic state. If people with those views started stockpiling weapons, that should give you concern as well.

When I quoted Jesus as never having a gun I was told it was a bad comparison ? Since when were Catholics allowed to put aside Jesus teachings ? After all he was a man of peace and turning the other cheek. If you can lightly ignore his teachings then what the heck is left ?

In the Gospel, Jesus specifies the right cheek as the one being struck. Why would He specify the right cheek?

Most people are right-handed. If you want to strike someone on his right cheek while facing him and you are not a boxer, that most intuitional way to strike them is with your right hand. The only way to do that is a backhanded slap which is more of an insult rather than a serious blow. By offering the left cheek, if that person wants to continue striking with their right hand, they have to use an open hand slap or a punch. My parish priest told me that during the culture of the time, a slap with the back of the hand was reserved for inferiors. A fist or palm was used for equals who had the right to defend themselves. Thus the assailant either had to stop the attack or allow the other person to defend himself. Jesus was giving a very canny piece of advice which was not a command to be a doormat.

Besides, when discussing what Jesus would do, remember that grabbing a weapon and forcibly defending your family’s household and honor is a perfectly legitimate response. :nunchuk:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Frankly, if those were Mujahideen, that would mean they were nationalists who would want to establish an Islamic state. If people with those views started stockpiling weapons, that should give you concern as well.

But if they are US citizens, according to your view of the 2nd amendment, the government could not deny them the right to stockpile those weapons unless they violated some law. You might suspect that because they are Muslim, they must be planning an Islamic revolution. But your suspicions would not be enough to deny them their 2nd amendment rights. Are you sure you want to make it that hard for the government to prevent a catastrophe?

 

[JonNC]

But if they are US citizens, according to your view of the 2nd amendment, the government could not deny them the right to stockpile those weapons unless they violated some law. You might suspect that because they are Muslim, they must be planning an Islamic revolution. But your suspicions would not be enough to deny them their 2nd amendment rights. Are you sure you want to make it that hard for the government to prevent a catastrophe?

Why is it that you think our law enforcement and espionage agencies lack the ability to uncover potential attacks on the homeland from within or from outside the country?
Why do you think that simply preventing Americans from legally obtaining firearms would stop a group of, say, radical Islamic terrorists, would stop them from obtaining them illegally or using other means, such as explosives?
Terrorism is not a gun control issue.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why is it that you think our law enforcement and espionage agencies lack the ability to uncover potential attacks on the homeland from within or from outside the country?

9/11

Why do you think that simply preventing Americans from legally obtaining firearms would stop a group of, say, radical Islamic terrorists, would stop them from obtaining them illegally or using other means, such as explosives?

I don’t. But even if we can’t stop 100% of terrorist actions, that does not mean we should throw in the towel and not bother to stop at least some of them.

 

[JonNC]

9/11

I don’t. But even if we can’t stop 100% of terrorist actions, that does not mean we should throw in the towel and not bother to stop at least some of them.

No guns in the 9/11 attack.

I absolutely think we must do everything we can, without sacrificing individual rights.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No guns in the 9/11 attack.

It doesn’t matter. You questioned if our law enforcement and espionage agencies lack the ability to uncover potential attacks on the homeland. 9/11 proves that they do lack that ability. If they cannot uncover potential attacks with box cutters, they cannot uncover potential attacks with guns. So my point stands. Your insistence on allowing any group to stockpile any weapons poses unacceptable risks for the common good.

 

[LucyEm]

I absolutely think we must do everything we can, without sacrificing individual rights.

Why is it that you are compelled to rule out the mutually agreed “surrender” of a particular personal “right” (as you see the matter of gun ownerhip)? On what basis can it be said that our modern society will be a better place when guns (a particular kind of “dangerous goods”) are freely available?

Is your only answer the one you have previously proffered, viz. to reference the history of despotic regimes and your concern that the US would, absent freely available weapons and an armed citizenry, go the way of Nazi Germany or Pol Pot?

 

[JonNC]

It doesn’t matter. You questioned if our law enforcement and espionage agencies lack the ability to uncover potential attacks on the homeland. 9/11 proves that they do lack that ability. If they cannot uncover potential attacks with box cutters, they cannot uncover potential attacks with guns. So my point stands. Your insistence on allowing any group to stockpile any weapons poses unacceptable risks for the common good.

it poses no more risk than a truckload of fertilizer, or a pressure cooker filled with nails and explosives. They too, pose an unacceptable risk. Shall we ban all items that potentially pose an unacceptable risk when in the hands of people who intend on doing harm?
Perhaps we should start with eliminating the 4th amendment right against search and seizure. Then that mosque can be searched so much more easily. Or, we could suspend the right to counsel, making it easier to coerce a confession. And that darned due process, as Senator Manchin said, “it’s killing us.”
It’s real easy to start eliminating protected rights, once you start.

As I’ve said before on this thread, it is immoral to confiscate the protected individual rights of all because of the actions of a few.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=LucyEm;14029388]Why is it that you are compelled to rule out the mutually agreed “surrender” of a particular personal “right” (as you see the matter of gun ownerhip)? On what basis can it be said that our modern society will be a better place when guns (a particular kind of “dangerous goods”) are freely available?

First, rights cannot be surrendered, only their access to them. And it would only be mutual if every single individual approved of relinquishing access to a right. Not likely. On what basis would you say our modern society would be better if only criminals and the government had guns? On what basis would you say that my wife and I, in our 60’s, are better off without a firearm when two mid-twenties guys, maybe desperate for drugs, break into my home? How is my wife better off under those conditions if I’m not home at the time?

Is your only answer the one you have previously proffered, viz. to reference the history of despotic regimes and your concern that the US would, absent freely available weapons and an armed citizenry, go the way of Nazi Germany or Pol Pot?

Had you read the thread, you would know that it isn’t the only reason, but the ability of the people to defend their liberty from tyranny is the primary reason presented in the second amendment. Tyranny does not necessarily manifest itself in the extremes mentioned, but to believe that it isn’t possible is naive. Belief that somehow human beings in the 21st century are less capable of evil than they were in the 20th, or 19th or any century previous is, frankly, foolish.

Jon