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.
On the European News and discussion the US love of guns is seen as both crazy and self destructive. In the UK 98% of our police are unarmed and gun crime in the UK is minimal less than 17 (yes 17) a year. Gun ownership excepting hunting guns heavily licensed and policed, is forbidden. The UK is a much safer place to live, but so is most of Europe. This second ammendement nonsense pays no attention to the intentions of the Founding Fathers simply to create a military reserve which today is covered by the National Guard. The crazy gun laws are the product of the influence of the Gun Manufacturing lobby. The US loves its guns and gun ownership leads to their excessive use. Deny it all you like but the Western world thinks you are mad to put your society at the mercy of the gun.
 
Peccavi said:
On the European News and discussion the US love of guns is seen as both crazy and self destructive. In the UK 98% of our police are unarmed and gun crime in the UK is minimal less than 17 (yes 17) a year. Gun ownership excepting hunting guns heavily licensed and policed, is forbidden. The UK is a much safer place to live, but so is most of Europe. This second ammendement nonsense pays no attention to the intentions of the Founding Fathers simply to create a military reserve which today is covered by the National Guard. The crazy gun laws are the product of the influence of the Gun Manufacturing lobby. The US loves its guns and gun ownership leads to their excessive use. Deny it all you like but the Western world thinks you are mad to put your society at the mercy of the gun.
Click to expand...
You here misrepresent the intentions of the founders. No where will you find a belief that the right of citizens to bear arms is connected to a government armed force. The reserves and national guard did not exist then. Furthermore, a government force will protect the security of the state, but not necessarily a free state. That was the intention of the founders, that it is the individual citizen’s right to be armed, an ancient right, protected by the constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. America’s gun laws are governed by that. The government, regardless of influence by the gun lobby on the one hand, and anti-rights groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown group are limited in what they can and cannot do.

In the same manner the citizens of the UK rejected Obama’s attempt to interfere in their vote on Brexit, I honestly am not moved by the UK’s thoughts on our constitution, with all due respect.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Considering the benefits of fertilizer, and the relative infrequency with which it is used to make a bomb, it is an acceptable risk. Guns are being used much more than fertilizer to kill people.
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.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
You have said it, but you have not convinced me of it. Nor have you established that any right protected by the constitution is one that is immoral to confiscate.
 
JonNC said:
You here misrepresent the intentions of the founders. No where will you find a belief that the right of citizens to bear arms is connected to a government armed force. The reserves and national guard did not exist then. Furthermore, a government force will protect the security of the state, but not necessarily a free state. That was the intention of the founders, that it is the individual citizen’s right to be armed, an ancient right, protected by the constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. America’s gun laws are governed by that. The government, regardless of influence by the gun lobby on the one hand, and anti-rights groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown group are limited in what they can and cannot do.

In the same manner the citizens of the UK rejected Obama’s attempt to interfere in their vote on Brexit, I honestly am not moved by the UK’s thoughts on our constitution, with all due respect.

Jon
Click to expand...
You addressed the comments about the Founding Fathers, but you totally ignored the much more significant comments Peccavi made about the lack of gun violence in the UK.

The Founding Fathers may have felt as you say, but they were a product of their times, responding to what they had just experienced - a political tyranny. They were not gods. Their thoughts at the time were no better than thoughts of people today dealing with the issues of our times.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Considering the benefits of fertilizer, and the relative infrequency with which it is used to make a bomb, it is an acceptable risk. Guns are being used much more than fertilizer to kill people.

You have said it, but you have not convinced me of it. Nor have you established that any right protected by the constitution is one that is immoral to confiscate.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to convince you. The constitution does the convincing. One of the reasons for the second amendment, frankly, is if too many people believe they can confiscate the rights of others, regardless of the right involved.

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You addressed the comments about the Founding Fathers, but you totally ignored the much more significant comments Peccavi made about the lack of gun violence in the UK.

The Founding Fathers may have felt as you say, but they were a product of their times, responding to what they had just experienced - a political tyranny. They were not gods. Their thoughts at the time were no better than thoughts of people today dealing with the issues of our times.
Click to expand...
There are many countries with far greater violence, gun and otherwise, than the U.S. In fact, gun violence in the U.S. is much less than it was in the early nineties. Further, most gun violence is done with guns that are either illegal, or illegally acquired or possessed. Gun restrictions on law abiding citizens do not impact this, as is evidence in places such as Chicago.

Jon
 
As I said for a so-called civilised nation the US is gun crazy. Defending yourself with assault rifles is about as senseless as arming everyone with rocket launchers.
 
On the Left, everything is politicized and all the answers are to be derived from more and more government, less and less personal freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it. The Left comes out of its confused closet with crazy anti-marriage nonsense, while the illegitimacy rate soars. The Left perpetuates generational dependency on welfare, ignores the crime ridden streets of our inner cities, save to use the criminal statistics generated within them to disarm the peaceful law-abiding and productive population. The Left celebrates an evil bloody sacrifice of abortion reminiscent of the Moloch-worshipping Ammonites. One can see in the Left of today a continuum of rebellion against the will of God stretching back to the first Non Serviam of Satan.
 
JonNC said:
I don’t have to convince you. The constitution does the convincing. One of the reasons for the second amendment, frankly, is if too many people believe they can confiscate the rights of others, regardless of the right involved.

Jon
Click to expand...
The constitution is not an authority on morality. It does not convince me of your point either. So your argument comes down to “because the constitution says so”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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?
Click to expand...
You switched terms. A member of the Mujahideen (which literally means fighters for a jihad) is not necessarily equivalent to a Muslim. So yes, if a mosque started stockpiling weapons while teaching its followers to engage in a holy war, that would be justification for law enforcement to take appropriate action pursuant to the 4th Amendment.
Peccavi said:
On the European News and discussion the US love of guns is seen as both crazy and self destructive. In the UK 98% of our police are unarmed and gun crime in the UK is minimal less than 17 (yes 17) a year. Gun ownership excepting hunting guns heavily licensed and policed, is forbidden. The UK is a much safer place to live, but so is most of Europe. This second ammendement nonsense pays no attention to the intentions of the Founding Fathers simply to create a military reserve which today is covered by the National Guard. The crazy gun laws are the product of the influence of the Gun Manufacturing lobby. The US loves its guns and gun ownership leads to their excessive use. Deny it all you like but the Western world thinks you are mad to put your society at the mercy of the gun.
Click to expand...
I live in a community which is mostly farmland and those who do not farm hunt. We probably have at least 1 gun for every person in our city if not more. We have not had a gun homicide in years. I have had no reason to fear guns.

While in the UK gun crime is lower, homicide rates have been unaffected. In fact they are higher overall since you guys banned most guns in 1996. In other words, banning guns did not make you safer.

gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf (See table 1.01.)
 
Peccavi said:
As I said for a so-called civilised nation the US is gun crazy. Defending yourself with assault rifles is about as senseless as arming everyone with rocket launchers.
Click to expand...
Few Americans have assault rifles. They are heavily regulated and licensing is strict.

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The constitution is not an authority on morality. It does not convince me of your point either. So your argument comes down to “because the constitution says so”.
Click to expand...
Neither popular opinion. We e already been through the proof that the constitution is not considered the granting document of a right, but instead the protection of the right

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You addressed the comments about the Founding Fathers, but you totally ignored the much more significant comments Peccavi made about the lack of gun violence in the UK.

The Founding Fathers may have felt as you say, but they were a product of their times, responding to what they had just experienced - a political tyranny. They were not gods. Their thoughts at the time were no better than thoughts of people today dealing with the issues of our times.
Click to expand...
Again, what evidence is there that human nature has changed? I see no reason to believe that power does not corrupt as much as it used to. In fact, as we see the war against Christianity being waged by progressives progess, I think evil is greater than ever, and the need to have the means to defend liberty even more vital. Hence, the immorality and subversive nature of trying to disarm law abiding citizens

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Neither popular opinion. We e already been through the proof that the constitution is not considered the granting document of a right, but instead the protection of the right

Jon
Click to expand...
If the constitution of the US is not the basis for your argument that the right to own a gun is a moral right, then why do you continue to reference it? It could be morally wrong. It could be protecting a right that is not a moral right. To that end, the constitution of the US is no more relevant than the constitution of Italy, or Japan, or Australia, or Iceland. Morality transcends national boundaries. So nothing you say about the constitution of any particular nation is support for your view about morality.
 
JonNC said:
Again, what evidence is there that human nature has changed?
Click to expand...
Human nature need not change. The fact that conditions have changed is sufficient reason to re-evaluate decisions made in the 18th century.
I see no reason to believe that power does not corrupt as much as it used to.
Click to expand...
That is not the only relevant factor in deciding the question of gun control.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The Founding Fathers may have felt as you say, but they were a product of their times, responding to what they had just experienced - a political tyranny. They were not gods. Their thoughts at the time were no better than thoughts of people today dealing with the issues of our times.
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that will never happen again. Or if it does, our sole response should be to turn our cheeks to it after peaceful resolutions have fallen short.
 
JonNC said:
You here misrepresent the intentions of the founders. No where will you find a belief that the right of citizens to bear arms is connected to a government armed force. The reserves and national guard did not exist then. Furthermore, a government force will protect the security of the state, but not necessarily a free state. That was the intention of the founders, that it is the individual citizen’s right to be armed, an ancient right, protected by the constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. America’s gun laws are governed by that. The government, regardless of influence by the gun lobby on the one hand, and anti-rights groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown group are limited in what they can and cannot do.

In the same manner the citizens of the UK rejected Obama’s attempt to interfere in their vote on Brexit, I honestly am not moved by the UK’s thoughts on our constitution, with all due respect.

Jon
Click to expand...
I tend to agree that the right to bear arms is proving to be a problem in terms of mortality for the US. And I think as this is a Catholic forum introducing National division is puzzling and unhelpful
 
So far I have not heard a convincing argument that squared gun ownership with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth ( Note not Paul or Medieval theologians serving Emperors and Kings but the voice of our Saviour - the Messiah - the alone chosen one of God)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top