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

[LeafByNiggle]

Nice way to avoid having to answer the question: dismiss it just like that. Okay how about answering this question: how is it a straw man argument?

This.

 

[JonNC]

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)

I have not heard a single argument that self defense and the tools necessary to do so violate biblical teaching. Is young David to be condemned for defending himself using a weapon of his time? How about Judas Maccabeus? Where is it condemned as immoral to defend oneself or one’s country? Should the Americans have stayed home in response to the Lusitania? Was the French resistance immoral? Surely many of them were citizens with their own arms.
If gun ownership is immoral, then why is it only the law abiding would be required to give them up? The point has been made that government can’t stop all terrorists. True. It is also true that government cannot prevent criminals and terrorists from getting guns. Chicago, Paris, Brussels. With this in mind, and knowing the fact that the SCOTUS had ruled that citizens cannot depend on law enforcement to protect them, why disarm ONLY law abiding Americans? Is that not an immoral act, to leave only law abiding citizens disarmed?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

Is haven’t introduced national division. I’m emphasizing respect for UK sovereignty and believe in ours. You have every right to express your opinion about our rights. I have every right to tell you that your view doesn’t move mine.
I think it immoral that French citizens are prohibited the tools to defend themselves. But I also think the French probably don’t care what I think. Terrorists almost always attack gun free settings. How is it moral to intentionally place citizens in that situation?

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

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

Alas, we rejected that so-called proof because of its false premise that God grants us the right to widespread gun access. It is simply a right claimed by some. Writing it into the constitution is what makes it a reality - what causes it to be part of this conversation. In most countries, it is not written, and it is little debated.

 

[JonNC]

Alas, we rejected that so-called proof because of its false premise that God grants us the right to widespread gun access. It is simply a right claimed by some. Writing it into the constitution is what makes it a reality - what causes it to be part of this conversation. In most countries, it is not written, and it is little debated.

Not according, first, to the SCOTUS, and secondly according to the many societies down through history that have recognized the right. But that is of little concern. The fact is in the United States it is a right and that right is protected, not established, but the constitution. What other countries do is up to them.
Again, no one has presented evidence that God denies people the right to self defense or the tools to accomplish that right.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not according, first, to the SCOTUS, and secondly according to the many societies down through history that have recognized the right. But that is of little concern. The fact is in the United States it is a right and that right is protected, not established, but the constitution. What other countries do is up to them.
Again, no one has presented evidence that God denies people the right to self defense or the tools to accomplish that right.

Jon

Jon-

And at one point, Jesus even instructed the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords.

Luke 22
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

When Jesus and the Apostles left the last supper and went out to the Garden of Gethsemane, did you notice that at least one of the Apostles was armed?

I learned recently that it may have been common practice for anyone leaving the relative safety of the city walls and going out into the countryside. Men commonly carried short swords that were easily hidden in the folds of their robes.

It is not surprising perhaps that Jesus expressed no surprise or disapproval at the presence of the weapons.

However, He did heal the servant’s ear once a sword had been used during the arrest.

 

[LucyEm]

The fact is in the United States it is a right and that right is protected, not established, but the constitution.

That you mention the US means that the democratic processes of the US system can surrender the right in the interests of the society. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to appeal to a God-given right, like the “right to life”, the country borders are not relevant.

And please remember we have already agreed that Scotus is no moral authority. They failed to recognise that the unborn have the most fundamental of rights - the right to life.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

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)

We have his cousin John the Baptist.

Jon-

And at one point, Jesus even instructed the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords.

Luke 22
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

When Jesus and the Apostles left the last supper and went out to the Garden of Gethsemane, did you notice that at least one of the Apostles was armed?

I learned recently that it may have been common practice for anyone leaving the relative safety of the city walls and going out into the countryside. Men commonly carried short swords that were easily hidden in the folds of their robes.

It is not surprising perhaps that Jesus expressed no surprise or disapproval at the presence of the weapons.

However, He did heal the servant’s ear once a sword had been used during the arrest.

 

[JonNC]

That you mention the US means that the democratic processes of the US system can surrender the right in the interests of the society. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to appeal to a God-given right, like the “right to life”, the country borders are not relevant.

And please remember we have already agreed that Scotus is no moral authority. They failed to recognise that the unborn have the most fundamental of rights - the right to life.

And I didn’t say the SCOTUS was. But, again, you are wrong. A right cannot be surrendered. Only its exercise can. The right itself continues to exist. And even the constitutional protection of an enumerated right cannot be confiscated by a democratic process, but only by the proscribed constitutional process.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

And at one point, Jesus even instructed the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords.

Luke 22
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

When Jesus and the Apostles left the last supper and went out to the Garden of Gethsemane, did you notice that at least one of the Apostles was armed?

I learned recently that it may have been common practice for anyone leaving the relative safety of the city walls and going out into the countryside. Men commonly carried short swords that were easily hidden in the folds of their robes.

It is not surprising perhaps that Jesus expressed no surprise or disapproval at the presence of the weapons.

However, He did heal the servant’s ear once a sword had been used during the arrest.

Hi Randy

In the Matthew account, He tells the man to put the sword away. He doesn’t say turn it over to the authorities, it’s immoral to have one. But He goes on further to warn about the use of weapons. This is a good warning . It isn’t the weapon that is immoral, nor is ownership of a weapon immoral. Improper use of a weapon can certainly be immoral.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And I didn’t say the SCOTUS was. But, again, you are wrong. A right cannot be surrendered. Only its exercise can. The right itself continues to exist. And even the constitutional protection of an enumerated right cannot be confiscated by a democratic process, but only by the proscribed constitutional process.

Jon

The fact the a right is enumerated by the constitution of just 4% of the people on this planet is of no consequence in this discussion. It proves nothing. So while what you write is true, it is also irrelevant.

 

[JonNC]

The fact the a right is enumerated by the constitution of just 4% of the people on this planet is of no consequence in this discussion. It proves nothing. So while what you write is true, it is also irrelevant.

If you live in the US, it is quite relevant, because in the U.S., it is the constitution that stands in protection of all of our enumerated rights. And I believe it is the best model for human and civil rights ever devised by humans, despite our flaws.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you live in the US, it is quite relevant, because in the U.S., it is the constitution that stands in protection of all of our enumerated rights. And I believe it is the best model for human and civil rights ever devised by humans, despite our flaws.

Jon

It is irrelevant to 96% of the world’s population, your personal beliefs about the superiority of the American system notwithstanding.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Jon, this one is just for you. Since no discussion of morals can be productive without a common starting point, I was looking for just such a starting point among the Anglican communion, which you profess to be a part of. This is from the Episcopal News Service. In particular, I draw your attention to resolution B008 which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention of The Episcopal Church support handgun purchaser licensing in order to prevent gun violence and save lives; and be it further

Resolved, That the dioceses of The Episcopal Church be encouraged to advocate for handgun purchaser licensing in their local contexts.*

and resolution C005, which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention on the 50th anniversary of the murder of seminarian Jonathan Daniels, urge all legislators at federal, state and local levels to help decrease gun violence by implementing laws that;

1. Require permits to carry concealed weapons and criminal background checks for every gun purchase, including those made at gun shows; and
2. Except for the use of military and law enforcement agencies. Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and
3. Ban the importation and manufacture of Full-Auto Conversion kits that convert automatic weapons; and
4. Tighten laws against gun trafficking, and increase penalties for those who engage in “straw purchases” of firearms for ineligible persons; and
5. Prohibit persons from purchasing guns without evidence of gun safety training; and
6. Recognize the impact of existing inheritance laws on the transfer of gun ownership; and
7. Promote funding for research into the prevention and causes of gun violence.

Several of these provisions are what you have already declared to be immoral confiscation of a fundamental right.

So my question to you is this: If these bishops of the Episcopal Convention are in agreement with these proposals that you declare to be immoral, how is it that you are associated with the Anglican Communion?

 

[LucyEm]

And I didn’t say the SCOTUS was. But, again, you are wrong. A right cannot be surrendered. Only its exercise can. The right itself continues to exist. And even the constitutional protection of an enumerated right cannot be confiscated by a democratic process, but only by the proscribed constitutional process.

What man claims, man can surrender. You forget, few accept this God-given notion you repeat. I pray that in time to come, we will see evidence of a ground-swell of public opinion in favour of exercising the constitutional processes (which almost all Americans regard as “democratic” processes) that will see all weapons subject to oversights as apply to other dangerous goods.

 

[LucyEm]

Jon, this one is just for you. Since no discussion of morals can be productive without a common starting point, I was looking for just such a starting point among the Anglican communion, which you profess to be a part of. This is from the Episcopal News Service. In particular, I draw your attention to resolution B008 which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention of The Episcopal Church support handgun purchaser licensing in order to prevent gun violence and save lives; and be it further

Resolved, That the dioceses of The Episcopal Church be encouraged to advocate for handgun purchaser licensing in their local contexts.*

and resolution C005, which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention on the 50th anniversary of the murder of seminarian Jonathan Daniels, urge all legislators at federal, state and local levels to help decrease gun violence by implementing laws that;

1. Require permits to carry concealed weapons and criminal background checks for every gun purchase, including those made at gun shows; and
2. Except for the use of military and law enforcement agencies. Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and
3. Ban the importation and manufacture of Full-Auto Conversion kits that convert automatic weapons; and
4. Tighten laws against gun trafficking, and increase penalties for those who engage in “straw purchases” of firearms for ineligible persons; and
5. Prohibit persons from purchasing guns without evidence of gun safety training; and
6. Recognize the impact of existing inheritance laws on the transfer of gun ownership; and
7. Promote funding for research into the prevention and causes of gun violence.

Several of these provisions are what you have already declared to be immoral confiscation of a fundamental right.

So my question to you is this: If these bishops of the Episcopal Convention are in agreement with these proposals that you declare to be immoral, how is it that you are associated with the Anglican Communion?

I suspect Catholic leadership would very much support the thrust of these proposals. In fact - do any of the mainstream Christian Churches rejoice in the widespread ownership of weapons? Do any of them see it as good for society that weapons are so readily available in the US?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Resolved, That the dioceses of The Episcopal Church be encouraged to advocate for handgun purchaser licensing in their local contexts.[/INDENT]

and resolution C005, which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention on the 50th anniversary of the murder of seminarian Jonathan Daniels, urge all legislators at federal, state and local levels to help decrease gun violence by implementing laws that;

1. Require permits to carry concealed weapons and criminal background checks for every gun purchase, including those made at gun shows; and
2. Except for the use of military and law enforcement agencies. Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and
3. Ban the importation and manufacture of Full-Auto Conversion kits that convert automatic weapons; and
4. Tighten laws against gun trafficking, and increase penalties for those who engage in “straw purchases” of firearms for ineligible persons; and
5. Prohibit persons from purchasing guns without evidence of gun safety training; and
6. Recognize the impact of existing inheritance laws on the transfer of gun ownership; and
7. Promote funding for research into the prevention and causes of gun violence.

Several of these provisions are what you have already declared to be immoral confiscation of a fundamental right.

So my question to you is this: If these bishops of the Episcopal Convention are in agreement with these proposals that you declare to be immoral, how is it that you are associated with the Anglican Communion?
My question is why ban semi-automatic assault rifles? If it is to stop crime, then wouldn’t that same logic apply to handguns as well considering that most gun crimes are committed with handguns?

Without some clear and/or valid logic, then I presume that an arbitrary banning of one type of weapon opens the door for banning of many other NON assault rifle weapons.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer

Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”

I agree with much of what Obama has mentioned on gun control BUT his plans tend to be loaded with more than just background checks. He would also be for banning certain types of weapons as well, and this is where I start to disagree with him.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, this one is just for you. Since no discussion of morals can be productive without a common starting point, I was looking for just such a starting point among the Anglican communion, which you profess to be a part of. This is from the Episcopal News Service. In particular, I draw your attention to resolution B008 which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention of The Episcopal Church support handgun purchaser licensing in order to prevent gun violence and save lives; and be it further

Resolved, That the dioceses of The Episcopal Church be encouraged to advocate for handgun purchaser licensing in their local contexts.*

and resolution C005, which states:
*Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 78th General Convention on the 50th anniversary of the murder of seminarian Jonathan Daniels, urge all legislators at federal, state and local levels to help decrease gun violence by implementing laws that;

1. Require permits to carry concealed weapons and criminal background checks for every gun purchase, including those made at gun shows; and
2. Except for the use of military and law enforcement agencies. Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and
3. Ban the importation and manufacture of Full-Auto Conversion kits that convert automatic weapons; and
4. Tighten laws against gun trafficking, and increase penalties for those who engage in “straw purchases” of firearms for ineligible persons; and
5. Prohibit persons from purchasing guns without evidence of gun safety training; and
6. Recognize the impact of existing inheritance laws on the transfer of gun ownership; and
7. Promote funding for research into the prevention and causes of gun violence.

Several of these provisions are what you have already declared to be immoral confiscation of a fundamental right.

So my question to you is this: If these bishops of the Episcopal Convention are in agreement with these proposals that you declare to be immoral, how is it that you are associated with the Anglican Communion?

I am in a continuing Anglican province, not TEC. As a parallel, if we were talking about women in the priesthood, I wouldn’t expect a Catholic to respond based on what some Old Catholic bishops write about that topic.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My question is why ban semi-automatic assault rifles? If it is to stop crime, then wouldn’t that same logic apply to handguns as well considering that most gun crimes are committed with handguns?

Without some clear and/or valid logic, then I presume that an arbitrary banning of one type of weapon opens the door for banning of many other NON assault rifle weapons.

What you say may be true. But it is important to understand there are at least two different discussions going on here. One is the wisdom of any specific gun control measure. The other is the morality of gun control measures in general. I have been addressing mostly the morality question. But it is possible to take the position that says that gun control measures are, in general, moral or morally neutral, while specific gun control measures are inadvisable for practical reasons. Your argument seems to be addressing the practicality question, and on that question I have no particular position, one way or the other.