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

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Is your faith so different from the TEC? Can you cite any references by your church’s leaders that say it is immoral to restrict firearms, or to register them?

Before you launch into a strawman argument about how you are not bound to agree with everything your religious leaders say, I am not making that argument. My argument is that it is unreasonable to claim gun control is immoral when no Christian church leader of any denomination is saying that.

 

[Bill1940]

I suggest reading a recent article by Thomas Sowell on the subject, entitled “The Gun Control Farce”. Here is a link to it:
humanevents.com/2016/06/21/the-gun-control-farce/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I suggest reading a recent article by Thomas Sowell on the subject, entitled “The Gun Control Farce”. Here is a link to it:
humanevents.com/2016/06/21/the-gun-control-farce/

I read it. Interpretation of statistics is as expected.

 

[JonNC]

Is your faith so different from the TEC? Can you cite any references by your church’s leaders that say it is immoral to restrict firearms, or to register them?

Before you launch into a strawman argument about how you are not bound to agree with everything your religious leaders say, I am not making that argument. My argument is that it is unreasonable to claim gun control is immoral when no Christian church leader of any denomination is saying that.

Now, I never said all gun control was immoral. The title of the thread is about background checks, which with some caveats, I approve of. I have said that gun control that has the effect of disarming law abiding citizens, contrary to human, civil, and constitutionally protected rights is immoral and subversive.

How similar? I do not support female priests, actively homosexual bishops, and numerous other things. I’m not TEC.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

But in the United States, rights are not considered man-made. If they are man-made, then they are not rights, but instead privileges, and we have returned to the era of divine right of kings, without the divine part, of course, because even free exercise of religion is now subject to confiscation.

As to your prayer, I respect your concern for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens. I share it. Lets start by disarming those who most commonly kill others with arms: governments and criminals.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

Do any of them rejoice in people living in tyranny? How about rejoicing being unarmed while facing armed criminals? I get the feeling, while watching the news, that some groups are perfectly okay with that circumstance. I’m a school teacher, working in a"gun-free" zone, where virtually all mass terrorist attacks take place (Dallas being a rare exception). Knowing that police response time is typically 3-5 minutes, I am charged with protecting two dozen or more elementary age kids in the event a shooter violates the gun free zone laws rolleyes. I get to do that with maybe a yardstick? Some folks seem happy with that. In fact, they’re so happy with it that they want to take arms from all law abiding citizens.
Of course, they’ll say if we ban gun ownership, then criminals won’t have them either. Tell the folks in Paris that. If one rejoices in private law abiding citizens being the only disarmed, it almost seems inevitable that one must be quite content in Paris, Brussels, Sandy Hook, etc.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now, I never said all gun control was immoral. The title of the thread is about background checks, which with some caveats, I approve of.

That is the title of this thread, but the discussion between you and me has included issues beyond background checks. I believe you indicated it would be immoral for a government to do the things suggested in B008 above, especially the requirement for handgun purchaser licensing. That is equivalent to registration, and I thought you said registration was a violation of a basic human right. So tell me, is registration a violation of a fundamental pre-existing human right? Or are these bishops advocating something you believe to be immoral?

 

[JonNC]

That is the title of this thread, but the discussion between you and me has included issues beyond background checks. I believe you indicated it would be immoral for a government to do the things suggested in B008 above, especially the requirement for handgun purchaser licensing. That is equivalent to registration, and I thought you said registration was a violation of a basic human right. So tell me, is registration a violation of a fundamental pre-existing human right? Or are these bishops advocating something you believe to be immoral?

I oppose registration and licensing because it is the natural precursor for confiscation. So, yes, that would be subversive and possibly immoral. If registration is used as a precursor for confiscation (and there is really no other valuable reason for it), then it violates the fundamental pre-existing human and civil right. And that is subversive and yes, immoral.
Jon

 

[LucyEm]

But in the United States, rights are not considered man-made. If they are man-made, then they are not rights, but instead privileges, and we have returned to the era of divine right of kings, without the divine part, of course, because even free exercise of religion is now subject to confiscation.

As to your prayer, I respect your concern for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens. I share it. Lets start by disarming those who most commonly kill others with arms: governments and criminals.

Jon

The rights are claimed, both those justifiably attributed to our status as human beings - children of God - and those claimed erroneously - such as the right to weapons with relatively little societal (i.e. Government) oversight.

I suggest it is wise for military and police to hold guns. Disarming criminals is good. And exercising some control over weapons in any hand - like all dangerous goods - is wise.

 

[LucyEm]

Do any of them rejoice in people living in tyranny? How about rejoicing being unarmed while facing armed criminals? I get the feeling, while watching the news, that some groups are perfectly okay with that circumstance. I’m a school teacher, working in a"gun-free" zone, where virtually all mass terrorist attacks take place (Dallas being a rare exception). Knowing that police response time is typically 3-5 minutes, I am charged with protecting two dozen or more elementary age kids in the event a shooter violates the gun free zone laws rolleyes. I get to do that with maybe a yardstick? Some folks seem happy with that. In fact, they’re so happy with it that they want to take arms from all law abiding citizens.
Of course, they’ll say if we ban gun ownership, then criminals won’t have them either. Tell the folks in Paris that. If one rejoices in private law abiding citizens being the only disarmed, it almost seems inevitable that one must be quite content in Paris, Brussels, Sandy Hook, etc.

Jon

These circumstances are a product of many years in which guns have been available as freely as sets as screwdrivers. We made this rod.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The rights are claimed, both those justifiably attributed to our status as human beings - children of God - and those claimed erroneously - such as the right to weapons with relatively little societal (i.e. Government) oversight.

I suggest it is wise for military and police to hold guns. Disarming criminals is good. And exercising some control over weapons in any hand - like all dangerous goods - is wise.

Criminals ALWAYS have guns.

Guns are not magic; nor do they appear as if by magic. You get guns by smuggling them or by making them in a simple workshop. Or by stealing them from the military and the police. Or by buying parts and assembling them.

Very simple process.

AND, now, by means of a simple and cheap 3-D printer.

Perhaps advocates of gun control do not know how to make or buy a gun, but criminals have no difficulty.

 

[LucyEm]

Criminals ALWAYS have guns.

Guns are not magic; nor do they appear as if by magic. You get guns by smuggling them or by making them in a simple workshop. Or by stealing them from the military and the police.

You get a great many more when you decide they should be as freely available as a set of socket wrenches.

 

[LucyEm]

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.

So the “right” must be allowed to resemble an “arms race”?

I would like to know how, given the expression of the 2nd amendment, any meaningful restriction or impediment to acquiring guns can be lawfully pursued. If the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as sweeping as the pro-gun proponents here say, Obama ought to recognise that that is what needs to be addressed. Not to abandon it necessarily, but to enable management of these dangerous goods - just as all others are managed.

 

[JonNC]

The rights are claimed, both those justifiably attributed to our status as human beings - children of God - and those claimed erroneously - such as the right to weapons with relatively little societal (i.e. Government) oversight.

I suggest it is wise for military and police to hold guns. Disarming criminals is good. And exercising some control over weapons in any hand - like all dangerous goods - is wise.

As we can see today, the progressive movement has decided that all rights - except of course abortion- fall into your second category, which is why the false dichotomy you have presented is so dangerous to individual rights and liberty.

Yes, police and standing armies ought to have weapons, but in a free society, so should law-abiding citizens, for many reasons, but mainly because being in law enforcement or government doesn’t necessarily improve the human nature of an individual. In fact, sometimes power makes an individual worse.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

As we can see today, the progressive movement has decided that all rights - except of course abortion- fall into your second category, which is why the false dichotomy you have presented is so dangerous to individual rights and liberty.

Who cares what they decided. The right to abortion is a bad idea and the right to accumulate dangerous goods with no societal oversight is also a bad idea.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As we can see today, the progressive movement has decided that all rights - except of course abortion- fall into your second category, which is why the false dichotomy you have presented is so dangerous to individual rights and liberty.

I’m not sure LucyEm intended to claim it was a dichotomy. But I agree that it is a false dichotomy. That means there are rights that are neither justifiably attributed to our status as human beings, nor claimed erroneously. My favorite example of such a right is the right to build a garage within two feet of the property line. In areas where this right exists, it is neither attributed to God, nor is it necessarily bad. So it is not claimed erroneously.

But I fail to see how the fact this is a false dichotomy benefits your argument in any way.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So the “right” must be allowed to resemble an “arms race”?

I would like to know how, given the expression of the 2nd amendment, any meaningful restriction or impediment to acquiring guns can be lawfully pursued. If the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as sweeping as the pro-gun proponents here say, Obama ought to recognise that that is what needs to be addressed. Not to abandon it necessarily, but to enable management of these dangerous goods - just as all others are managed.

My idea of gun rights does not equate to an arms race as if we’re building up for war. I support the option for civilians to own semi-automatic assault rifles, and I believe that it’s unnecessary to ban them. I look at this in practical terms in that guns are necessary for self-defense. Assault rifles can also be used for self-defense. Some gun rights proponents may say we need to accumulate more arms to defend against the risk of a tyrannical government but I’m more worried about self-defense from anyone rather than some totalitarian government takeover.

 

[JonNC]

Who cares what they decided. The right to abortion is a bad idea and the right to accumulate dangerous goods with no societal oversight is also a bad idea.

We should all care. It is because of the false model that government can make or take rights that we have abortion.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure LucyEm intended to claim it was a dichotomy. But I agree that it is a false dichotomy. That means there are rights that are neither justifiably attributed to our status as human beings, nor claimed erroneously. My favorite example of such a right is the right to build a garage within two feet of the property line. In areas where this right exists, it is neither attributed to God, nor is it necessarily bad. So it is not claimed erroneously.

But I fail to see how the fact this is a false dichotomy benefits your argument in any way.

Because as soon as we decide that government has the power to make and take rights, they do just that. As soon as due process gets in the way, we don’t have to respect it as a right. Same with religious free exercise, speech, association, gun rights. You don’t get to choose anymore, Leaf, when it’s a right you value. Because it isn’t a right anymore, it’s a government issued privilege. God doesn’t matter because you have to keep your God at your church, and don’t speak out about it because that violates the speech codes. Look around, Leaf, it is happening right now.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because as soon as we decide that government has the power to make and take rights, they do just that.

But we are not deciding that government has the power to make and take all rights - just some of them, like the right to build a garage within two feet of your property line. Allowing the government to decide that right does not mean we are allowing government to take away the right to life. The question is, does owning a gun fall in the first category or the second category? I know you think it is one of those rights like the right to life, while I believe it is more like the right to build a garage close to the property line. So I guess we have an impasse.

As for defining a “right” very narrowly to mean only those declared universal by God, and defining those other things as “privileges”, my response in that case is to call gun ownership a privilege too, so that allowing the government to control it does not make a precedent for infringing on “real” rights. I know the constitution calls it a “right”, but either they did not define “right” the way you did, or else they were just wrong in calling it a right.