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.
JonNC said:
This difference is, of course, that firearms are constitutionally protected

Jon
Click to expand...
Factually true. Experience suggests that perhaps should be reviewed. Constitutions can be changed to better meet needs, if the people will it so.
 
I haven’t read this thread (other than skimmed a few posts) given it’s length.
Outside of the wisdom of our founders, murder is already illegal. Perhaps making it “double illegal” will help? Making it harder for the law abiding to defend themselves and their GOD given right to life is surely the answer. :rolleyes:
Those who think stricter gun laws are the answer to a reduction in violent crime have lots of test cases in this country to review their hypothesis.
“Most” people who want stricter gun laws are simply “scared” of an inanimate object and unfamiliar with them. Given what is fed to the public quite regularly it is not surprising. Sadly, I’m always impressed with non gun owners who are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment. I say sadly because it should be the norm not the exception. But again, given the force feeding of the anti gun propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with, it is certainly understandable.
Hopefully cooler logical minds will continue to prevail, but I doubt it.
 
Robert_Sock said:
The notion that we the people can lead a revolt against a perceived corrupt government here in America is absolutely ludicrous.
Click to expand...
"When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton

“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson uses the term "last resort ", and that it is, but the obligation exists.

Jon
 
Ridgerunner said:
Not really. To assume it’s ludicrous, one would have to further assume the Armed Forces would shoot down civilians. A corrupt government is resented but tolerated in the U.S., so I doubt that would be the cause of an armed rebellion. More likely a more tyrannical government that we presently have would be the cause.

And if the government was intolerably tyrannical, those in the Armed Forces would know it too. History tells us of a number of occasions in which armed forces wouldn’t open fire on civilians, even sometimes the forces of very tyrannical governments.

So, improbable, yes, ludicrous, no.
Click to expand...
But if the Armed Forces is on your side, there would be no need for the public to be armed to the extent that would threaten the government.
 
Rau said:
Factually true. Experience suggests that perhaps should be reviewed. Constitutions can be changed to better meet needs, if the people will it so.
Click to expand...
No, it should not be reviewed, as it is the last resort for defending liberty. But even if the second amendment were rescinded, the right would still exist, and should be exercised by freedom loving people

Jon
 
Rau said:
Factually true. Experience suggests that perhaps should be reviewed. Constitutions can be changed to better meet needs, if the people will it so.
Click to expand...
BTW, the only way the people can wl it is through a constitutional amendment.

Jon
 
Rau said:
Yes 🤷 Constitutions can on occasion be improved. I know that is not your view on this issue.
Click to expand...
Eliminating an enumerated right is never a good thing. Is free speech next? Or presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, etc? Once we start picking which rights to eliminate, all rights become privileges, given and rescinded by an all powerful government .

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Eliminating an enumerated right is never a good thing. Is free speech next? Or presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, etc? Once we start picking which rights to eliminate, all rights become privileges, given and rescinded by an all powerful government .

Jon
Click to expand...
Not all claimed rights are “goods”. The euphemistically named “right to choose” comes to mind. And there are even fewer rights that are understood to be “without limit” or “unfettered”.
 
Rau said:
Not all claimed rights are “goods”. The euphemistically named “right to choose” comes to mind. And there are even fewer rights that are understood to be “without limit” or “unfettered”.
Click to expand...
This is not a claimed right. It is endowed. The comparison to abortion is specious at best. My individual right to arms harms and costs no one. A perceived right that harms another, such as abortion does, is license. A right that is abused, and as a result harms or costs someone becomes license. And rights should never be confiscated simply because someone abuses that right.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
What is horrendous was the tens of millions of people killed by their own governments in the last century. If we want to impact the events of gun violence, the first goal should be to make sure it isn’t only governments that are armed. Or, governments should be disarmed first.
Click to expand...
I really don’t understand the drive to disarm citizens and keep states fully armed. Non government gun killings are a drop in the ocean compared to government killings.
Brendan said:
I’ve made 17th century firearms; making a Sten submachine gun would be a LOT easier. Unlike the flintlocks I’ve made, I cannot just go to the store for things like springs. A Sten uses springs that are available in any good hardware store. Likewise for the screws, tube steel is common etc… The plans that I linked to even has suggestions for how to use things like fence post caps as the receiver end. Certainly not pretty, but I don’t think that pretty counts for much for the clientele that we are talking about

Remember that Sten that I linked to was specifically designed to be manufactured in garages.

I could have one built in about 3 days. If I wanted to mass produce them, I could probably get it down to several per week, just by myself in my garage with common tools.

I could not build a flintlock in such short of a time.

And unlike Meth, where the source material is illegal, everything that I am talking about here is readily available in a good hardware store.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget about the plastic printed gun. As 3D printing becomes cheaper and better there will be all sorts of options to print all or most of a firearm. There will be no way to stop the spread of those guns.
 
JonNC said:
This is not a claimed right. It is endowed. The comparison to abortion is specious at best. My individual right to arms harms and costs no one. A perceived right that harms another, such as abortion does, is license. A right that is abused, and as a result harms or costs someone becomes license. And rights should never be confiscated simply because someone abuses that right.

Jon
Click to expand...
An Endowed and unfettered right? How so?

While I’m sure we share the same view on abortion, the comparison is not entirely specious. I have a right to kill others, but the right is not unfettered. The source of the right, and the restrictions on it come from the same source.

Your right to arms may harm noone. Your exercise of that right, and the like acts of millions of others, does seem to add to harm. Were the right entirely unfettered, a greater harm would be foreseeable.
 
Considering that we have to do background checks for jobs, gun purchases should be as well.
 
adawgj said:
Considering that we have to do background checks for jobs, gun purchases should be as well.
Click to expand...
Both cars and swimming pools are more dangerous, yet they can be purchased without a background check.
 
Every armed person is a potential threat to the continued being of others, in the same way that incompetent, drunk or drugged drivers are. It makes sense that weapons should be regulated as much as driver licenses.

ICXC NIKA
 
Rau said:
An Endowed and unfettered right? How so?

While I’m sure we share the same view on abortion, the comparison is not entirely specious. I have a right to kill others, but the right is not unfettered. The source of the right, and the restrictions on it come from the same source.

Your right to arms may harm noone. Your exercise of that right, and the like acts of millions of others, does seem to add to harm. Were the right entirely unfettered, a greater harm would be foreseeable.
Click to expand...
It is entirely specious at best. My right and my exercise of that right, done properly, harms no one, unless I and mine are endangered. But again, it is arms in the hands of government that do the most harm. That is why government cannot be the only possessors of arms.
The founded and framers were clear that rights come from God, not government. Further, the phrase "shall not be infringed " is clear regarding this right. It is endowed, not granted.

Jon
 
GEddie said:
Every armed person is a potential threat to the continued being of others, in the same way that incompetent, drunk or drugged drivers are. It makes sense that weapons should be regulated as much as driver licenses.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
No background check, license or registration is needed to own and operate a car on your own property. Is that what you are proposing in regards to guns. That there be no background check, license or registration for guns you keep on your personal property.

A license for a car is certainly needed if you plan on using the car on PUBLIC property, but only then

I would certainly agree to what you are proposing, treat guns just like licensing and registration for cars. No background checks, and licensing only comes into play when you plan on operating your gun on public grounds. I think most States have that already, it’s called a Concealed Pistol License. Perhaps we can make those as easy to get as license to operate a car, perhaps beginner permits for 15 year olds…
 
exnihilo said:
I really don’t understand the drive to disarm citizens and keep states fully armed. Non government gun killings are a drop in the ocean compared to government killings.
Click to expand...
You must be counting killings in war. Those are killings of foreign enemies. When it comes to the government killing its own people, that is a drop in the bucket compared to non-government killings - at least in any reasonable government. You have to go to governments like Saddam Husain’s to find a counterexample.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top