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

[Theo520]

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

Let’s focus on where it matters. The right to drive a car, have a swimming pool, or a hammer are far more dangerous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s focus on where it matters. The right to drive a car, have a swimming pool, or a hammer are far more dangerous.

False, about the hammer and the swimming pool. And while cars are more dangerous than guns, they are also far more beneficial.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

False, about the hammer and the swimming pool. And while cars are more dangerous than guns, they are also far more beneficial.

If you want to hunt a wild animal for food, then a gun is far more beneficial.

If you want to protect yourself and your home, then a gun is far more beneficial.

In some places, feral hogs are considered pests and may be hunted at any time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14032973]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.

I think it odd that you would equate municipal fire and utility right-of-way regulations to the right of the people to secure a free state. To my ears, this is similar to the president promising not to interfere with hunting and owning a hunting rifle, as if the second amendment was about hunting. If you want to compare building codes to the right to keep and bear arms, a comparison might be to the license connected to concealed carry. As for property rights, I’m far mor concerned with asset forfeiture laws that ignore due process and the abuse of imminent domain.
In the end, allowing government to make and take rights neutralizes the very nature of rights itself. Yes, if we allow one enumerated right to be seized by government, all of the rest are fair game, as we see happening today.

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.

If you redefine gun rights as privilege, then due process becomes a privilege, and speech rights are a privilege, and religious free exercise is a privilege. We don’t have to wait and see about this. Each and every one of the rights I just mentioned are now being attacked by progressives in government.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you want to hunt a wild animal for food, then a gun is far more beneficial.

OK, when more than a minuscule portion of the US population engages in hunting wild animals for food, we could revisit this cost/benefit calculation.

If you want to protect yourself and your home, then a gun is far more beneficial.

The vast majority of gun owners never have occasion to use guns for protection. The vast majority of car owners use their cars regularly. That makes cars far more beneficial than guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think it odd that you would equate municipal fire and utility right-of-way regulations to the right of the people to secure a free state.

First, a minor housekeeping detail. When you quote someone in making a reply, don’t add a “]” after the initial "

If you want to compare building codes to the right to keep and bear arms, a comparison might be to the license connected to concealed carry.

I don’t understand that one. It seems that if you believe guns are for opposing the tyrannical state, then carrying them concealed without the knowledge of or license from that tyrannical government is an essential right. Why would you be so willing to give that up?

As for property rights, I’m far more concerned with asset forfeiture laws that ignore due process and the abuse of imminent domain.

Yes, there are far more important things we could be talking about, but right now we are talking about guns.

In the end, allowing government to make and take rights neutralizes the very nature of rights itself.

Since you have redefined “rights” narrowly, this becomes a tautology. But when you use the word “rights” as they are commonly understood, your statement is actually false.

Yes, if we allow one enumerated right to be seized by government, all of the rest are fair game, as we see happening today.

You place an undue significance on a right being “enumerated”. As Bunty said in Chicken Run, “They just want to count us”.

If you redefine gun rights as privilege, then due process becomes a privilege, and speech rights are a privilege, and religious free exercise is a privilege.

You force me to redefine gun rights by insisting on using your narrow definition of “rights”, which makes it impossible for me to apply the word to gun rights. But if you will agree to use the word “rights” as it is commonly understood, then I can go back to calling them “gun rights”.

 

[JonNC]

OK, when more than a minuscule portion of the US population engages in hunting wild animals for food, we could revisit this cost/benefit calculation.

The vast majority of gun owners never have occasion to use guns for protection. The vast majority of car owners use their cars regularly. That makes cars far more beneficial than guns.

In these two comments I think you reveal the real impasse between us:
You seem to want to impose a human judgement on rights, attaching a value to them based on what you perceive to be their benefit to the collective. But rights are not subject to majority democracy, or a cost/benefit analysis. Rights are individual, not collective, though they may be exercised in the collective manner.
Whether I as a gun owner never use a gun in self defense or to hunt is not only irrelevant, but it is frankly no one else’s business, because the right is mine to exercise or ignore at my individual choosing. It isn’t up to a democratic majority or the government to say, you aren’t using the right so you don’t really need it. I’ve never exercised my right to an attorney, but I demand that it be there if I ever do.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

First, a minor housekeeping detail. When you quote someone in making a reply, don’t add a “]” after the initial "

.
Not sure of your concern here, but I apologize. Setting quotes can be difficult on a smart phone.

Here you recognize this basic difference in your opinion and the established understanding. Good

I don’t understand that one. It seems that if you believe guns are for opposing the tyrannical state, then carrying them concealed without the knowledge of or license from that tyrannical government is an essential right. Why would you be so willing to give that up?

The difference between state and federal government. If the federal tried to license CCL, I would oppose it. Also, CCL licenses the person not the gun.

Yes, there are far more important things we could be talking about, but right now we are talking about guns.

But you keep bringing up property rights as a comparison, so I there offered mine. And as we can see, property rights are now becoming privilege also, not subject to the inconvenience of due process.

Since you have redefined “rights” narrowly, this becomes a tautology. But when you use the word “rights” as they are commonly understood, your statement is actually false.

But it isn’t my definition. It is the commonly understood definition historically of rights. It is only in recent time as the progressive movement has tried to undermine rights that a new definition has become vogue: that rights really come from government, and can be taken away.

You place an undue significance on a right being “enumerated”. As Bunty said in Chicken Run, “They just want to count us”.

Not at all. The enumerated rights are the ones the framers felt so vital to liberty that they specifically protected them. Rights, however are limited to them.

You force me to redefine gun rights by insisting on using your narrow definition of “rights”, which makes it impossible for me to apply the word to gun rights. But if you will agree to use the word “rights” as it is commonly understood, then I can go back to calling them “gun rights”.

I am not forcing you to do anything, but I will not cede to a new, unacceptable redefinition of rights as being government issued privilege.

Jon

[/QUOTE]

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In these two comments I think you reveal the real impasse between us:
You seem to want to impose a human judgement on rights, attaching a value to them based on what you perceive to be their benefit to the collective.

I want to impose a human judgement on some rights, but some other rights I recognize as from God, and not subject to human review.

Whether I as a gun owner never use a gun in self defense or to hunt is not only irrelevant…

It is only relevant to the question raised by Monte which specifically mentioned hunting to support the idea that guns are beneficial. If you want to discuss how guns are beneficial, you have to consider how they are used.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

.
Not sure of your concern here, but I apologize. Setting quotes can be difficult on a smart phone.

 

[pnewton]

If you can lightly ignore his teachings then what the heck is left ?

It is not the teaching of Jesus that is ignored. Jesus did not teach on gun ownership. Saying that Jesus did not own a gun is meaningless on so many levels. It is the worst case of an argument from silence I have ever seen. For example, Jesus also did not live in England so Christians should not live in England. See, it makes not sense.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I guess this is what comes at having a forum over the whole world. At least this post demonstrates the need for subsidiarity. People in one countries often look down their noses at those in other countries, so being called crazy is to be expected, even if St. Paul tried to put a stop to that sort of national prejudice. There is more to the world than the “Western World”, or Europe, or America. Not everything that is good for one place would be good everywhere. This is why I am skeptical of all the American opinions, pro and con, of Britain’s latest vote to leave the E.U.

So, in case everyone here did not recognize it, this is a classic, post hoc ergo promplter hoc fallacy.

 

[JonNC]

I want to impose a human judgement on some rights, but some other rights I recognize as from God, and not subject to human review.

It is only relevant to the question raised by Monte which specifically mentioned hunting to support the idea that guns are beneficial. If you want to discuss how guns are beneficial, you have to consider how they are used.

And when it comes to enumerated rights, I reject that process, but out of control curiosity, which of the enumerated rights are beyond human judgement. ?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And when it comes to enumerated rights, I reject that process, but out of control curiosity, which of the enumerated rights are beyond human judgement. ?

Jon

Actually, there are quite a few rights that are beyond human judgement. But I don’t know if any of them are enumerated in the US constitution.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

But what is wrong with checking people out before you sell them a weapon of potential destruction. What CAN be wrong with it. What is incorrect about it. You can have one if you check out as not demented or a criminal so for goodness sake

 

[starshiptrooper]

But what is wrong with checking people out before you sell them a weapon of potential destruction. What CAN be wrong with it. What is incorrect about it. You can have one if you check out as not demented or a criminal so for goodness sake

The government decides who the criminals are. Too often, the terms ‘criminal’ and ‘person we dislike’ have been conflated.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

The government decides who the criminals are. Too often, the terms ‘criminal’ and ‘person we dislike’ have been conflated.

Seriously? Really?

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is why the American Revolution started. The King disliked his troublesome colonists and decided to take their guns. The Nazi’s also restricted ownership of weapons to groups they disliked. So did numerous Communist dictatorships.

Besides, it allows the government to keep a list of who exactly has a gun. There is no reason the government needs to automatically know what honest citizens have or do not have.

 

[PatrickKennedy]

That is why the American Revolution started. The King disliked his troublesome colonists and decided to take their guns. The Nazi’s also restricted ownership of weapons to groups they disliked. So did numerous Communist dictatorships.

Besides, it allows the government to keep a list of who exactly has a gun. There is no reason the government needs to automatically know what honest citizens have or do not have.

Never mind the government I want to know that guns (if they must he purchased) are sold to people who have no history of a relevant mental illness, that they haven’t been convicted of a violent crime, that they can use it safely and that it is stored securely.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Never mind the government I want to know that guns (if they must he purchased) are sold to people who have no history of a relevant mental illness, that they haven’t been convicted of a violent crime, that they can use it safely and that it is stored securely.

Who defines mental illness? Selling to a felon is already illegal. Gun education used to be mandatory in American schools. Shockingly, we had fewer mass shootings then.