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

[JonNC]

That’s mischievous presentation. It’s not about disarming the law abiding - it’s about reducing the ease by which weapons (dangerous goods) can be acquired. The widespread and easy availability of weapons adds to the supply accessible by those with bad intentions and those who for whatever reason ought not be accessing guns. Many, many law abiding folks can see the greater good thus promoted. (Look at the current state of the poll at the top of this thread!)

And the proper course is to review the decisions of the framers, and the constitution, through the proper constitutional process.

Reducing the ease for whom? What good does it do to reduce the ease for the law-abiding?
If the intent is to reduce the ease for criminals and those mentally incapable of handling weapons, making them a danger to themselves and others, I’m all for it, as long as due process is adhered to. A person adjudicated as being in the second category should be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. It isn’t up to a political appointee at the VA or Social Security.
Laws are already in place intended to prevent criminals. If strengthening that can be done without hindering the law-abiding, then I absolutely favor it, as long as due process is adhered to.
The fact is that was what the NICS system is designed to do, and I favor it.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Reducing the ease for whom? What good does it do to reduce the ease for the law-abiding?
If the intent is to reduce the ease for criminals and those mentally incapable of handling weapons, making them a danger to themselves and others, I’m all for it, as long as due process is adhered to. A person adjudicated as being in the second category should be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. It isn’t up to a political appointee at the VA or Social Security.
Laws are already in place intended to prevent criminals. If strengthening that can be done without hindering the law-abiding, then I absolutely favor it, as long as due process is adhered to.
The fact is that was what the NICS system is designed to do, and I favor it.

Jon

Jon - I’ll bet you are law abiding, but still undergo all sorts of restriction because they are applied uniformly in the interests of the greater good. This is reality when men live in community. We have to think beyond me, me, me .

 

[JonNC]

That’s mischievous presentation. It’s not about disarming the law abiding - it’s about reducing the ease by which weapons (dangerous goods) can be acquired. The widespread and easy availability of weapons adds to the supply accessible by those with bad intentions and those who for whatever reason ought not be accessing guns. Many, many law abiding folks can see the greater good thus promoted. (Look at the current state of the poll at the top of this thread!)

And the proper course is to review the decisions of the framers, and the constitution, through the proper constitutional process.

That may be the proper course, but the intent to do so is subversive, in that trying to eliminate a right by eliminating its constitutional protection should be resisted in every legal way, and if it is successful, then by refusal to comply. It doesn’t matter what which enumerated right we are talking about.

Jon

 

[Rau]

That may be the proper course, but the intent to do so is subversive, in that trying to eliminate a right by eliminating its constitutional protection should be resisted in every legal way, and if it is successful, then by refusal to comply. It doesn’t matter what which enumerated right we are talking about.

Jon

That statement assumes that the right is sacrosanct. We have dealt repeatedly with that position - you know I and others reject it out of hand.

The error of the framers was not the constitutional protection, but the mistaken belief that the so called “right” should be subject to unequivocal “protection”.

 

[JonNC]

=LucyEm;14037205]Is that the charitable interpretation? Do you think I’m a tyrant wannabe too Jon? And Leaf? And Rau? Is it possible for you to concede that perhaps we, along with numerous of our fellow citizens, presidents and representatives, might just believe there is s better model for our society? Are all who disagree with you on this issue “wannabe tyrants”. Or will you assign some other label?

Let me know when you are in office or running for office on that platform. Those representatives who sat on the House floor to protest the unwillingness of the House to not only compromise the second amendment, but also due process were acting tyrannically. I don’t know if it is a charitable interpretation or not, but it is accurate. Attempting to compromise a constitutionally protested right is tyrannical.

LEaf has indicated that he does not propose that. AFAIK, neither did Rau. Patrick proposed that, and apparently you do.

Confiscation (implying an absence of compensation) of legally purchased weapons ought never arise. If surrender of private property arises, it would be with compensation, as is the case when one’s land is acquired for a road, dam or similar.

Compensation implies we have come to an agreement to sell and buy. Confiscation, in this sense, means removing property from its rightful owner against his/her will. There is coercion involved.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That statement assumes that the right is sacrosanct. We have dealt repeatedly with that position - you know I and others reject it out of hand.

The error of the framers was not the constitutional protection, but the mistaken belief that the so called “right” should be subject to unequivocal “protection”.

The constitution was accepted by the states. Whether or not you think it was an error is irrelevant. That is the intention of the supreme law of the land, and as recently as the last decade, upheld by the SCOTUS. It was not an error, anymore than any of the other rights protected were errors, even though the progressive movement here is actively seeking to undermine many of those, under these same false grounds that you offer here.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon - I’ll bet you are law abiding, but still undergo all sorts of restriction because they are applied uniformly in the interests of the greater good. This is reality when men live in community. We have to think beyond me, me, me .

I am thinking beyond me. I see the almost precipitous decline in the ability to exercise constitutional rights in America. Religious free exercise is under relentless attack. Free speech is being effectively removed from state run college campuses across the nation. Congressmen are seeking to eliminate due process.

Yes, I’m thinking well beyond me. I am thinking of my children and grandchildren. I want them to live in the freedom that I grew up in, not in an authoritarian state where government determines what your-] rights /-] privileges are.

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

Are you familiar with the law? The one that requires you to drive slowly on empty highways, and which provides for armed police to deal with you if you don’t. The one that does not allow you to keep certain dangerous goods in your house. Or to possess, or purchase or consume or transport certain substances. The one that sees armed men pull over and approach a good driver because his tail light is broken. The law. Arrived at in accordance with all due process, as has been proposed by me, Lucy and Leaf.

Laws regulating traffic are justified insofar as the state is responsible for building roads because they only apply to vehicles operated on those roads. As for your other examples, just because you can get 51% of society to agree to them does not justify them or give you the power to make those laws.

I do not initiate violence or deception against others. What level of force do you feel comfortable inflicting on me if I refuse to comply with your laws regarding weapons?

 

[Ojo_Feliz]

That’s what the NICS system does.

Yes, but the NICS background check can easily be evaded by making a private purchase. Just visit Craigslist or a local gun show and find a private seller.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but the NICS background check can easily be evaded by making a private purchase. Just visit Craigslist or a local gun show and find a private seller.

The use of legally held, privately sold arms in crimes is rare. That’s not the main source of weapons in crime. Gang members in Chicago don’t go to gun shows as a rule. It is illegal weapons that are the problem. In other words, we’re attacking the wrong source when we worry about private sales.

Jon

 

[LucyEm]

Neither lucyem, Rau nor Leaf has proposed legislating in violation of the constitution. To my knowledge all wish to see a process which acknowledges the error of the framers in seeking to recognise and protect absolutely a right which has seen widespread and ready availability of weapons to the detriment of our society. There is s constitutional process to fix this and such process is clearly not subversive. To claim otherwise is to promote a lie.

And when this is done, and later, laws are passed (again, by due process), that limit one’s access to weapons, those laws will be in every respect equivalent to other laws, and subject to equivalent and appropriate enforcement.

 

[Rau]

Laws regulating traffic are justified insofar as the state is responsible for building roads because they only apply to vehicles operated on those roads. As for your other examples, just because you can get 51% of society to agree to them does not justify them or give you the power to make those laws.

I do not initiate violence or deception against others. What level of force do you feel comfortable inflicting on me if I refuse to comply with your laws regarding weapons?

Because I am proposing due process, 51% of society is not particularly relevant here. There is a constitutional process that addresses the constitutional changes needed. Subsequently, laws that moderate access to weapons will be “US laws”. Enforcement should proceed as for any other law. And if the law is part of the criminal code, and o e act contrary to it, he will be a criminal. This is not difficult to understand.

 

[Theo520]

In the U.S., about 10 people per day die from drowning, as compared with 31 homicides and 56 suicides per day.

I was talking about kids while it seems you expanded your ‘pool’ significantly. There are not 56 children committing suicide daily, etc.

Equally dubious statistic. But as a class, hammers and such are extremely beneficial too.

Legal owners of guns find them extremely beneficial too.

True. So is the benefit of guns kept for defense and never used.

Perhaps you should think of it as having a functional spare tire in your care, for use in case of emergencies. In addition to a tire and jack I keep a box of emergency supplies and a first aid kit. All of which I hope to never use. I’ve had to use the spare tire a few times but fortunately not the emergency first aid kit. My packed of Quick Clot can readily save a life.

No.

Yes, you’ve argued extensively against the harm of carbon based fuels.

 

[starshiptrooper]

And when this is done, and later, laws are passed (again, by due process), that limit one’s access to weapons, those laws will be in every respect equivalent to other laws, and subject to equivalent and appropriate enforcement.

Time to ask point blank. Are you willing to kill me if I refuse to comply with your gun control?

 

[LucyEm]

Time to ask point blank. Are you willing to kill me if I refuse to comply with your gun control?

I’m pleased not to be in law enforcement. But I’d expect the law to be enforced. I’d expect you to be arrested, brought before a court and tried according to law. If you resist arrest with your guns blazing, I’d anticipate the police would shoot back.

 

[LucyEm]

I am thinking beyond me. I see the almost precipitous decline in the ability to exercise constitutional rights in America. Religious free exercise is under relentless attack. Free speech is being effectively removed from state run college campuses across the nation. Congressmen are seeking to eliminate due process.

Yes, I’m thinking well beyond me. I am thinking of my children and grandchildren. I want them to live in the freedom that I grew up in, not in an authoritarian state where government determines what your-] rights /-] privileges are.

Jon

Then you should be with me, and save your resistance for those who want to legislate contrary to the constitution. That is the case with the other freedoms you’re concerned about. The next time some legislature proposes gun controls, tell them to first address the constitutional impediments, and offer them your support.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’m pleased not to be in law enforcement. But I’d expect the law to be enforced. I’d expect you to be arrested, brought before a court and tried according to law. If you resist arrest with your guns blazing, I’d anticipate the police would shoot back.

In other words, despite not having initiated violence or deception against others, you will initiate violence against me and escalate that violence if I resist. How is that different from any criminal gang?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In other words, despite not having initiated violence or deception against others, you will initiate violence against me and escalate that violence if I resist. How is that different from any criminal gang?

The are certain exercises of force that are only licit when performed by a legitimate authority acting for the common good.

 

[LucyEm]

In other words, despite not having initiated violence or deception against others, you will initiate violence against me and escalate that violence if I resist. How is that different from any criminal gang?

I would expect the police to enforce the law. They may need to arrest you. If you resist arrest, what would you law enforcement do?? By resisting, you are escalating a non-violent situation to one of violence.

 

[JonNC]

Then you should be with me, and save your resistance for those who want to legislate contrary to the constitution. That is the case with the other freedoms you’re concerned about. The next time some legislature proposes gun controls, tell them to first address the constitutional impediments, and offer them your support.

I suspect we are together on that point, based on what you’ve written. Just as onerous, however, are judges legislating from the bench, as we have regarding the HHS Mandate, and attorneys general threatening groups and individuals with prosecution for speech which is contrary to progressive doctrine on climate change.

Jon