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

[JonNC]

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.

It’s a violence of a different sort, a violence against individual rights historically held. It is the violence that the domestic government tried to perpetrate at Lexington and Concord.

But I want you to consider this: we are told that it would be impossible to deport all of the illegal immigrants. Consider if you will, that there are over 100 million legally owned firearms legally held by multiple tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. If we simply and quietly refuse to comply, it will be impossible to confiscate them.
Law enforcement would need a warrant for every home they suspect has a gun in it. That’s why they want universal registration, and why I oppose it. It is also why they have now zeroed in on due process. All gun owners would need to do is shut up and not comply voluntarily. “Do you have a warrant, sir?”

Jon

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s a violence of a different sort, a violence against individual rights historically held. It is the violence that the domestic government tried to perpetrate at Lexington and Concord.

But I want you to consider this: we are told that it would be impossible to deport all of the illegal immigrants. Consider if you will, that there are over 100 million legally owned firearms legally held by multiple tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. If we simply and quietly refuse to comply, it will be impossible to confiscate them.
Law enforcement would need a warrant for every home they suspect has a gun in it. That’s why they want universal registration, and why I oppose it. It is also why they have now zeroed in on due process. All gun owners would need to do is shut up and not comply voluntarily. “Do you have a warrant, sir?”

Jon

Why do you believe the government wants to confiscate legally owned handguns rather than only illegally owned guns and military-style weapons (however that is defined)?

 

[JonNC]

Why do you believe the government wants to confiscate legally owned handguns rather than only illegally owned guns and military-style weapons (however that is defined)?

Not the government , per se, but the progressive movement in particular. Almost all proposed gun control laws are targeted at the law-abiding. As I’ve said more than once on this thread, I will support any reasonable attempt to prevent illegal guns in the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues as long as due process is strictly adhered to and the constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. Make it difficult on criminals not on the law-abiding.

Jon

 

[XndrK]

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?

Because if you are arrested and don’t violently resist, then no violence occurs.

I don’t think that crazy strict, European-level gun control should take place here; I do think that the Second Amendment has a good purpose in the United States. At the same time, though, I do believe in the rule of law and nonviolent resistance, even when it comes to gun rights.

Everybody stands and marches with their AK-47s and AR-15s slung across their backs, fine by me. Somebody opens fire, game over.

 

[JonNC]

Because if you are arrested and don’t violently resist, then no violence occurs.

I don’t think that crazy strict, European-level gun control should take place here; I do think that the Second Amendment has a good purpose in the United States. At the same time, though, I do believe in the rule of law and nonviolent resistance, even when it comes to gun rights.

Everybody stands and marches with their AK-47s and AR-15s slung across their backs, fine by me. Somebody opens fire, game over.

As I said earlier, violence can be done to ideas and rights, but that said, there is a significant difference between an AR-15, a semi-automatic that is far more like a hunting rifle than it is like an AK-47, and automatic military assault rifle. I agree with the general sentiments, however.

Jon

 

[meltzerboy]

Not the government , per se, but the progressive movement in particular. Almost all proposed gun control laws are targeted at the law-abiding. As I’ve said more than once on this thread, I will support any reasonable attempt to prevent illegal guns in the hands of criminals and those with mental health issues as long as due process is strictly adhered to and the constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. Make it difficult on criminals not on the law-abiding.

Jon

I do not believe the progressive movement wants to take handguns away from lawful citizens. Look at Bernie Sanders, for example. He is not anti-gun. And no other progressive whom I know of has indicated any such intention. Your fears are unfounded.

 

[JonNC]

I do not believe the progressive movement wants to take handguns away from lawful citizens. Look at Bernie Sanders, for example. He is not anti-gun. And no other progressive whom I know of has indicated any such intention. Your fears are unfounded.

The problem is that for years there has been significant push-back, so they modify their rhetoric and proposals.
As an example, Washington state:

This bill wouldn’t just ban AR15s and AK47s, it would ban any semi auto rifle, including most .22s, as the 2 most popular ones, the Ruger 10/22 and the Marlin Glenfield 60, are both designed to accept and capable of accepting magazines with over 10 rounds of ammo. This would also ban any pistol that is** “capable”** of accepting a magazine holding over 10 rounds of ammo. This would include nearly every Glock, Springfield, M&P, Sig Sauer, CZ, FN, or Ruger that is “capable” of using a larger magazine, regardless of if you’re only using “California” compliant 10 round magazines or not. The only pistols that would be legal under this bill would be revolvers, small pocket carry pistols that were originally designed to hold 7 or 8 rounds, and 1911s that cannot accept double stack mags.

Take note of my bolding, not a pistol that happens to have a 10 or more round mag, but one that is capable of holding one. The list of banned handguns is extensive, virtually all semi-automatic handguns. If they get away with this, there will be a next step.
progressivestoday.com/2016-washington-state-bill-ban-almost-modern-firearms/
While that article was from an anti-progressive group, let’s look at Daily Kos:

dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

Title: **How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
**

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

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

Prove it. Since just governments derive their powers from the consent of the people, and no person has the right to deprive me of weapons, what is your justification?

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.

Because if you are arrested and don’t violently resist, then no violence occurs.

The same answer applies to both of your responses.

The situation is only “non-violent” in the same way that a robbery in which the victim does not resist is non-violent. If the situation was truly non-violent, you would have no need to initiate violence by sending armed men to threaten me.

While I have no desire to fight the authorities, I will do what I must to preserve the legacy of freedom handed down to me by the American militia at Lexington and Concord. They bled for their rights and mine. I am willing to bleed for the rights of myself and my future children.

 

[Rau]

It’s a violence of a different sort, a violence against individual rights historically held.

That’s an odd way to express the situation. In the events postulated, that “right” (at least the largely unfettered right of today) would no longer be embraced by the US nation, thus it is not justly regarded as any kind of “violence” to enforce laws that oppose it and were arrived at by a process entirely in accord with due process (constitutional and legislative).

But I want you to consider this: we are told that it would be impossible to deport all of the illegal immigrants. Consider if you will, that there are over 100 million legally owned firearms legally held by multiple tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. If we simply and quietly refuse to comply, it will be impossible to confiscate them.
Law enforcement would need a warrant for every home they suspect has a gun in it. That’s why they want universal registration, and why I oppose it. It is also why they have now zeroed in on due process. All gun owners would need to do is shut up and not comply voluntarily.

We’ve not postulated what precise laws might come into being - I don’t imagine all weapons become instantly unacceptable under the law. You’ve moved on to implementation. Getting the constitutional framework to allow rules to be established would be a major step.

 

[Rau]

…The situation is only “non-violent” in the same way that a robbery in which the victim does not resist is non-violent. If the situation was truly non-violent, you would have no need to initiate violence by sending armed men to threaten me.

Nonsense. Why are traffic cops armed. By your definition, pulling over a driver with a broken tail-light is a violent act.

And I remind you the scenario discussed now is one in which proper constitutional and legislative process were followed that ultimately led to constitutionally valid laws which exercised some restrictions on the availability of weapons.

While I have no desire to fight the authorities, I will do what I must to preserve the legacy of freedom handed down to me by the American militia at Lexington and Concord. They bled for their rights and mine. I am willing to bleed for the rights of myself and my future children.

Pardon my poor knowledge of history, but were those battles directed to securing the right of citizens to collect weapons, or were they about securing freedom from British rule? And are you willing to “bleed” over this (now presumed “historical”) right In opposition to the will of the nation, where such will has been duly established constitutionally (which is the scenario now in discussion)?

 

[JonNC]

That’s an odd way to express the situation. In the events postulated, that “right” (at least the largely unfettered right of today) would no longer be embraced by the US nation, thus it is not justly regarded as any kind of “violence” to enforce laws that oppose it and were arrived at by a process entirely in accord with due process (constitutional and legislative).

We’ve not postulated what precise laws might come into being - I don’t imagine all weapons become instantly unacceptable under the law. You’ve moved on to implementation. Getting the constitutional framework to allow rules to be established would be a major step.

I was responding to another’s use of the term violence.
The constitution protects pre-existing rights. Removing the protection doesn’t remove the right. So in the scenario presented, it would still be a violence against my right to arms, even in the unlikely event that the second amendment were removed.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14039670]Nonsense. Why are traffic cops armed. By your definition, pulling over a driver with a broken tail-light is a violent act

Nonsense. The comparison doesnt make sense. The two are not analogous

And I remind you the scenario discussed now is one in which proper constitutional and legislative process were followed that ultimately led to constitutionally valid laws which exercised some restrictions on the availability of weapons.

Removing the protection does not remove the right.

Pardon my poor knowledge of history, but were those battles directed to securing the right of citizens to collect weapons, or were they about securing freedom from British rule? And are you willing to “bleed” over this (now presumed “historical”) right In opposition to the will of the nation, where such will has been duly established constitutionally (which is the scenario now in discussion)?

Yes. The colonists had a cache of arms in Concord. It was the object of the government’s forces to seize that cache.

Jon

 

[Rau]

I was responding to another’s use of the term violence.
The constitution protects pre-existing rights. Removing the protection doesn’t remove the right. So in the scenario presented, it would still be a violence against my right to arms, even in the unlikely event that the second amendment were removed.

Jon

It protects things claimed to be rights, some perhaps universally acclaimed as such, others claimed by particular peoples. Citizens agree to abide by laws duly passed. Failing to keep faith with that undertaking has consequences, and to refer to those consequences as “violence done to a right” (when the protection of said “right” has been eliminated from the constitution) is without basis.

 

[Rau]

Nonsense. The comparison doesnt make sense. The two are not analogous

Nonsense. They are both instances of proper law enforcement and someone’s personally held view that he has a right to break said law is not relevant.

Removing the protection does not remove the right.

Then we don’t need the protection? No Jon, as far as the legal framework is concerned, it does. The only reason this discussion is so passionate is the presence of the constitutional protection - and in our scenario now, it is gone.

Yes. The colonists had a cache of arms in Concord. It was the object of the government’s forces to seize that cache.

Don’t confuse a mission objective of a battle with the war. The war was on regardless of a cache of big guns.

 

[JonNC]

It protects things claimed to be rights, some perhaps universally acclaimed as such, others claimed by particular peoples. Citizens agree to abide by laws duly passed. Failing to keep faith with that undertaking has consequences, and to refer to those consequences as “violence done to a right” (when the protection of said “right” has been eliminated from the constitution) is without basis.

No. You are wrong on two fronts. First, it isn’t a human “claim” as a right. It is an inherent right.
Second, read the Declaration of Independence. When government acts to oppress rights, the people have a responsibility to stand up against the government. The British crown was the legitimate government at the time. They refused to honor the rights of the colonists as British citizens. They refused to honor the basic pre-existing rights of the colonists.
When government fails to honor the rights of the people, then the people have the right to rise up against government, hopefully peacefully, but rise up nonetheless.

Jon

 

[Rau]

…First, it isn’t a human “claim” as a right.

Jon

Sure it is. It sure isn’t universally held! This discussion rages in the US because you (your framers) claimed it as a right and wrote it down. That’s the only reason. It’s at best a 3rd order issue elsewhere. I think you are stuck in low earth orbit Jon. Around and around. “God gave us (well, at least in the US) the right to widespread access to guns (up to but not including fully automatic weapons??)”.

But regardless, we’ve moved on. In our scenario now, the country has chosen (via the constitutionally proper way) to allow governments to restrict the “right”. Citizens should now cooperate with duly legislated laws, Yes?

 

[JonNC]

Nonsense. They are both instances of proper law enforcement and someone’s personally held view that he has a right to break said law is not relevant.

Then we don’t need the protection? No Jon, as far as the legal framework is concerned, it does. The only reason this discussion is so passionate is the presence of the constitutional protection - and in our scenario now, it is gone.

Don’t confuse a mission objective of a battle with the war. The war was on regardless of a cache of big guns.

No. One is a simple matter of highway safety. The other is a matter of defending individual rights and liberty.

The protection is vital, because it keeps government, with or without the majority, from infringing on the inherent right, regardless of which one we are talking about.

The battle took place more than a year before the issuance of the Declaration of Independence. One could say the war was inevitable by that time, but the object of the Redcoats was to capture those weapons. That was just one example of Crown denying rights that had been protected for other British citizens.
And that is the foundation of the desire of the framers to limit government power, and protect from government and the majority the enumerated rights that they correctly knew to exist outside of government power.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sure it is. It sure isn’t universally held! This discussion rages in the US because you (your framers) claimed it as a right and wrote it down. That’s the only reason. It’s at best a 3rd order issue elsewhere. I think you are stuck in low earth orbit Jon. Around and around. “God gave us (well, at least in the US) the right to widespread access to guns (up to but not including fully automatic weapons??)”.

But regardless, we’ve moved on. In our scenario now, the country has chosen (via the constitutionally proper way) to allow governments to restrict the “right”. Citizens should now cooperate with duly legislated laws, Yes?

And under that scenario, citizens have the right and responsibility to resist this violence against individual rights and liberty.

Actually, my “orbit” is far higher than those who wish to eliminate human and civil rights.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sure it is. It sure isn’t universally held! This discussion rages in the US because you (your framers) claimed it as a right and wrote it down. That’s the only reason. It’s at best a 3rd order issue elsewhere. I think you are stuck in low earth orbit Jon. Around and around. “God gave us (well, at least in the US) the right to widespread access to guns (up to but not including fully automatic weapons??)”.

But regardless, we’ve moved on. In our scenario now, the country has chosen (via the constitutionally proper way) to allow governments to restrict the “right”. Citizens should now cooperate with duly legislated laws, Yes?

Free speech isn’t universally held. Due process isn’t. Self government isn’t. Free press isn’t. Presumption of innocence isn’t.

And life isn’t , even here. And that’s because we’ve allowed the false and dangerous premise, presented by the progressive movement, that government ought to have the power to grant and rescind rights. And the result of this "enlightened " position? Abortion accounts for 100 times the number of deaths as gun homicides in America. Meanwhile, Christians are now persecuted through Obamacare into participating in the government declared “right”.
And the difference? The gun homicides are considered and are in fact an abuse of that human and civil right. Abortion, the government created “right” kills by design of that “right”.

Reasonably, I’m neither impressed by the excuse of “universally held”, nor by the claim of government power to determine “rights”
Jon

 

[GKC]

Free speech isn’t universally held. Due process isn’t. Self government isn’t. Free press isn’t. Presumption of innocence isn’t.

And life isn’t , even here. And that’s because we’ve allowed the false and dangerous premise, presented by the progressive movement, that government ought to have the power to grant and rescind rights. And the result of this "enlightened " position? Abortion accounts for 100 times the number of deaths as gun homicides in America. Meanwhile, Christians are now persecuted through Obamacare into participating in the government declared “right”.
And the difference? The gun homicides are considered and are in fact an abuse of that human and civil right. Abortion, the government created “right” kills by design of that “right”.

Reasonably, I’m neither impressed by the excuse of “universally held”, nor by the claim of government power to determine “rights”
Jon

“There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.”

I don’t think I’ve ever quoted Ayn Rand before. I’ll likely not make a habit of it.