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

[JonNC]

“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.

Don’t stop on my account.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Don’t stop on my account.

Jon

Read more about Ayn Rand’s philosophies before you become too much of a fan. They are not very Christian.

 

[GKC]

Read more about Ayn Rand’s philosophies before you become too much of a fan. They are not very Christian.

I did a short paper on Randian stuff, as opposed to conservative stuff, while in college, back 50+ years. Like Buckley, I’m not a fan. But at least one of my family is, in a limited way.

Me, not so much.

 

[pnewton]

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?The same answer applies to both of your responses…

“governments derive their powers from the consent of the people,” This is why government has the power to restrict and legislate gun control, as a reflection of the will of the people.

“and no person has the right to deprive me of weapons,” That the question at hand, not some absolute truth. It is an absolute I surely do not agree is universal.

 

[jediliz]

In theory, nothing…until the background checks become ridiculous. They’ll just get them off the black market instead if denied.

 

[Bill1940]

May I make a few simple remarks? God provides the even beasts with tooth and claw, and Man with an intelligent mind to devise other means of defense and survival. From sharpened sticks to knapped flint and obsidian. He devises spears, bows and arrows,thence to bronze, iron and steel swords and eventually firearms and so on. Is this not all part of the Divine plan? Guns and various other things are tools and morally indifferent in themselves. And like much else, they can be employed for good or evil.

Government also can be used for good or evil, and it is most certainly not properly the first resort to control human behavior, and history plainly reveals that governments have caused more death and destruction than any other human agency.

Someone in the media pronounced the Orlando massacre the largest in US history. He did not realize that the Wounded Knee Massacre took 300 lives of Sioux Indians, about half of whom were women and children, in a government effort to disarm them.

 

[JonNC]

“governments derive their powers from the consent of the people,” This is why government has the power to restrict and legislate gun control, as a reflection of the will of the people.

“and no person has the right to deprive me of weapons,” That the question at hand, not some absolute truth. It is an absolute I surely do not agree is universal.

Not if it infringes on the constitutionally protected right. Government power is restricted to the enumerated powers, and not beyond. It is in the constitution that the consent of the people is expressed. It is the only source of consent the government has. We don’t have referenda, or plebiscites, for a very good reason.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

• Samuel Adams,

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

May I make a few simple remarks? God provides the even beasts with tooth and claw, and Man with an intelligent mind to devise other means of defense and survival. From sharpened sticks to knapped flint and obsidian. He devises spears, bows and arrows,thence to bronze, iron and steel swords and eventually firearms and so on. Is this not all part of the Divine plan?

It is always dangerous to make up individual hypotheses of God’s Divine plan. That is why we have the Church to afford the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

…and it is most certainly not properly the first resort to control human behavior, and history plainly reveals that governments have caused more death and destruction than any other human agency.

…even after you take into account all the death and destruction that has been prevented by government?

Someone in the media pronounced the Orlando massacre the largest in US history. He did not realize that the Wounded Knee Massacre took 300 lives of Sioux Indians, about half of whom were women and children, in a government effort to disarm them.

All that is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of homicides.

 

[jtpearson]

Here’s the text of the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reference to a militia seems obscure because nowadays we have a standing army (and Air Force, and Navy, and Special Forces, and missile defense systems, etc. …), the founding fathers did not want a standing military because it was seen as too burdensome on the populace so they insisted instead on a “well regulated” militia of armed citizens.

Extrapolating from the second amendment an individual right to bear arms separate and apart from these individual’s use of these weapons as a militia “regulated” by the State for her security is an anachronistic and disengenuous reading of the 2nd amendment.

That said, there are more guns in America than there are Americans and despite the refrain of the fringe right that some liberal wants to “take away our guns” no serious person wants to dramatically change the gun culture in our country at this juncture. It ain’t gonna happen.

Opposition to regulating gun ownership based upon your or my ability to pass a backroad check remains, however, a position that has nothing to do with the second amendment. We already have essentially similar judgements in place. Illegal aliens, people convicted of any crime who served more than a year in prison, and those subject to restraining orders are not allowed to buy or own guns.

Restraining orders, interestingly, are not convictions. At least in my state they’re simply judgements that there’s a 51% likelihood you’re a danger to the person petitioning for the order. I bring this up because it’s evidence we, as a society, are already comfortable with limiting gun ownership based upon reasonable suspicion it’s probably a bad idea for some people to have access to guns.

Personally I think background checks are a no-brainer. I have good friends who disagree with me on this issue, I just wish they’d recognize this nation’s founding documents put the burden of proof on their side of the argument and come up with better arguments for their position on this issue.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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

The word ‘force’ is in the term ‘law enforcement’ for a reason.

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.

I regard the goal is morally illegitimate. How it is accomplished is irrelevant.

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?

The British initiated aggression against the Colonists to seize their weapons and thus their most effectual means of securing their independence.

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)?

To quote Captain America, "When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world – ‘No, YOU move.’”

“governments derive their powers from the consent of the people,” This is why government has the power to restrict and legislate gun control, as a reflection of the will of the people.

“and no person has the right to deprive me of weapons,” That the question at hand, not some absolute truth. It is an absolute I surely do not agree is universal.

Given that we are all equal, you have no power over me and no right to arbitrarily deprive me of my weapons in the name of some nebulous “common good”. Government draws its power from the consent of the individuals. Since no individual can deprive me of my weapons, they cannot give that power to the government.

“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.

As you can guess from my signature, Ayn Rand is one of my favorite thinkers.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Given that we are all equal, you have no power over me and no right to arbitrarily deprive me of my weapons in the name of some nebulous “common good”. Government draws its power from the consent of the individuals. Since no individual can deprive me of my weapons, they cannot give that power to the government.

It is not pnewton that might deprive you of your weapons, but a legitimate authority acting for the common good. There are things that would be illicit if done by an individual but are licit when done by legitimate authority. The common good is treated as a real and practical concept in the catechism, so don’t expect to make points by calling it nebulous. It is clear from the catechism that except in very rare circumstances, legitimate authority may licitly determine what is the common good.

As you can guess from my signature, Ayn Rand is one of my favorite thinkers.

I prefer Christian thinkers to atheist thinkers.

 

[Rau]

It is not pnewton that might deprive you of your weapons, but a legitimate authority acting for the common good. There are things that would be illicit if done by an individual but are licit when done by legitimate authority. The common good is treated as a real and practical concept in the catechism, so don’t expect to make points by calling it nebulous. It is clear from the catechism that except in very rare circumstances, legitimate authority may licitly determine what is the common good.

I prefer Christian thinkers to atheist thinkers.

Moreover, we have (the scenario of) legitimate authority acting under a duly passed law, valid under the constitution of the nation. It appears now that personal views about “my rights” are taken as justification to act unlawfully. And the right in question - for citizens to have largely unfettered rights to access weapons - is one held as such by a very small percentage of human beings, and to my knowledge, not held as such by the major Christian Churches.

 

[pnewton]

Not if it infringes on the constitutionally protected right. Government power is restricted to the enumerated powers, and not beyond. It is in the constitution that the consent of the people is expressed. It is the only source of consent the government has. We don’t have referenda, or plebiscites, for a very good reason.

Jon

Did you even read the question I answered? Context matters. Against the claim that government derives its power from the will of the people, I pointed out this issue is a reflection of the will of the people, thus empowering the government to act on their behalf. That could even extend to changing the Constitution, should it go that far. It surely applies to the issue here of background checks, which the large majority of the American people believe necessary.

And no, the Constitution is not the only source of the consent of the people. There are also, state constitutions, statutes, laws and (most of all) elections, that empower these with the consent of the people.

As to when the Constitution applies, that is not up to individual interpretation. Samuel Adams may have had his opinions, but he was never a Supreme Court judge.

 

[JonNC]

Did you even read the question I answered? Context matters. Against the claim that government derives its power from the will of the people, I pointed out this issue is a reflection of the will of the people, thus empowering the government to act on their behalf. That could even extend to changing the Constitution, should it go that far. It surely applies to the issue here of background checks, which the large majority of the American people believe necessary.

And no, the Constitution is not the only source of the consent of the people. There are also, state constitutions, statutes, laws and (most of all) elections, that empower these with the consent of the people.

As to when the Constitution applies, that is not up to individual interpretation. Samuel Adams may have had his opinions, but he was never a Supreme Court judge.

All of the sources of consent you mention, and yes, they are means of consent, are required to act within and under the constitution. Being elected president or senator, representative or governor is not a granting of consent to act outside the limits set on governmental power by the U.S. Constitution.

While Adams’ opinion was his, it reflects the original intent of the writers, and therefore the constitution. Looking at the writings of the framers is one way we understand what the constitution means, and how it should be properly interpreted.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All of the sources of consent you mention, and yes, they are means of consent, are required to act within and under the constitution. Being elected president or senator, representative or governor is not a granting of consent to act outside the limits set on governmental power by the U.S. Constitution.

Reasonable limitations on the ownership of guns is not outside the limits set on governmental powers by the U.S. Constitution.

While Adams’ opinion was his, it reflects the original intent of the writers, and therefore the constitution. Looking at the writings of the framers is one way we understand what the constitution means, and how it should be properly interpreted.

Jon

John Adams was not the only framer of the Constitution, and it is unreasonable to think that all the framers were of one mind on every issue. In particular, if the 2nd amendment were so fundamental to the thinking of all the framers, it would not be an amendment, but it would have been an article in the original document before it was amended.

 

[pnewton]

While Adams’ opinion was his, it reflects the original intent of the writers, and therefore the constitution. Looking at the writings of the framers is one way we understand what the constitution means, and how it should be properly interpreted.

Jon

I think his opinion was indicative of the prevailing opinion on the need for guns, true. However, it is hard to imagine what any historical figure would think today. After all, we are not talking about stripping all people of all firearms. It may be one day the Second Amendment might be struck down, though that would take much more than a majority. Here, we are only talking about background checks in order to better define what Adams would have called “peaceable citizens”.

I came across this resolution from the period that directly involves free speech and right to bear arms.

“That if any person or persons shall hereafter oppose or deny the authority of the Continental or of this Congress, or the Committee of Safety, or the Committees of the respective Counties, Cities, Towns, Manors, Precincts, or Districts, in this Colony, or dissuade any person or persons from obeying the recommendations of the Continental or this Congress, or the Committee of Safety, or the Committees aforesaid, and be thereof convicted, before the Committee of the County, or any thirteen or more of their number, who shall or may meet upon a general call of the Chairman of such Committee, where such person or persons may reside, that such Committee shall cause such offenders to be disarmed”

amarch.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-amarch%3A87788

 

[JonNC]

Reasonable limitations on the ownership of guns is not outside the limits set on governmental powers by the U.S. Constitution.

John Adams was not the only framer of the Constitution, and it is unreasonable to think that all the framers were of one mind on every issue. In particular, if the 2nd amendment were so fundamental to the thinking of all the framers, it would not be an amendment, but it would have been an article in the original document before it was amended.

I haven’t disputed the first sentence.

You seem to view the Bill of Rights as afterthought, as a minor detail that carries less weight. That isn’t the historical case. The federalists thought an enumeration of rights wasn’t necessary. They believed the constitution was enough to protect the pre-existing rights we now see in the Bill of Rights because they viewed the constitution as a specific, limitation on government power, restricted to the enumerated powers. Even the general welfare clause was viewed within the enumerated powers, not an excuse to expand federal power.
It was the anti-federalist that insisted on specific protection of rights. Thank God for them, as they were the more accurate predictors of what we see today in the authoritarian effort undermine numerous protected rights.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Reasonable limitations on the ownership of guns is not outside the limits set on governmental powers by the U.S. Constitution.

John Adams was not the only framer of the Constitution, and it is unreasonable to think that all the framers were of one mind on every issue. In particular, if the 2nd amendment were so fundamental to the thinking of all the framers, it would not be an amendment, but it would have been an article in the original document before it was amended.

Samuel Adams, in this context, I believe.

And, thus, of course, if freedom of speech was a major issue, it would be in the Constitution itself, etc, etc, and so on.

Whether the rights specifically enumerated, including the all-purposes limitations of the 9th and 10th amendments, might have been in the Constitution itself was the core of the brouhaha between the Federalist and the anti-Federalists, over the ratification of the Constitution. Much history in all that. But, in fact, Madison, who wrote (basically) the amendments which became the Bill of Rights, wanted the constitution modified in its body, specifically as suggested, to pointedly tie the hands of the new central government on issues in which central governments have historically tended to be a little grabby. This likely would have led to a 2nd Constitutional Convention, starting over again. The Amendments were both more pointed, and more obvious, to settle the minds of the opponents of the Constitution as it stood.

 

[JonNC]

I think his opinion was indicative of the prevailing opinion on the need for guns, true. However, it is hard to imagine what any historical figure would think today. After all, we are not talking about stripping all people of all firearms. It may be one day the Second Amendment might be struck down, though that would take much more than a majority. Here, we are only talking about background checks in order to better define what Adams would have called “peaceable citizens”.

I came across this resolution from the period that directly involves free speech and right to bear arms.

“That if any person or persons shall hereafter oppose or deny the authority of the Continental or of this Congress, or the Committee of Safety, or the Committees of the respective Counties, Cities, Towns, Manors, Precincts, or Districts, in this Colony, or dissuade any person or persons from obeying the recommendations of the Continental or this Congress, or the Committee of Safety, or the Committees aforesaid, and be thereof convicted, before the Committee of the County, or any thirteen or more of their number, who shall or may meet upon a general call of the Chairman of such Committee, where such person or persons may reside, that such Committee shall cause such offenders to be disarmed”

amarch.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-amarch%3A87788

And I agree. Take note that there is a form of adjudication involved here. There is no adjudication in, for example, the no fly list. The late Sen. Kennedy found himself on the no-fly list, and while he more properly should have been on a no-drive list, I don’t believe his right to arms should have been violated, suspended, or subject to review.

Again, I am not opposed to background checks, as long as they do not involve a data base of names that can be used for confiscation, and as long as due process is strictly guaranteed.

Jon

 

[GKC]

I haven’t disputed the first sentence.

You seem to view the Bill of Rights as afterthought, as a minor detail that carries less weight. That isn’t the historical case. The federalists thought an enumeration of rights wasn’t necessary. They believed the constitution was enough to protect the pre-existing rights we now see in the Bill of Rights because they viewed the constitution as a specific, limitation on government power, restricted to the enumerated powers. Even the general welfare clause was viewed within the enumerated powers, not an excuse to expand federal power.
It was the anti-federalist that insisted on specific protection of rights. Thank God for them, as they were the more accurate predictors of what we see today in the authoritarian effort undermine numerous protected rights.

Jon

You know, checking the latest posts before posting a comment might save me a little typing.