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

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

I don’t view the Bill of Rights as an afterthought. But the fact that it does take the form of amendments is evidence against your theory that all the framers were of one mind from the beginning on those issues. This argues against taking the words of Adams as the authoritative clarification of what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution. The words of the Constitution themselves are more authoritative on that question, and extra writings should be relied on only when the words themselves are unclear.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…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

I agree with you about due process, but I do not agree that the database you mentioned is necessarily immoral, or even in conflict with the constitution. There is no enumerated right that says you are entitled to having information about your gun purchase forgotten.

 

[GKC]

I don’t view the Bill of Rights as an afterthought. But the fact that it does take the form of amendments is evidence against your theory that all the framers were of one mind from the beginning on those issues. This argues against taking the words of Adams as the authoritative clarification of what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution. The words of the Constitution themselves are more authoritative on that question, and extra writings should be relied on only when the words themselves are unclear.

The question lay with where the rights were best protected. Federalists assured the nervous that the general penumbra (shall we say) of the Constitution ensured that nothing untoward could occur. The opposition wanted specific statements as to the boundaries of what the government could do, under the Constitution, where its hand was stayed, on the rather obvious issues which concerned the people of the nascent state. You know, like assuring free speech. And the words of the Constitution are no more authoritative than the amendments there to.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with you about due process, but I do not agree that the database you mentioned is necessarily immoral, or even in conflict with the constitution. There is no enumerated right that says you are entitled to having information about your gun purchase forgotten.

I would agree that it is not immoral. Instead, it is dangerous, and I might overlook that were it not the case that even our government has used collected data against the people, thinking here specifically of how ostensibly secure census information was abused to th end of internment of Americans of Japanese origin during WW II.

I love my country, and I believe our form of government is the best ever devised by man, but power corrupts, and we should be ever vigilant

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

What a melancholy view this represents. Law enforcement properly executed under a law properly established under the legal framework of the land (for that is the scenario proposed) is represented as a “violence” against a right, and thus is used to justify violence to oppose it. And what sacred right was at stake? The so-called right for citizens in society to have relatively unfettered access to weapons. A right a small minority in the world embrace; a right not held as such by major Christian Churchs. What you and starshiptrooper are declaring is that, notwithstanding the position the country may take (through due process) on this issue, you will reserve to yourself the “right” to oppose it on account of your personally held views.

 

[JonNC]

What a melancholy view this represents. Law enforcement properly executed under a law properly established under the legal framework of the land (for that is the scenario proposed) is represented as a “violence” against a right, and thus is used to justify violence to oppose it. And what sacred right was at stake? The so-called right for citizens in society to have relatively unfettered access to weapons. A right a small minority in the world embrace; a right not held as such by major Christian Churchs. What you and starshiptrooper are declaring is that, notwithstanding the position the country may take (through due process) on this issue, you will reserve to yourself the “right” to oppose it on account of your personally held views.

I don’t consider this melancholy at all. It is a positive defensible position which reflects the position held by the founders and framers at the time of the founding: that it is the right of the people to rise up against tyranny.
I will oppose any and all attempts to undermine or eliminate the constitutionally enumerated rights, regardless of where those efforts originate, regardless of which right it is.
The level of access to firearms in the United States is in keeping with the constitutional protections of the pre-existing human and civil right.
How other nations feel about this right is up to them. They can protect and honor it, or suppress it, but we’ve seen what suppression of the right did in the 20th century. Frankly, there is little I see internationally that I would want the US to emulate, in terms of individual rights, governance, or economics.

Jon

 

[pnewton]

I will oppose any and all attempts to undermine or eliminate the constitutionally enumerated rights, regardless of where those efforts originate, regardless of which right it is.

I do not think the problem is opposition to a law, as it is violent opposition. Are not Christians charged with the duty to obey civil authorities? I know there is a role of civil disobedience, but that is only when it violates moral law. So unless the Constitution is place on equal footing with the Bible, or one believes one has a moral imperative to own a specific type of gun, I do not see how violent opposition, or even disobeying the law, can be morally justified.

I think this fight needs to stay within the Constitution limits from which this constitutional right is derived, both to avoid hypocrisy and to keep from making guns more than God.

 

[JonNC]

I do not think the problem is opposition to a law, as it is violent opposition. Are not Christians charged with the duty to obey civil authorities? I know there is a role of civil disobedience, but that is only when it violates moral law. So unless the Constitution is place on equal footing with the Bible, or one believes one has a moral imperative to own a specific type of gun, I do not see how violent opposition, or even disobeying the law, can be morally justified.

I think this fight needs to stay within the Constitution limits from which this constitutional right is derived, both to avoid hypocrisy and to keep from making guns more than God.

Are you saying the Minutemen were wrong at Lexington and Concord?
If we are to obey civil authorities, should your communion and mind submit and marry gay couples?
I am not talking about an aggressive violence, but instead a willingness to stand our ground when our rights are being eroded. The hypothetical presented was the the states approved a constitutional amendment eliminating the constitutional protection of the human and civil right to keep and bear arms. While that is highly unlikely (because, 1- of the incredibly high bar needed to pass an amendment, 2- progressives don’t acknowledge the need to as they believe the meaning of the document can be changed at will ), there is an assumption in my response that all other peaceful efforts to protect the right (this could apply to any enumerated right) have been exhausted.

Jon

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying the Minutemen were wrong at Lexington and Concord?

That is a very interesting question, but I am going to go with no, though it is certainly debatable. My reasoning being is the prevention of some, like Catholics, to freely worship, is a moral issue.

If we are to obey civil authorities, should your communion and mind submit and marry gay couples?

Why would they? There is no no law requiring this. Civil disobedience is allowable only when a law is objectively and specifically immoral. It may be one day that ministers have to forgo being ministers of the state in conducting weddings, if they are required to marry anyone (or any thing) other than one man and one woman. Bug again, administration of Sacraments is not on the same moral level as owning a gun, which in my opinion, is not a moral issue. I asked a long time ago if anyone can show where the Catholic Church made gun ownership a moral obligation (or even a moral right). I think we all know the answer to this question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If we are to obey civil authorities, should your communion and mind submit and marry gay couples?

We are to obey civil authorities unless those authorities require us to break a moral law. Submitting to marrying gay couples breaks a moral law. Registering your gun doesn’t.

 

[JonNC]

That is a very interesting question, but I am going to go with no, though it is certainly debatable. My reasoning being is the prevention of some, like Catholics, to freely worship, is a moral issue.
Why would they? There is no no law requiring this. Civil disobedience is allowable only when a law is objectively and specifically immoral. It may be one day that ministers have to forgo being ministers of the state in conducting weddings, if they are required to marry anyone (or any thing) other than one man and one woman. Bug again, administration of Sacraments is not on the same moral level as owning a gun, which in my opinion, is not a moral issue. I asked a long time ago if anyone can show where the Catholic Church made gun ownership a moral obligation (or even a moral right). I think we all know the answer to this question.

Oh, but it could go further than that. The state could say that if one provides a venue for marriage, it is discriminatory not to offer it to any kind of marriage.

Here’s where we might agree. I think the mere ownership of firearms is not a moral issue, as the morality is in the usage of these tools. In the many years of ownership, I have never used my weapons in a way against another human being. IOW, I have not acted in an immoral way. What is immoral is the prevention by force of people exercising their individual rights, including the right to self defense and the tools needed to do so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

We are to obey civil authorities unless those authorities require us to break a moral law. Submitting to marrying gay couples breaks a moral law. Registering your gun doesn’t.

Agreed on the first part. So, what does the Church do when we are sued and lose multi-millions of dollars for not performing gay marriage? When priests and bishops are arrested?

If law-abiding citizens are required to register their arms, that in and of itself is not immoral. It might even be unconstitutional. But it will lead to attempts to confiscate. That is immoral.

As an afterthought, I mentioned before about registration being dangerous. If the government does something that leaves individuals in danger, from criminals or tyranny, is the action of the government immoral?
Jon

 

[Rau]

I don’t consider this melancholy at all. It is a positive defensible position which reflects the position held by the founders and framers at the time of the founding: that it is the right of the people to rise up against tyranny.
I will oppose any and all attempts to undermine or eliminate the constitutionally enumerated rights, regardless of where those efforts originate, regardless of which right it is.
The level of access to firearms in the United States is in keeping with the constitutional protections of the pre-existing human and civil right.
How other nations feel about this right is up to them. They can protect and honor it, or suppress it, but we’ve seen what suppression of the right did in the 20th century. Frankly, there is little I see internationally that I would want the US to emulate, in terms of individual rights, governance, or economics.

Jon

You’ve ignored the point. Oppose the debate all you like, but if after all that due process, the constitution is changed to enable laws to limit your “right” - and such laws are duly passed - are you going to accept the law of the land, or reserve the right to resist it? Your previous response suggested the latter. That is a melancholy situation.

 

[Rau]

…If law-abiding citizens are required to register their arms, that in and of itself is not immoral. It might [NOT] even be unconstitutional. But it will lead to attempts to confiscate. That is immoral.

Confiscation without compensation is arguably immoral. Being required to surrender property (eg. Land, or weapons of a kind now regarded as illegal to possess) for just compensation has precedent and ought itself NOT be regarded as immoral. That process of surrender with compensation would itself have had to be legislated into law.

 

[JonNC]

You’ve ignored the point. Oppose the debate all you like, but if after all that due process, the constitution is changed to enable laws to limit your “right” - and such laws are duly passed - are you going to accept the law of the land, or reserve the right to resist it? Your previous response suggested the latter. That is a melancholy situation.

If all the proper channels are followed to make religious free exercise illegal, are we to obey the laws of the land? To we stop celebrating the mass?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Confiscation without compensation is arguably immoral. Being required to surrender property (eg. Land, or weapons of a kind now regarded as illegal to possess) for just compensation has precedent and ought itself NOT be regarded as immoral. That process of surrender with compensation would itself have had to be legislated into law.

Compensation assumes we agree on a price for trade. My weapon is not for sale.
If proper laws were passed requiring the confiscation of all places of worship, would that
Be regarded as immoral?

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Agreed on the first part. So, what does the Church do when we are sued and lose multi-millions of dollars for not performing gay marriage? When priests and bishops are arrested?

The Church suffered much worse during the Diocletian persecution, when priests were not merely arrested, but executed. But the Holy Spirit preserved the Church through that.

If law-abiding citizens are required to register their arms, that in and of itself is not immoral. It might even be unconstitutional. But it will lead to attempts to confiscate. That is immoral.

You can’t impugn the morality of an act based on speculation of what it might lead to, which I think you recognize by your first sentence. The morality of confiscation is a separate question.

As an afterthought, I mentioned before about registration being dangerous. If the government does something that leaves individuals in danger, from criminals or tyranny, is the action of the government immoral?
Jon

To be immoral, an act must have a immoral intent. If government laws restricting guns are passed with the intention (either overt or covert) of endangering the people, or with gross negligence toward their safety, then the act would be immoral. But if regulations are passed with the full intention and belief of providing for the people’s safety though official police, there is no evil intent there, nor gross negligence (unless they subsequently disbanded the police department). You may disagree with the practical effectiveness of the police to protect the people, and you might be right in doing so. But that is a prudential judgement over which people of good faith may disagree. It does not make either side immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Compensation assumes we agree on a price for trade. My weapon is not for sale.

Jon

No, compensation need not be based on an agreement on a fair price. It only needs to be in conformance with justice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If all the proper channels are followed to make religious free exercise illegal, are we to obey the laws of the land? To we stop celebrating the mass?

Jon

No. If civil law violates moral law, the civil law must not be obeyed, even if that civil law was established by following proper legal channels.

 

[Rau]

If all the proper channels are followed to make religious free exercise illegal, are we to obey the laws of the land? To we stop celebrating the mass?

Jon

You see - that is why I called your earlier answer so melancholy. You’ve elevated the “right” you believe you have (not legally protected anymore) to the relatively unfettered right to acquire and hold weapons to the same level as FAR more widely accepted human rights - such as the right to worship one’s God. That comparison seems ironic.