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

[Peccavi]

The use of a weapon to defend myself and my family, and my fellow countrymen is only in violation of God’s commandment if Davd’s use of a slingshot is, or Joshua’s destruction of Jericho with God’s help.
Now, to be sure, it should never be used if there is no threat, and that is when it is holstered.
But a “holstered” weapon during the Cold War did deter evil, and it was not used.

Jon

PS. You didn’t answer my question: do you follow Jesus’ command that you have a sword in a scabbard? Or do you interpret that differently?

David was not a “Christian” Are you saying Jesus would have shot people ???

 

[Peccavi]

Jesus simply said put your weapon away - not to use it. He was against weapons.

 

[CRATUS]

No point having a weapon if you are not prepared to use it. A sheathed sword or a holstered gun with no intent to use is no deterrent. Once drawn and used the weapon become a counter to the commandment not to kill and to Jesus demand we that we love one another and keep our weapons unused

Good point

 

[JonNC]

David was not a “Christian” Are you saying Jesus would have shot people ???

Not at all. I’m saying Christianity is not a faith that requires you not to defend yourself. That isn’t what Christ taught.

Regarding David, I think God had the same expectations on how we treat each other. Nathan made it clear to him when his actions were not acceptable to God. How we use weapons is related to how we treat others. Using a weapon to defend my wife and daughter from armed intruders is different than being the armed intruder.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jesus simply said put your weapon away - not to use it. He was against weapons.

If He had been entirely against weapons He would have told Peter to get rid of it. He would have told him not to even have one. Having a weapon implies that there may be a time it is permissible to use it. Otherwise, why have it at all.

Our conversation started with your comment that being Christian and carrying arms is an oxymoron. It is not, as scripture itself shows. Twice I asked you if you have a sword in its scabbard, as Christ instructed Peter. Regardless of the fact that seem to refuse to answer that question, I don’t believe one has to have a sword, a weapon, to be a Christian. Neither is it oxymoronic to have one.

Jon

 

[Bill1940]

An earlier post spoke of the Second Amendment applying only to muskets which reminds me of the Stoeger catalog years ago advertising flintlock muskets made for use in the African colonies where the natives were not permitted to own modern firearms. Are we to be so treated by our rulers? There is an attitude threaded through some gun-control arguments of the superiority of the ruling classes and an inferiority of the subjugated masses. It is not difficult to detect the disdain with which some urbanites hold for the “rubes” in rural areas. There seems also to be a blind avoidance on the part of gun-control advocates of the flawed logic and demonstrated failure of their program. Criminals will not scruple to steal a firearm if need be, and terrorists seem to have little difficulty in obtaining guns and even grenades in Europe in spite of draconian gun-control. I think it was Cicero who said, “Fury will find its weapon”. For centuries after the invention of firearms, the ordinary people refrained from taking pot shots at their betters out of fear of God, and the sinfulness of murder. Not till the Enlightenment, Revolution and the falling off from Faith did that situation change.

 

[Peccavi]

If He had been entirely against weapons He would have told Peter to get rid of it. He would have told him not to even have one. Having a weapon implies that there may be a time it is permissible to use it. Otherwise, why have it at all.

Our conversation started with your comment that being Christian and carrying arms is an oxymoron. It is not, as scripture itself shows. Twice I asked you if you have a sword in its scabbard, as Christ instructed Peter. Regardless of the fact that seem to refuse to answer that question, I don’t believe one has to have a sword, a weapon, to be a Christian. Neither is it oxymoronic to have one.

Jon

I did answer but clearly I need to be more explicit. The point is a sheathed weapon is of no use if it remains sheathed. Jesus could say today holster your guns. A holstered gun cannot do harm, but is pointless. How do you get around the injunction to " turn the other cheek" rather than " shoot " ? Besides a “good guy with a gun” can only shoot " a bad guy" IF the bad guy starts killing people first. Scripture does not talk about abortion or assault rifles, yet to me it is clear BOTH are denied the Kingdom of God Jesus spoke of so often and therefore outside my Messianic belief. If Catholics accept violence answered with violence other Christians, Martin Luther King and Leon Tolstoy and many others deny weapons unsheathed as a Christian choice. As you rightly said Jesus told Peter to put his sword away NOT to use it.

 

[JonNC]

I did answer but clearly I need to be more explicit. The point is a sheathed weapon is of no use if it remains sheathed. Jesus could say today holster your guns. A holstered gun cannot do harm, but is pointless. How do you get around the injunction to " turn the other cheek" rather than " shoot " ? Besides a “good guy with a gun” can only shoot " a bad guy" IF the bad guy starts killing people first. Scripture does not talk about abortion or assault rifles, yet to me it is clear BOTH are denied the Kingdom of God Jesus spoke of so often and therefore outside my Messianic belief. If Catholics accept violence answered with violence other Christians, Martin Luther King and Leon Tolstoy and many others deny weapons unsheathed as a Christian choice. As you rightly said Jesus told Peter to put his sword away NOT to use it.

That doesn’t answer my question, but it doesn’t matter . If a carpenter’s hammer is in his belt, is it pointless? How about my cell phone in its belt clip?
A holstered firearm, like a sword in its scabbard, like a hammer or phone, is readily available if need arises.
If an armed intruder is pointing a gun at my wife, you can bet I won’t wait for him to kill her. If a marine sees an enemy but waits until his buddy is shot before he shoots, there should be a court Marshall waiting for him.
Yours is an absolute misreading of Christian teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

An earlier post spoke of the Second Amendment applying only to muskets which reminds me of the Stoeger catalog years ago advertising flintlock muskets made for use in the African colonies where the natives were not permitted to own modern firearms. Are we to be so treated by our rulers? There is an attitude threaded through some gun-control arguments of the superiority of the ruling classes and an inferiority of the subjugated masses. It is not difficult to detect the disdain with which some urbanites hold for the “rubes” in rural areas. There seems also to be a blind avoidance on the part of gun-control advocates of the flawed logic and demonstrated failure of their program. Criminals will not scruple to steal a firearm if need be, and terrorists seem to have little difficulty in obtaining guns and even grenades in Europe in spite of draconian gun-control. I think it was Cicero who said, “Fury will find its weapon”. For centuries after the invention of firearms, the ordinary people refrained from taking pot shots at their betters out of fear of God, and the sinfulness of murder. Not till the Enlightenment, Revolution and the falling off from Faith did that situation change.

Jon

 

[Peccavi]

Clearly we have very different theological views of the nature of Jesus messianic teaching. I’m with Martin Luther King and Leon Tolstoy and Gandhi in their interpretation of Jesus teaching not North American Second Amendment Doctrines of the gun as a Christian response to violence.

 

[Rau]

That guns are permissible as a means of self defence is a separate question from whether it is wise for a society to enable and support their widespread and relatively unfettered availability.

 

[JonNC]

That guns are permissible as a means of self defence is a separate question from whether it is wise for a society to enable and support their widespread and relatively unfettered availability.

How can I they be permissible if the are not available? Does relatively unfettered mean the same as “shall not be infringed”?
Both are a separate question for on the thread. Background checks assumes a right to widespread ownership. Both are good things.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Clearly we have very different theological views of the nature of Jesus messianic teaching. I’m with Martin Luther King and Leon Tolstoy and Gandhi in their interpretation of Jesus teaching not North American Second Amendment Doctrines of the gun as a Christian response to violence.

Where does Dr King say guns cannot be owned by Christians? Gandhi was not a Christian!
Jon

 

[Rau]

How can I they be permissible if the are not available? Does relatively unfettered mean the same as “shall not be infringed”?
Both are a separate question for on the thread. Background checks assumes a right to widespread ownership. Both are good things.

Jon

“Availability” is not an all or nothing concept.

Facts need to be distinguished from matters for judgement. That use of gun is a permitted means of self-defence is a fact. That in our society guns should be widespread and available easily is a matter for judgement.

Backgrounds checks do not presume widespread availability. They are one tier of restrictions. There may be (and usually are) others.

 

[JonNC]

“Availability” is not an all or nothing concept.

Facts need to be distinguished from matters for judgement. That use of gun is a permitted means of self-defence is a fact. That in our society guns should be widespread and available easily is a matter for judgement.

Backgrounds checks do not presume widespread availability. They are one tier of restrictions. There may be (and usually are) others.

That one has the human and civil right to keep and bear arms is a fact. That those who have been convicted of crimes of violence should not have guns is a fact. That people adjudicated as mentally unfit to have arms should not is a fact. That background checks to guard against these individuals getting them legally is a good idea.

Jon

 

[Rau]

That one has the human and civil right to keep and bear arms is a fact. That those who have been convicted of crimes of violence should not have guns is a fact. That people adjudicated as mentally unfit to have arms should not is a fact. That background checks to guard against these individuals getting them legally is a good idea.

Jon

How is status as a “human right” determined? How was the right to bear arms promoted to that position?

Is the right to bear arms independent of circumstances?

And I would add…“That in our society guns should be widespread and available easily is a matter for judgement.”

 

[JonNC]

How is status as a “human right” determined? How was the right to bear arms promoted to that position?

Is the right to bear arms independent of circumstances?

And I would add…“That in our society guns should be widespread and available easily is a matter for judgement.”

Centuries ago. The SCOTUS used the term “ancient times”.

All rights have circumstances which may limit.

In whose society, Rau? You haven’t revealed that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“Availability” is not an all or nothing concept.

Facts need to be distinguished from matters for judgement. That use of gun is a permitted means of self-defence is a fact. That in our society guns should be widespread and available easily is a matter for judgement.

Backgrounds checks do not presume widespread availability. They are one tier of restrictions. There may be (and usually are) others.

Actually, background checks do presume widespread availability. The intent is to prevent criminals and those incapable mentally from legally acquiring them. IOW, they may be acquired in a truly free society, with those mentioned exceptions. All others of majority age may acquire them. That is a presumption of a rather widespread availability, because they are a right.

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

First, you too would be voting on who has authority to legislate.

So, does that matter if I am outvoted by those who wish to violate my rights? When Pilate gave the Jews a choice, Jesus’ followers probably cried out to save Him but they were still shouted down.

Second, the common good, is part of Catholic Social Doctrine. It is not a vague concept. On a Catholic forum such as this, many who use the term do understand it specifically, even is all do not. Not all have studied, or understand, Catholic teaching in this area.

If the common good is taken seriously as a political concept, than any collectivist concept can be justified and individual liberty is dead. I also posit that since the right to keep and bear arms is both a useful defense against criminals and collectivists, it better serves the “common good” (in reality mutual goods).

 

[Rau]

Actually, background checks do presume widespread availability. The intent is to prevent criminals and those incapable mentally from legally acquiring them. IOW, they may be acquired in a truly free society, with those mentioned exceptions. All others of majority age may acquire them. That is a presumption of a rather widespread availability, because they are a right.

Jon

No. A country might have very restrictive rules on gun availability, including type of weapon, who may acquire, their justification etc and apply background checks as another layer of restriction. So no - widespread availability need not be presumed when discussing background checks.