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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
starshiptrooper said:
If the common good is taken seriously as a political concept, than any collectivist concept can be justified and individual liberty is dead.
Click to expand...
Correction: one may try to justify any collectivist concept. Individual liberty is not dead. It is just weighed against the common good. Sometimes it must give way. To paraphrase your argument, if individual liberty is taken seriously as a political concept, then any individual act can be justified and the common good 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).
Click to expand...
You are welcome to make that argument in the public square, and if you are convincing enough, your view will be the law of the land. Otherwise it is just you positing.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Correction: one may try to justify any collectivist concept. Individual liberty is not dead. It is just weighed against the common good.
Click to expand...
I think someone want to deny this - by labelling something a “right”, they hold that no other consideration can impinge on “their” free exercise of that right. That seems to be a very “me” focussed view.
 
Rau said:
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.
Click to expand...
If there are strict rules as to who may acquire, then the need for background checks actually declines. For beyond the two categories mentioned, restricting further typically means restricting to the ruling class and those connected to it. Restriction of a type of weapon usually means they are banned, except perhaps for government, so again, a background check becomes unnecessary since the weapon is unavailable.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
If there are strict rules as to who may acquire, then the need for background checks actually declines. For beyond the two categories mentioned, restricting further typically means restricting to the ruling class and those connected to it. Restriction of a type of weapon usually means they are banned, except perhaps for government, so again, a background check becomes unnecessary since the weapon is unavailable.

Jon
Click to expand...
My post remains unchallenged by what you write. 🤷
 
Peccavi said:
Jesus was a pacifist He never owned a weapon He told his followers who did to put them aside. I follow Jesus teaching before any other. His alone is the voice of God.
Click to expand...
You realize you are just begging the question, don’t you? Your reasoning is circular. You even say Jesus was a pacifist, the very point you are trying to make. His voice alone is the voice of God, but it is not limited to what is in the Gospels, as Jesus existed before then, and we can read his voice in the Old Testament as well.

You may think that your voice is the “voice of God” in that you elevate your own opinions as if they are fact. That is the reason why Jesus, whose voice you say is your only authority, made it clear that he would build his Church on an apostolic foundation, and leave behind a steward when he left.

What you are arguing against is not some Second Amendment religion, but Christianity as understood by the majority of Christians in the world.
 
Peccavi said:
Jesus was a pacifist He never owned a weapon He told his followers who did to put them aside. I follow Jesus teaching before any other. His alone is the voice of God.
Click to expand...
I was wondering, where does scripture say Jesus never owned, say, a sword?

Jon
 
A discussion about firearms rather than swords or clubs, even fists is merely a distinction without a difference, as the main question is do we have a right to self-defense. I answer unequivocally that we do. Any argument using the Gospel to say that we do not is edging towards heresy. A formal assertion of such a position, is heresy. At least as I understand the Gospel.
 
Rau said:
Assumes facts not in evidence!
Click to expand...
Really. So, let’s see. Let’s pretend for a moment that AR15’s are banned from civilian ownership. Would it make any sense for me to ask for a background check to buy an AR15?
Would it make any sense for the NICS to run one?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Really. So, let’s see. Let’s pretend for a moment that AR15’s are banned from civilian ownership. Would it make any sense for me to ask for a background check to buy an AR15?
Would it make any sense for the NICS to run one?

Jon
Click to expand...
Let’s say shotguns are only available to farmers, and let’s say nothing bigger than a hand gun allowed to citizens generally. Background checks are still applicable, both for citizens generally, and for farmers. 🤷 Why keep flogging the dead horse Jon?
 
Rau said:
Let’s say shotguns are only available to farmers, and let’s say nothing bigger than a hand gun allowed to citizens generally. Background checks are still applicable, both for citizens generally, and for farmers. 🤷 Why keep flogging the dead horse Jon?
Click to expand...
Why would we assume to discriminate against all citizens except farmers? Do you see how government choosing who gets what rights is a reall bad idea?
It isn’t me flogging. We have a human and civil right to bear arms. In America, the constitution protects that right. Background checks (with certain protections from government abuse) are a good tool to prevent those who have been adjudicated from getting one legally. It has not changed since the start of the thread.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Why would we assume to discriminate against all citizens except farmers? Do you see how government choosing who gets what rights is a reall bad idea?
It isn’t me flogging. We have a human and civil right to bear arms. In America, the constitution protects that right. Background checks (with certain protections from government abuse) are a good tool to prevent those who have been adjudicated from getting one legally. It has not changed since the start of the thread.

Jon
Click to expand...
I won’t follow your shifting goal posts. The point I made and you denied is clear - background checks remain relevant in the absence of widespread availability of weaponry.
 
Rau said:
I won’t follow your shifting goal posts. The point I made and you denied is clear - background checks remain relevant in the absence of widespread availability of weaponry.
Click to expand...
Okay. I don’t know of what value they would be if guns were prohibited, or if rights were granted to certain people in a discriminatory way, but it is a hypothetical…

I’m also not sure how going back to the question of the thread is shifting goal posts.:confused:

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Correction: one may try to justify any collectivist concept. Individual liberty is not dead. It is just weighed against the common good. Sometimes it must give way.
Click to expand...
Why?
To paraphrase your argument, if individual liberty is taken seriously as a political concept, then any individual act can be justified and the common good is dead.
Click to expand...
One can only hope that the common good dies. However since individual liberty applies to everyone, it does not invite chaos. After all, infringing on another’s liberty will lead to a loss of your own.
You are welcome to make that argument in the public square, and if you are convincing enough, your view will be the law of the land. Otherwise it is just you positing.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see anyone prove otherwise, and the Founding Fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment certainly agreed with me.
 
JonNC said:
I would contend that the common good is only good when individual rights are respected and protected.

Jon
Click to expand...
That is true, in as much as the common good should not come at the expense of unjustly depriving any individuals of their inherent human rights. But after that condition has been met, there still remains the possibility that some individuals will not like what is decided for them, such as the raising of taxes. That does not necessarily constitute the denial of inherent human rights. And therefore it may be a valid expression of the common good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top