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

[LeafByNiggle]

A rose by any other name.

Also, fyi I am limitedly familiar with Rand. I am aware of and saw the Atlas Shrugged movie. Never went about reading her works only second hand general idea of the overal political ideas.

The point I am making is that when you attack those for agreeibg with her you destroy your own stance because yours is as much stalin’s as mine would be hers.

So is to say if what I share with her is inherently bad then what you share with Stalin is inherently bad.

And I am sorry to say there is little left to be good with the exception of God since those two both didn’t approve of Him.

Gladly being the most important thing, at least Leaf, you and I agree on the last point

Yes, that’s true.

But in my original attack on the philosophy of objectivism, I did not use Rand’s general anti-Christianity. I attacked that view on its own merit (or lack thereof). So if you want to attack my views as being Stalinist, you would have to do so on the merits (or lack or merits) of those views, and not simply on their being something you think Stalin would have liked.

Actually, I must confess I enjoyed reading The Fountainhead. Rand was a gifted writer.

 

[LethalMouse]

Yes, that’s true.

But in my original attack on the philosophy of objectivism, I did not use Rand’s general anti-Christianity. I attacked that view on its own merit (or lack thereof). So if you want to attack my views as being Stalinist, you would have to do so on the merits (or lack or merits) of those views, and not simply on their being something you think Stalin would have liked.

Actually, I must confess I enjoyed reading The Fountainhead. Rand was a gifted writer.

And in all things there are extremes. It is sad that the monopoly of this particular (epipen) is born of gov regulation and seemingly only squashed by such. I’d as I pressume you would, like to think I would rail against my own monopoly if born of illicit means. I’d like to think no unfair charge on my part.

We all also have break points. For instance if they said “$5,000” a pen bc we can many more would join you.

I am not 100% against you persay.

But your side ignores what the monopoly was born of and it saddens me.

You know I see that a certain side of politics is much better at politics.

To note an uncontested item for a catholic, abortion. The same side that I am agaisnt has all non catholics thinking abortion is akin to an epipen.

I fear that imagine if the church didn’t have an outright statement? Like (I know we disagree on this one) guns. Guns where we “can” disagree.

In a sense if abortion was less “clear” by the church I think you and yours would succumb to the propaganda of those who you otherwise align.

I feel that side is better at deception and such. But I surely agree that extremisn is available in all forms.

I am far from anarchist my friend, but I fear I am also far from a stalinist or abortionist or social democrat or whatever other new definition for a rose that smells the same.

The only difference is in a sense when in debate as to my solitary example. I would rather die at the hands of the murderer than put him in solitary.

So as to say that in some ways I rail against the exfremism that I see as both the greater evil, accept in essence martyrdom at the hands of the other. However I do think the other allows martyrdom to be only an option. Whereas the alternative is a guarateed life of martyrdom in ways up to and including the final.

I see that yours fails to say that when you cast a ballot to get the epipen you almost always cast the ballot for abortions, for the same legislation that created the monopoly, and the same one that denies me personal healthcare.

I said before my prime example of politics, you say we should give people money and I agree but I will not vote with you. Simpky because you choose to give out the money in the form of rolls of quarters from a helicopter, and I dont want to be killing people

This is the grand issue. As I have said before there are some things I agree with wholeheartedly that I would never vote for.

For instance as it stands in the US the laws on guns are all illegal because the prime law is that there be no impediment. I in a perfect world would make the constitutionreflect my truest opinion. It woukd abolish a few restrictions, keep many that are in olace.

But if we have a law now that says there can be no laws and we have 10. If I say we can have 5 how many will we have? Think about that. Like it or hate it is irrelevant. If you can regualte the unregulatable, then what does the amedment about slavery mean? What would an amendment about abortion mean?

Like the ACA that was not and then was a tax. Can a lawyer not cal slavery and abortion a direct tax? Lol it is sad, but anything can be done when no one says anything.

 

[Mi3hael]

Speaking from the UK I may not have a full grasp of the situation so apologies if I have misunderstood.

It seems to me that the Democrats and the Republicans have such different types stances on gun control that it seems either side are just blocking the other in any changes. I know people say that is what we have elections for but things like the economy, schools and security take precedence when people vote - I don’t think people would vote solely on gun control.

Would this not be a situation where the USA could have a referendum, and get an answer from the American people that both parties would have to work to having been given a mandate.

 

[LethalMouse]

Speaking from the UK I may not have a full grasp of the situation so apologies if I have misunderstood.

It seems to me that the Democrats and the Republicans have such different types stances on gun control that it seems either side are just blocking the other in any changes. I know people say that is what we have elections for but things like the economy, schools and security take precedence when people vote - I don’t think people would vote solely on gun control.
**
Would this not be a situation where the USA could have a referendum, and get an answer from the American people that both parties would have to work to having been given a mandate**.

Everyone wants a fix to healthcare, not everyone wants Obamacare (ACA).

Polls show a abissmal rating of congress yet individual congressmen are posting good polls to THEIR constituents.

Why? Bc it is not “the congressmen” who necessarily disagree, they are (at least when not doing corruption) representative of a specific group of people.

So we dislike congress because congress basically represents “all” Americans in one room deciding.

We Americans actually “hate” our neighbor, we just blame congress.

I don’t mean in the sense of hate hate, but you know what I mean

Truth is idk where Leaf is at, but lets say Leaf was in the US and there was a room of 50 Leaves and 50 LethalMice…

Well there you have the US population in a nutshell. Plus so sometines there are 51 leaves and we get the 1990s gun ban, then there are 51 LethalMice, and we get no more ban etc etc.

Now we can also as my above post argue propaganda/Stockholm syndrome etc…

In that I posted once but ain’t looking it up again, in the UK at one point there was actual talk of banning kitchen knives since lack of guns means you have simply high knife crime. Lol…

Anyway somw of us for instance see thise in the UK or such as essentially “beaten down” so twisted into believing the same groups who would bring abortion for instance (again about the only “non-debateable” example) that it is like a hostage saying what a great person their captor is.

It is also then saddening if viewed through that lense. (Whether right or wrong)

 

[Mi3hael]

In that I posted once but ain’t looking it up again, in the UK at one point there was actual talk of banning kitchen knives since lack of guns means you have simply high knife crime. Lol…

We’ll I’ve certainly never heard of any legislation or either talk of banning kitchen knives. Sounds like sonething being taken out of context in the press to be honest. I’d be interested as to an actual quote about that before I take it seriously. (I know you have to be 18 to buy a knife of any type, plus they are normally packaged in a way where you can’t get to the blade - but what would we cut our vegetables with?)

But I guess the bigger point your making is that if that a murder would take place anyway, if they haven’t got a gun it will be a knife etc.

Well just looking at the stats again, per 100,000 of population there are 11 murders in the UK compared to 42 in the USA. Our countries culture is very similar apart from the gun control stuff, why do you think there is such a big difference?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And in all things there are extremes. It is sad that the monopoly of this particular (epipen) is born of gov regulation and seemingly only squashed by such. I’d as I pressume you would, like to think I would rail against my own monopoly if born of illicit means. I’d like to think no unfair charge on my part.

We all also have break points. For instance if they said “$5,000” a pen bc we can many more would join you.

I am not 100% against you persay.

But your side ignores what the monopoly was born of and it saddens me.

You know I see that a certain side of politics is much better at politics.

To note an uncontested item for a catholic, abortion. The same side that I am agaisnt has all non catholics thinking abortion is akin to an epipen.

I fear that imagine if the church didn’t have an outright statement? Like (I know we disagree on this one) guns. Guns where we “can” disagree.

In a sense if abortion was less “clear” by the church I think you and yours would succumb to the propaganda of those who you otherwise align.

I feel that side is better at deception and such. But I surely agree that extremisn is available in all forms.

I am far from anarchist my friend, but I fear I am also far from a stalinist or abortionist or social democrat or whatever other new definition for a rose that smells the same.

The only difference is in a sense when in debate as to my solitary example. I would rather die at the hands of the murderer than put him in solitary.

So as to say that in some ways I rail against the exfremism that I see as both the greater evil, accept in essence martyrdom at the hands of the other. However I do think the other allows martyrdom to be only an option. Whereas the alternative is a guarateed life of martyrdom in ways up to and including the final.

I see that yours fails to say that when you cast a ballot to get the epipen you almost always cast the ballot for abortions, for the same legislation that created the monopoly, and the same one that denies me personal healthcare.

I said before my prime example of politics, you say we should give people money and I agree but I will not vote with you. Simpky because you choose to give out the money in the form of rolls of quarters from a helicopter, and I dont want to be killing people

This is the grand issue. As I have said before there are some things I agree with wholeheartedly that I would never vote for.

For instance as it stands in the US the laws on guns are all illegal because the prime law is that there be no impediment. I in a perfect world would make the constitutionreflect my truest opinion. It woukd abolish a few restrictions, keep many that are in olace.

But if we have a law now that says there can be no laws and we have 10. If I say we can have 5 how many will we have? Think about that. Like it or hate it is irrelevant. If you can regualte the unregulatable, then what does the amedment about slavery mean? What would an amendment about abortion mean?

Like the ACA that was not and then was a tax. Can a lawyer not cal slavery and abortion a direct tax? Lol it is sad, but anything can be done when no one says anything.

I think you could benefit by not trying to categorize everyone into one of two “sides”. Doing that leads you to drawing conclusions about people’s views based on their position on other issues. It also prevents you from addressing the issues themselves, independently of who is voicing them. The matter at hand in this thread is gun control generally, and background checks specifically. I don’t think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about these issues by bringing in the ACA, abortion, etc.

 

[LethalMouse]

I think you could benefit by not trying to categorize everyone into one of two “sides”. Doing that leads you to drawing conclusions about people’s views based on their position on other issues. It also prevents you from addressing the issues themselves, independently of who is voicing them. The matter at hand in this thread is gun control generally, and background checks specifically. I don’t think you can draw any meaningful conclusions about these issues by bringing in the ACA, abortion, etc.

Oh NO I am not saying the persons position.

Not necessarily anyway

What I am saying is that when we link up with others to form a power block, you MIGHT get your way, but they may as well.

So in to say if I had a choice between dealing with a theif who steals shiny objects

Or dealing with a pedophile

The one I deal with might get allowed or get away with their crime as a result of our conbined power.

Now whom might I choose?

The issue is even if there is something OK or OK-ish in what you say, standing behind you and gaining power is the pedophile.

Standing behind me in the sense is the shiny object theif.

That is a main point anyway…

And you missed the point on ACA. One says “you dont want good healthcare!”

Now why is for conversational purposes the ACA inherently “good healthcare?”

This harkens to my roll of quarters from helicopters arguement.

The problem is that the “side” for contextual purposes that advocates as a combined power broker ACA, abortion, gun control, prayer not allowed in schools etc…

Those are the best at yelling more forcefully. If you say rolls of quarters out of a helicopter are bad they will unceasingly claim you want to horde money and keep it from people.

No matter that you may have offered other options like direct deposit, checks, gift cards.

No that side tells you and the masses who are less knowing “THEY WONT LET US GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY!!!”

And sadly it is believed.

But in the end at least in the US 98% of the time if you vote for candidates that want ACA, gun control, etc you WILL elect someone who wants SSM, abortion, removal of prayer, gender fluidity, and many others.

Also the main issue of this thread is it is built on a lie. Like someone advocating for equality after they have it… they can only get superiority.

We surprise actually have more gun control than a certain side pretends including background checks. If you look at many states they get more UK like anyway then why scream that there are “no background checks?” Why claim the gunshow loophole when it is clearly false?

Simple, as the equality fighting leaders now gains superiority the leaders of the movement for gun ckntrol want more than they say.

I agree the masses often not as much, but the masses go where the wise silver tongued devils tell them. Same reason that in Revelation more the world attacks the City of God than chooses God.

TBH I pressume the side with the baby killing, hatred of religion, and silver tongue will win in the end well… not the very end lol… but for mortal purposes.

A few good buzz words like terrorism, drugs, helping the poor, equality, tolerance. Say those words and everyday they get more powerful despite those words truly being lies.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yet if we sport and hunt? You will never need that beanie baby or baseball card collection.

You will never NEED the many extra cars you collect.

you will never need a lot of things.

Though I say if you have a bad time financially and are hard up for food, you may just need a gun. I know quite a few families who eat quite well despite lack of funds. Just because you THINK everyone lives in a upper middle class apartment building, doesn’t make it true.

If you are on your deathbed dying of a highly painful deadly disease, yes, many of our values will likely change, like owning a gun for protection and for beanie babies. Imagine yourself in such a state now, while there’s still time to correct your folly.

I do not get that I assume everybody to be living in an upper middle-class apartment.

 

[LethalMouse]

If you are on your deathbed dying of a highly painful deadly disease, yes, many of our values will likely change, like owning a gun for protection and for beanie babies. Imagine yourself in such a state now, **while there’s still time to correct your folly. **
I do not get that I assume everybody to be living in an upper middle-class apartment.

And this my friend is often where the unstoppable force and immovable object comes into play.

2 views each call the other folly.

To die would be a grand adventure!
-Captain James Hook

I suppose only in such, will we know who was folly

 

[po18guy]

I believe that people are far more likely to die from a terrible disease than ever needing a gun to fight off a violent attack. It’s only wisdom that people would be far better off selling their mass of weapons and donating the money to disease research.

John 12:4-5 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii[a] and given to the poor?”

 

[Robert_Sock]

John 12:4-5 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii[a] and given to the poor?”

I’m not sure why you posted this, but if it has to do with giving to the poor, consider the following:

“Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.”
~ Proverbs 21:13

Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

1 John 3:17-18
“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.”

“Life’s prime needs are water, bread, and clothing, a house, too, for decent privacy.”
-Sirach 29:21

Isaiah 58:7-10
Thus says the Lord:
Share your bread with the hungry,
and shelter the homeless poor,
clothe the man you see to be naked
and do not turn from your own kin.
Then will your light shine like the dawn
and your wound be quickly healed over.
Your integrity will go before you
and the glory of the Lord behind you.
Cry, and the Lord will answer;
call, and he will say, ‘I am here.’
If you do away with the yoke,
the clenched fist, the wicked word,
if you give your bread to the hungry,
and relief to the oppressed,
your light will rise in the darkness,
and your shadows become like noon.

Gal 5:13 (Douay Rheims)
13 For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another.

At the end of our life, we shall all be judged by charity. - St John of the Cross.

4A beggar’s request do not reject;
do not turn your face away from the poor.
-Sirach 2

27 He who gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
-Proverbs 28

34
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.
35
This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
–John 13:

Luke 16:19-31
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 3:11
John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

 

[BCole]

When you remove firearms from a society, you create a thugocracy where society is ruled by young thugs who rule over the weak through physical threats. When a society has firearms, the elderly, the weak and the infirm are the equal of the thugs.

 

[Rau]

When you remove firearms from a society, you create a thugocracy where society is ruled by young thugs who rule over the weak through physical threats. When a society has firearms, the elderly, the weak and the infirm are the equal of the thugs.

That theory is easily tested. Visit some of the many countries where weapons are far less widely owned. Them you can start working on a new theory!

 

[JonNC]

Speaking from the UK I may not have a full grasp of the situation so apologies if I have misunderstood.

It seems to me that the Democrats and the Republicans have such different types stances on gun control that it seems either side are just blocking the other in any changes. I know people say that is what we have elections for but things like the economy, schools and security take precedence when people vote - I don’t think people would vote solely on gun control.

Would this not be a situation where the USA could have a referendum, and get an answer from the American people that both parties would have to work to having been given a mandate.

Two points:

1. Referenda are unconstitutional. There is no constitutional mechanism for one because the founders opposed democracy. Our s is a constitutional representative republic.
2. The very notion of a popular vote on an inherent human and civil right is contrary to liberty.

Jon

 

[Rau]

1. The very notion of a popular vote on an inherent human and civil right is contrary to liberty.

Though in this case, no such right is in discussion.

 

[Kat127]

Speaking from the UK I may not have a full grasp of the situation so apologies if I have misunderstood.

It seems to me that the Democrats and the Republicans have such different types stances on gun control that it seems either side are just blocking the other in any changes. I know people say that is what we have elections for but things like the economy, schools and security take precedence when people vote - I don’t think people would vote solely on gun control.

Would this not be a situation where the USA could have a referendum, and get an answer from the American people that both parties would have to work to having been given a mandate.

Actually, American gun owners are very good at voting out their representatives if they support gun control. It is one of the few issues I’ve seen people cross party lines without hesitation. There are far more democrats who own guns than people think. They aren’t very vocal about their other views at gun shows or gun stores but they exist.

Everyone wants to act like the gun manufactures or the NRA are controlling the laws with their money. But where do they get their money? From people who buy their products or hire the NRA to be a lobby for gun rights.

Now, let me give an example of why there is no cooperation. President Obama tried very hard to pass gun control laws and failed. So instead he used his power of executive orders to make additional requirements, expense and regulations on NFA guns. That is the law that regulates the ownership of fully-automatic weapons, silencers and short-barreled rifles. These are expensive items, highly regulated and typically only purchased by serious collectors. Use of NFA weapons in crime is almost unheard of.

Obama’s executive orders did nothing to make the country safer. All it did was make law-abiding gun owners jump through even more hoops and shell out even more cash. It also puts a lot more work on the ATF (the agency that oversees the NFA) and the ATF is already ridiculously overworked.

Needless to say, this did not increase the goodwill between the gun control advocates and the guns owners.

 

[JonNC]

Though in this case, no such right is in discussion.

Oh, I thought the thread was about the inherent human and civil right defended by the second amendment . Maybe I missed something when I was away.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That theory is easily tested. Visit some of the many countries where weapons are far less widely owned. Them you can start working on a new theory!

Nazi Germany. USSR, Syria. Lebanon. China. The Central European slave states under Soviet rule. Blacks in Apartied South Africa. Blacks in the Jim Crow south
Chicago

 

[Rau]

Oh, I thought the thread was about the inherent human and civil right defended by the second amendment . Maybe I missed something when I was away.

Yes, you must have missed something. There’s no such inherent human right.

 

[Rau]

Nazi Germany. USSR, Syria. Lebanon. China. The Central European slave states under Soviet rule. Blacks in Apartied South Africa. Blacks in the Jim Crow south
Chicago

Bit selective aren’t you, even resorting to places no longer existing. Only takes one example to demolish your argument. New Zealand perhaps?