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

[JonNC]

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

Syria no longer exists?
Not selective, just proves the point that a disarmed citizenry is subject to tyranny. Whether or not a particular government has yet to take advantage of the situation does not exclude the possibility.

Jon

 

[Rau]

Syria no longer exists?
Not selective, just proves the point that a disarmed citizenry is subject to tyranny. Whether or not a particular government has yet to take advantage of the situation does not exclude the possibility.

Jon

It’s the contrary example - such as NZ, that disproves the earlier assertion.

 

[JonNC]

It’s the contrary example - such as NZ, that disproves the earlier assertion.

And All of the examples gave plus the countless more through history disprove the notion that governments can be trusted to not seek greater and greater power, leading to tyranny.
Tyranny always leads the requiring the people be incapable of fighting back.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And All of the examples gave plus the countless more through history disprove the notion that governments can be trusted to not seek greater and greater power, leading to tyranny.
Tyranny always leads the requiring the people be incapable of fighting back.

Jon

“Countless”, eh? I say civil wars (I.e. “people fighting back”) have done much more harm through history compared to the truly countless number of governments that have served their people well.

 

[Rau]

And All of the examples gave plus the countless more through history disprove the notion that governments can be trusted to not seek greater and greater power, leading to tyranny.
Tyranny always leads the requiring the people be incapable of fighting back.

Jon

The trustworthiness of governments was not the point of the earlier claims. Try to stay on point Jon.

 

[Theo520]

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

Places no longer in existence can still provide excellent data on the situation. The problem must also be looked at by a region and their issues, not national lines.

The problems in urban centers can be compared since they face similar pressures and you can compare their gun laws and level of gun ownership. But is it appropriate to compare Wy to Illinois?

Illinois crime data is dominated by Chicago and Wy data indicates guns aren’t causal. In Wy, 63% of households have guns or 197 guns per 1,000 people. In contrast, Illinois only has 9 guns per 1,000 people.

 

[JonNC]

The trustworthiness of governments was not the point of the earlier claims. Try to stay on point Jon.

The trustworthiness of government is always and precisely why the right exists, and the constitution specifically protects it.

 

[BCole]

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

Oh, yes there is. If you have a right to life, you have a right to defend it.

 

[BCole]

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!

I will admit that having a homogenous society does more for safety than even the keeping of arms. But lacking a homogenous society, it becomes imperative to keep arms.

 

[JonNC]

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

According to the Supreme Court, and the history they site, there is.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. [4] Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. [5] We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United ****11] States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The **2798] second amendment declares ***658] that it shall not be infringed. . . .”[fn16]

The right pre-exists the constitution, and the constitution does not grant the right. No government has the power to grant a right. Rights, by definition, are inherent.

…
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122-134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding *594] generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139-140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2-4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National ****12] Defence, by a Free Militia 17-18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886-887 (1784) (A. ***659] Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59-60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual **2799] right protecting against both public and private violence.

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that "t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence." A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936) (reprinted 1970); see also, e. g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1904) (reprinted 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Anti-federalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the *595] description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145-146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31-32 (1833).

Red highlighting is mine.

It, like the others in the constitution, are inherent rights, protected but not granted by the constitution, because government has no power to grant rights. And elimination of the constitutional protection does not remove the right itself.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“Countless”, eh? I say civil wars (I.e. “people fighting back”) have done much more harm through history compared to the truly countless number of governments that have served their people well.

We are speaking of the state of mankind since the fall. We are, indeed, sinful beings, and whether we view concupiscence as a sin itself, or a tendency to sin, the temptations of power often lead to tyranny. Civil wars happen because of corruption of people in government and the tyranny that results.

The right to keep and bear arms, as the founders pointed out, is there to keep the government honest, a check against the corruptions of power.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The right to keep and bear arms, as the founders pointed out, is there to keep the government honest, a check against the corruptions of power.

That may have been the intention, but history has shown that although both having guns and not having guns can lead to harm, more harm has been done my the former than by the later.

 

[JonNC]

That may have been the intention, but history has shown that although both having guns and not having guns can lead to harm, more harm has been done my the former than by the later.

Especially when it is the government who holds arms, either concurrently with citizens, or exclusively.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Especially when it is the government who holds arms, either concurrently with citizens, or exclusively.

No, I think when the government holds the arms, there has been less harm done than when the populace can overpower the government. If you think otherwise, then please point out an example in the past 100 years of a developed nation living in peace, where the people have had the firepower to overpower the government.

 

[JonNC]

No, I think when the government holds the arms, there has been less harm done than when the populace can overpower the government.

260 million citizens killed by their own governments in the twentieth century. Governments are the biggest killers of innocent civilians. Often, they (civilians) are unarmed.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

260 million citizens killed by their own governments in the twentieth century. Governments are the biggest killers of innocent civilians. Often, they (civilians) are unarmed.

Jon

Perhaps you did not see my edit. I added a challenge. Also, I question your methodology of classifying people “killed by the own government”. I think you are counting deaths that should not qualify.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps you did not see my edit. I added a challenge. Also, I question your methodology of classifying people “killed by the own government”. I think you are counting deaths that should not qualify.

I know you challenge the methodology. So reduce the outcome 40%. 150 million.

So, define firepower to overcome their government. The colonists lacked the firepower to overwhelm the government. Having overwhelming firepower isn’t the point. Having no firepower is the point .
Up until now, with the exception of the Civil war era, America has been at peace.

Jon

 

[Rau]

According to the Supreme Court, and the history they site, there is…The right pre-exists the constitution, and the constitution does not grant the right. No government has the power to grant a right. Rights, by definition, are inherent.

Jon, if you intend to hold fast to the pronouncements of an authority, it pays to ensure they are appropriate for the job at hand. The US supreme court is an authority on law.

My view that widespread ownership of guns in modern society is unwise - and yours that it is wise - are judgements: neither statement is axiomatic, meaning neither can be proved correct nor incorrect.

The same is true of my view that to promote and facilitate the widespread availability of guns in modern society is immoral. This conclusion is arrived at by first concluding that the morality will (in this case) be determined by the anticipated consequences of said behaviour (given nothing evil in either intentions or moral object). My judgement is that the consequences will on balance be negative, yours the reverse.

It is to be noted that there is no process of consulting a list of “rights” of individuals and then immediately concluding the act is moral because it is on the list. If, in the exercise of a perceived right of mine, I judge I’ll do more harm than good, I act immorally. This remains true even if the right is actual, rather than just perceived.

 

[Rau]

Oh, yes there is. If you have a right to life, you have a right to defend it.

The act to defend your life (even by killing) is not the same act as the one to promote the widespread ownership of guns in modern society. This is a different act entirely, and it must be judged according to Intentions, Moral Object and Consequences. For people of good will, the first two are ‘good’, and so the morality relies solely on our/their individual judgement of the balance of consequences (for all - not just for “me”). If you judge the consequences to be favourable, then you act morally and while I may disagree with your judgment, I have nothing to “quarrel” with you about.

The error we see repeated on this thread is to assert that, if we “believe” that (most) everyone has a “right” to own a gun, then it follows that promoting and facilitating that must be good (moral). That is a made up theology.

I surely have a right to protect and defend my life. But I am equally surely restricted in what I may do to that end. I may not avail myself of any means. I must judge the act I contemplate against the usual conditions for a moral act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I know you challenge the methodology. So reduce the outcome 40%. 150 million.

A flawed methodology does not entitle you to reduce the claim by 40% and call it good.

So, define firepower to overcome their government. The colonists lacked the firepower to overwhelm the government. Having overwhelming firepower isn’t the point. Having no firepower is the point .
Up until now, with the exception of the Civil war era, America has been at peace.

Jon

And after the Civil War, the people have never had the firepower necessary to seriously threaten the power of the government. Never mind “overwhelming” it. As I said, point to one developed nation where this is true.