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

[Mintaka]

It is a principle of American government that the government serves the people at the people’s pleaure, derives its power only from the consent of the governed, and is supposed to be worried about the wishes of individual people as well as the majority.

Even though our military is very big, a militia comprised of all the able-bodied, capable men of the US who are of the right age but who are not in the military, would vastly outnumber our standing military.

Our National Guard and Air National Guard are voluntary militia that belong to the states, and they’re pretty honking big already. (Obviously a lot of those folks are serving overseas as a replacement for increasing our military recruitment, though, so you really can’t count them as useful for militia in the Minuteman sense when they’re overseas.) But basically the concept of the National Guard is that people get paid for being trained and serving.

I’m in favor of not forcing people to train and serve, even if that leaves us behind the Swiss! But in point of fact, there are always a lot of people in this country who are reasonably able-bodied, have guns, know how to use them, are trained to help in emergencies, and take action when needed. Some are ex-military, some are ex-Boy Scouts, some are just sensible and public-spirited men and women. They don’t need to have the formal title of militia or get formally called up to serve. They just do it. Every time there is an emergency or crisis that’s in their area, they show up.

I resent having these helpful people treated like criminals, just because they have life skills that other people don’t.

It’s not a black magic boomstick. It’s a device for propelling small objects at high speed.

 

[Brendan]

The nature of weaponry and why (by and large) it is acquired by the majority- & over which gun control advocates seek to place some controls - is obvious.

How does a weapon differ from a sporting tool? What makes the Anschutz 1907 that I pictured more of a weapon than, say, a baseball bat?

The purpose that each was designed for was not violent in nature.

They deny what is stunningly obvious - the body of man is made for woman, and other arrangements are absurd

Which is why we look to the designer. In the case of the human body, we know the purpose for which uses were designed, we have the word of the one who designed it.

Why can we not ask the designer of a firearm what the purpose is, and accept that as well. If a gun is designed for sporting purposes, that would make it no more of a weapon than any other sporting tool.

The same, I suppose, would be true for a kitchen utensil such as a knife. The designer might create with cutting steak, or might design it as a weapon. Thus, it would be erroneous to state that the purpose of all knives would be as weapons, just as it would be erroneous to state that the purpose of all guns would be as weapons.

The problem with the SSM advocates is that they simply do not believe the designer, they make their own judgements based off of their emotional assessments, and thus overly generalize in a way that is contrary to the designer’s intended purpose.

For guns, like the human body, we can just ask the designer.

 

[Rau]

…For guns, like the human body, we can just ask the designer.

Indeed. And few of the guns in American homes are there for target shooting at the target range. It’s rather the reverse of the tennis racquet point you raised. Few (if any) of those are held to be used to hit other than a tennis ball.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Even though our military is very big, a militia comprised of all the able-bodied, capable men of the US who are of the right age but who are not in the military, would vastly outnumber our standing military.

It is a fantasy that such an informal militia would ever achieve the coordination necessary to act in unison. A few hotheads would start the revolution, and be put down immediately by the Armed Forces (or more likely the local police), long before others would make the decision to join the fight. The only way such a revolution would work is if an underground conspiracy were formed and commitments were extracted from the participants. I don’t think a flash mob is going to seriously threaten any modern military. Most of the public would be on the side of the government, so you would have public fighting public. People other than anarchists actually prefer a government to a revolution. And long before a revolution was actually popular enough so that most of the people would be fighting the government rather than the revolutionaries, the public would try other means of gaining control of the government - such as voting.

I resent having these helpful people treated like criminals, just because they have life skills that other people don’t.

They would not be treated as criminals for that reason. They would be treated as criminals because their actions are contrary to the common good as they make more people unsafe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Simply being armed is no threat to anyone.

It may not be a threat, but it a considerable risk. There is a difference.

 

[Cathoholic]

Bonnie. You said:

We used to have a neighbor who was a felon & mentally unstable

This guy already has TWO laws disqualifying him from legally owning firearms.

WHY do you think MORE laws would help with a guy like this?

(Not necessarily to Bonnie here but a food for thought thing. Since pornography has been re-defined as a “right” by the courts, wouldn’t it make sense to have people get background checks and register their pornography? Should the database have public access with a freedom of information court order? Should local newspapers print porn permit holders names in the paper? How about backround checks and “permits” to run for public office? If someone says they are unfit for politics should they be barred?

I am not suggesting or “unsuggesting” any of these things here by the way. I am just wondering how much regulations people think is “needed” for society.)

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[mikekle]

The constitution doesn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms for sports. It protects the right in order to give the people ( the militia)the ability to protect the security of a free state. Note it doesn’t just say “the state”. That can be done by tyrants. It says “a free state.” That takes armed free citizens .

Jon

Yes, and it also says the people have the right to own the same ‘grade’ of weapons available to the Govt too, that way, it would not be an Abrahms tank going up against a bee bee gun if the people needed to fight the Govt, of course our leaders would like all of us to believe the average citizen has NO use for owning a machine gun or assault rifles, and ONLY they should have access to them ( oh yeah and law enforcement) LOL…Gee, I wonder why they want people thinking that?

Its a shame so many people fall for their lies hook line and sinker!

It is amazing to note though, our modern day Govt has found a way to ‘bypass’ the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all they have to do is slowly sway the opinions of people, by focusing on very specific news stories that have been twisted to push their agenda…make assault rifles look bad to people over the years, and eventually many people will side with Govt and willingly give up the right to equal caliber weapons, they will believe their Govt has their best interest at heart. LOL when world history shows the exact opposite.

 

[mikekle]

Of course at that time there was no big difference between weapons of the common man and military weapons. OK, cannons might be an example of a difference, but what evidence do you have that the Constitution contains anything at all about the people’s weapons needing to be sufficient for a revolt against the government? “The right of people to keep cannons shall not be infringed”? I think you are making this up.

No, Im not making it up… reading all of the second amendment provides the proof

.(from Duke Univ.),

**The Second Amendment protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state”. It was the clear intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years.
**

 

[Rau]

No, Im not making it up… reading all of the second amendment provides the proof

.(from Duke Univ.),

The Second Amendment protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state”. It was the clear intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years.

Is if your expectation that an under-armed civilian population would more than likely see the US government turn on the people? Is US democracy really that fragile ? Does thd US government realize that such thinking is prevalent among the citizenry?

 

[JonNC]

It may not be a threat, but it a considerable risk. There is a difference.

There are many risks in this world. The statistical risk of being harmed by a person who has a concealed carry license is minute.

Jon

 

[Brendan]

Indeed. And few of the guns in American homes are there for target shooting at the target range.

I would say that the vast majority are used at the target range and shoot nothing more than targets. And of those that are left, harvest food.

What source do you have that states otherwise?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, and it also says the people have the right to own the same ‘grade’ of weapons available to the Govt too,.

The Constitution does not “say” that. You have not quoted the Constitution, or even one of the framers of the Constitution. You have quoted some “Duke University” commentary. Do you have any direct evidence that “equal grade weapons” was the intent of the Constitution?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are many risks in this world. The statistical risk of being harmed by a person who has a concealed carry license is minute.

Jon

First of all, the issue was not concealed carry licenses. Gun rights purists do not even allow that the government has the right to require licenses to carry guns. Secondly, the combined risk to the common good of having a highly-armed populace is significant. On one hand you have the very theoretical scenario that this armed populace will be necessary to revolt against the government. On the other hand you have the clear and present harm that is being done to the common good every day through suicides, accidents, etc. It would take an awful big benefit to having guns to counterbalance all the harm that is occurring daily from them.

 

[GeauxLSU]

The Constitution does not “say” that. You have not quoted the Constitution, or even one of the framers of the Constitution. You have quoted some “Duke University” commentary. Do you have any direct evidence that “equal grade weapons” was the intent of the Constitution?

Considering the intent was to fend off a tyrannical government, your assertion is they should NOT be equal grade? How have you come to this conclusion?
“Shall not be infringed” is apparently open to lots of interpretation. Ironically the most regulated “right” is the only enumerated right, that has such language.

 

[JonNC]

First of all, the issue was not concealed carry licenses. Gun rights purists do not even allow that the government has the right to require licenses to carry guns. Secondly, the combined risk to the common good of having a highly-armed populace is significant. On one hand you have the very theoretical scenario that this armed populace will be necessary to revolt against the government. On the other hand you have the clear and present harm that is being done to the common good every day through suicides, accidents, etc. It would take an awful big benefit to having guns to counterbalance all the harm that is occurring daily from them.

And yet it is the states and cities that have the strictest anti-freedom gun laws where the crime rates are greatest. The common good has far more harm done in Chicago and DC, for example.

The "very theoretical " scenario you speak of actually brought this nation into existence. The Battle of Lexington and Concord happened to defend firearms.

1. better education can go a long way to prevent accidents. The school I work in uses the Eddie Eagle program. There are other good programs that schools could/should use.
2. Suicide is not caused by guns. Suicides happen even in countries with anti-freedom gun restrictions. Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun rights issue.
3. The fact remains that historically it is governments, particularly ones that prohibit gun ownership, that kill exponentially greater numbers of there own people. That is the imperative that far far outweighs the risks you speak of, which can be minimized in ways that do not violate individual rights and liberty.

Jon

 

[Rau]

I would say that the vast majority are used at the target range and shoot nothing more than targets. And of those that are left, harvest food.

You know this to be untrue, yet you pretend otherwise. Is the yearning for guns really this strong?

 

[JonNC]

Considering the intent was to fend off a tyrannical government, your assertion is they should NOT be equal grade? How have you come to this conclusion?
“Shall not be infringed” is apparently open to lots of interpretation. Ironically the most regulated “right” is the only enumerated right, that has such language.

That’s because it is the right that intimidates big government tyrants the most.

Jon

 

[GEddie]

The hundred-folding of the population since 1776 has changed the equation forever: by the time a sufficient number agreed that a tyranny existed and that armed insurrection was desirable, it would already be too late.

The “Neo-Loyalists”, who would be equally armed **and **have the government forces on their side, would be fully in command.

The British aren’t coming back. Take the feathers out of your hats and get on with life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

In order to make this claim you would have to demonstrate the laws currently on the books have the necessary reach to be effective and that gun owners would be negatively impacted (and to simply say that there would be background checks is automatically a negative impact would not make your case effectively, as such requirements are not inherently negative). Each of these needs an argument.

In a free society, set up as America was, the onus is on the proponents of a new law or restriction as to why it is needed, not on the free people to defend why they should not have a new law imposed on them.

As of right now, the status quo is the current number of laws on the books. It is the height of arrogance to force citizenry to defend why they should not be encumbered by additional laws.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Luckily for those opposed, no one in this country is required to own a firearm.
“Freedom”… everybody’s definition is apparently different.