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

[JonNC]

I noticed you added “in the current era” to say that guns are what is required today. But there is no way to tell what weapons are needed until the need arises. Actually, for most people, the need for a lethal weapon will not come up ever in their entire lives. The “need” is a statistical need, not a particular need, like the need for a computer or printing press, which can be predicted in advance by anyone planning on publishing. So it is meaningless to even talk about “the needs of the current era” because they cannot be predicted exactly. Therefore if restrictions are placed on guns, you can’t know for sure if anyone’s right to self-defense has been denied.

Of course there is no way. That is why the right is not date specific, or time frame specific.
The need is determined by the current circumstances. As technology advances, so might the need of the free citizen to upgrade, so to speak, the types of arms needed to exercise the right effectively. But as soon as restrictions are placed by government that eliminate the ability of the citizenry to effectively defend themselves, or stand up to foreign or domestic tyranny, that in and of itself is tyranny, and a violation of the protected right.

but if we are to err, it should be on the side of rights, not government power.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The 2nd amendment enables an armed citizenry. Were it not there, we’d not be having this discussion at all.

The issue I am addressing is not about legislation or government or powers or “right”. It is about the morality of human choices. The 2nd amendment was a human choice made in framing the society. To leave it be is another choice.

Do you reject the Catholic principles that underpin what determines the morality of our choices? If you accept them, then all that remains is to argue the armed citizenry leads to more good than harm. That last point is an issue for prudential judgement, not a moral principle. [Note: we can take as a given that the Intention in enabling the armed citizenry was good.]

You are incorrect. The second amendment does not enable. It protects the pre-existing right.

You may not be addressing the difference between rights and powers, but it is the underlying distinction. While the second amendment is part of the document, the right to keep and bear arms precedes the constitutional protection and exists even if removed. This is why attempts to remove the protection is an attempt to eliminate the right, which is a subversive act.
Of course an armed citizenry leads to more good than harm. That’s not even debatable, going back to before the Magna Carta.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The need is determined by the current circumstances.

Let’s examine that statement closely. What are “current circumstances”? You have indicated that they are the current state of technology. If you use current circumstances to determine the need, you might be overestimating or underestimating the actual need, which can only ever be know at the time the threat materializes. If you are attacked by an organized crime mob with automatic weapons, you will need even better automatic weapons. If you are attacked by a lone thug, maybe a mere handgun would suffice. If you are threatened by some drunk high school kids going around dumping over garbage cans, maybe all you need is a good loud yell to make them disperse. And for the vast majority of people, they will never in their entire lives be faced with a threat that calls for a lethal weapon of any kind. The point is there is a wide variation in what sort of weapon (if any) is appropriate for any given threat. Just knowing what the current circumstances are in the state of the art of weaponry is not sufficient to determine what weapon will be needed. So how can you say the current circumstances determine the need? It is quite clear that nothing determines the need, because the need cannot be known until the threat appears.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are incorrect. The second amendment does not enable. It protects the pre-existing right.

You have said this many times, but still have not supported with anything other than repetition.

 

[Rau]

You are incorrect. The second amendment does not enable. It protects the pre-existing right.

You may not be addressing the difference between rights and powers, but it is the underlying distinction. While the second amendment is part of the document, the right to keep and bear arms precedes the constitutional protection and exists even if removed. This is why attempts to remove the protection is an attempt to eliminate the right, which is a subversive act.
Of course an armed citizenry leads to more good than harm. That’s not even debatable, going back to before the Magna Carta.

Jon

I await for you to reference the divine source of a right for the US citizenry to be armed. It is not the right of an individual to self-defence - that has been covered. But that is only of passing interest. Of more weight - I await your exposition, according to Christian principles of morality, which so far you’ve not rejected, as to why a societal choice to enable the relatively unfettered access to armory is actually moral. Does it lead to more good than harm?

 

[JonNC]

You have said this many times, but still have not supported with anything other than repetition.

The founders did that years ago. It was the fundamental basis of the American republic.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I await for you to reference the divine source of a right for the US citizenry to be armed. It is not the right of an individual to self-defence - that has been covered. But that is only of passing interest. Of more weight - I await your exposition, according to Christian principles of morality, which so far you’ve not rejected, as to why a societal choice to enable the relatively unfettered access to armory is actually moral. Does it lead to more good than harm?

Which tools does Christian principles prohibit? On what grounds are tools for defense prohibited in scripture or the tradition of the universal Church?

Jon

 

[Rau]

Which tools does Christian principles prohibit? On what grounds are tools for defense prohibited in scripture or the tradition of the universal Church?

Jon

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[Rau]

The founders did that years ago. It was the fundamental basis of the American republic.

Identified by men, and chosen by men. They could equally have concluded that, while as individuals, they may have a right to arms, on choosing to form a nation, it would be better if this were a matter not granted the status of a “right”, for we fear more harm than good might result. One presumes they felt more good than harm would result. Were they right? We may have different judgements on that.

 

[JonNC]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Now this is excellent, because it speaks of intentions. The right to arms, in and of itself, is not evil. A person who uses arms with evil intent , as with any other object, is wrong. Restrictions of one based on the acts of another is equally wrong.

The right to arms as a tool of self defense is affirmed yet again.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Identified by men, and chosen by men. They could equally have concluded that, while as individuals, they may have a right to arms, on choosing to form a nation, it would be better if this were a matter not granted the status of a “right”, for we fear more harm than good might result. One presumes they felt more good than harm would result. Were they right? We may have different judgements on that.

But they didn’t. They rightfully recognized how rights actually work, as opposed to those who seek to undermine rights for whatever ulterior motive they may have Progressive statist, for example. Rights are from God, not from men.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Note here that no mention of tools of self defense are mentioned. For you to claim this as a reason to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms you have to show the their use, whether for good or ill, is evil. That is simply not demonstrated here or anywhere in scripture.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The founders did that years ago. It was the fundamental basis of the American republic.

Jon

If you are referring to the Bill of Rights, no, the founders did not “support” the claim that the right to bear arms was a pre-existing right in that document. The Bill of Rights just lists rights that the US government must observe. So I am still waiting for you to support that claim that you made many times, but never supported.

Besides the Bill of Rights is not fundamental. It is composed of amendments - changes - to the basic constitution that were made after the constitution was adopted. In that sense, the Bill of Rights are no more fundamental than Prohibition, which was also an amendment. If it were so fundamental, the right to bear arms would have been right there in the original constitution before they started amending it.

 

[Rau]

Now this is excellent, because it speaks of intentions. The right to arms, in and of itself, is not evil. A person who uses arms with evil intent , as with any other object, is wrong. Restrictions of one based on the acts of another is equally wrong.

The right to arms as a tool of self defense is affirmed yet again.

Jon

That’s a bit crass Jon. Responding to issues nog being debated! There are 3 sources or fonts of morality Jon. Intentions is one. All 3 must be good for a choice to be moral. I suppose you skipped over that. And the discussion is not even about the use of arms, but rather whether it is wise, or moral, to enable their widespread and relatively unfettered access and accumulation among the citizenry. All fonts need to be considered, particularly the 3rd. Are the consequences more good than harm?

 

[Rau]

Note here that no mention of tools of self defense are mentioned. For you to claim this as a reason to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms you have to show the their use, whether for good or ill, is evil. That is simply not demonstrated here or anywhere in scripture.

Jon

The section you’ve quoted is addressing intrinsically evil acts, not all Immoral acts. Gun ownership, or the arming of the citizenry to the teeth, or killing a person is not intrinsically evil (just as capital punishment is not). But all those choices can be immoral acts in relevant circumstances.

For acts not intrinsically evil, we need to use our reason to understand their morality or immorality. We need to ask the questions: Are our intentions entirely good? Do we anticipate that the consequences of this choice produce more good than harm? The answer is not fixed over time and circumstances, whereas intrinsically evil acts are always and in every circumstance evil.

Note that whether we deem something a “right” simply does not feature. In fact, our “right” to repel the aggressor is a consequence of these moral principles, not something that precedes them.

 

[Rau]

But they didn’t. They rightfully recognized how rights actually work, as opposed to those who seek to undermine rights for whatever ulterior motive they may have Progressive statist, for example. Rights are from God, not from men.

Jon

See my last post on the more fundamental role of moral principles.

 

[LethalMouse]

You are incorrect. The second amendment does not enable. It protects the pre-existing right.

You may not be addressing the difference between rights and powers, but it is the underlying distinction. While the second amendment is part of the document, the right to keep and bear arms precedes the constitutional protection and exists even if removed. This is why attempts to remove the protection is an attempt to eliminate the right, which is a subversive act.
Of course an armed citizenry leads to more good than harm. That’s not even debatable, going back to before the Magna Carta.

Jon

Right, their arguement seems to be that if there were no right to be alive on a piece of paper then your right to exist does not exist… seems an interesting and dangerous line of thinking

 

[JonNC]

If you are referring to the Bill of Rights, no, the founders did not “support” the claim that the right to bear arms was a pre-existing right in that document. The Bill of Rights just lists rights that the US government must observe. So I am still waiting for you to support that claim that you made many times, but never supported.

Besides the Bill of Rights is not fundamental. It is composed of amendments - changes - to the basic constitution that were made after the constitution was adopted. In that sense, the Bill of Rights are no more fundamental than Prohibition, which was also an amendment. If it were so fundamental, the right to bear arms would have been right there in the original constitution before they started amending it.

Yes, they did. They are clear in their writings that rights exist, including the right to keep and bear arms, outside of government power.

You are spinning the Bill of Rights as something less than it is. The Bill of Rights were a prerequisite to get the anti-federalists and others concerned about a strong central government and the tyranny is always brings. They wanted the rights more strongly protected. Take note, even in you own writing, the rights are enumerated that the government must observe, not that they are rights established by government. Why? Because government does not have the power to establish rights. Government power comes from the pre-existing rights of individuals.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Interestingly, the federalists argued the BoR wasn’t needed because the states and people had rights not given to the federal government. You seem to be arguing that the federal government can claim any power it wants, and eliminate any right it chooses.

Clearly, the BoR is not some afterthought like prohibition.

billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That’s a bit crass Jon. Responding to issues nog being debated! There are 3 sources or fonts of morality Jon. Intentions is one. All 3 must be good for a choice to be moral. I suppose you skipped over that. And the discussion is not even about the use of arms, but rather whether it is wise, or moral, to enable their widespread and relatively unfettered access and accumulation among the citizenry. All fonts need to be considered, particularly the 3rd. Are the consequences more good than harm?

Crass? You seem to not have read what I wrote. While I’m not Catholic, I find Catholic thought such as this very important, and in many ways I agree. As you said, no where does the link speak of the use of arms, so one must assume you believe or want to spin this to imply that the mere ownership of firearms is more harmful than good. All I’m saying is that the facts of history prove without a doubt that citizen ownership of firearms is far more good than harmful.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14003961]The section you’ve quoted is addressing intrinsically evil acts, not all Immoral acts. Gun ownership, or the arming of the citizenry to the teeth, or killing a person is not intrinsically evil (just as capital punishment is not). But all those choices can be immoral acts in relevant circumstances.

I wouldn’t argue with this, except for the hyperbolic comment about arming citizens to the teeth. Keep in mind that criminals are armed to the teeth, governments are certainly armed to the teeth.

For acts not intrinsically evil, we need to use our reason to understand their morality or immorality. We need to ask the questions: Are our intentions entirely good? Do we anticipate that the consequences of this choice produce more good than harm? The answer is not fixed over time and circumstances, whereas intrinsically evil acts are always and in every circumstance evil.

You are talking about individuals. The basic, inherent human and civil right to self defense and the tools to exercise that right does not have motives or morals. Individuals do. This is the difference between collectivist thought on governance, which always leads to tyranny, and individual rights. All individuals have the right. Those who abuse the right by harming the rights of others lose their rights.

Jon