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

[Rau]

…While I’m not Catholic, I find Catholic thought such as this very important, and in many ways I agree.

Good to know. But note that this ‘theology’ existed long before there was a divide between Churches. It is a common heritage (though some may now reject it).

… the mere ownership of firearms is more harmful than good.

Hallelujah!! (or Alleluia! if preferred) This is almost the view I’m expressing. At this time in history, in our modern society, the widespread and largely unfettered access to weaponry by the citizenry is, on balance, likely to* lead to** more harm than good.* This is my judgement.

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.

This is your judgement on history Jon, but we don’t live in the past. Nevertheless, I presume it is your judgement of the present too.

 

[Rau]

…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.

Were I facing an aggressor, I surely have the right to pick up a “tool” and use it to repel the aggressor. Maybe by killing him. That is an example of the right to self-defence and the right to the “tools” to provide it.

But there is no divine right to the relatively unfettered access and accumulation of weaponry - as a precaution for potential needs - by US families. To claim otherwise is to corrupt the meaning of the right to self-defence. And if one takes the view (a prudential judgement) that such an accumulation of weaponry may lead to more harm than good, then it is immoral to pursue that claim.

There are divinely bestowed rights, and the US Bill of Rights may mention some. But they are not of that calibre because of that mention. Gun ownership is not of that calibre.

“Collectivist thought” does not separate one from individual choices made. The “Jews” who called in chorus for Jesus’ crucifixion retained individual responsibility for the choices they made.

With that rather morbid final observation, I bid the thread and all participants farewell.

 

[JonNC]

Good to know. But note that this ‘theology’ existed long before there was a divide between Churches. It is a common heritage (though some may now reject it).

Hallelujah!! (or Alleluia! if preferred) This is almost the view I’m expressing. At this time in history, in our modern society, the widespread and largely unfettered access to weaponry by the citizenry is, on balance, likely to* lead to*** more harm than good. This is my judgement.

This is your judgement on history Jon, but we don’t live in the past. Nevertheless, I presume it is your judgement of the present too.

Not my judgement. The obvious facts of history. Roughly 262,000,000 civilians killed by their own governments, most of them socialist, in the last century, and most of those civilians lacked arms to defend themselves. It happens over and over.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=

Rau;14005902]Were I facing an aggressor, I surely have the right to pick up a “tool” and use it to repel the aggressor. Maybe by killing him. That is an example of the right to self-defence and the right to the “tools” to provide it.

But there is no divine right to the relatively unfettered access and accumulation of weaponry - as a precaution for potential needs - by US families. To claim otherwise is to corrupt the meaning of the right to self-defence. And if one takes the view (a prudential judgement) that such an accumulation of weaponry may lead to more harm than good, then it is immoral to pursue that claim.

There is clearly a right to those tools necessary to self defense and protect liberty. This right is an inherent right and in America protected by the constitution.

There are divinely bestowed rights, and the US Bill of Rights may mention some. But they are not of that calibre because of that mention. Gun ownership is not of that calibre

Justice Thomas disagrees with this false and dangerous division of rights enumerated.
**…our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. **

“Collectivist thought” does not separate one from individual choices made. The “Jews” who called in chorus for Jesus’ crucifixion retained individual responsibility for the choices they made

It is our individual responsibility to act appropriately, but our individual actions have no bearing on the rights of others. This is where progressives are regularly wrong, whether it be Trump trying to hold all Muslims responsible for the are of, say, Mateen, or some who wish to charge living Americans reparations for the crimes of the past.

With that rather morbid final observation, I bid the thread and all participants farewell.

I’ve enjoyed the exchange.

His peace

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

The Bill of Rights was agreed to by the founders as a whole. Therefore I give it more credence than the writings of any one individual founder. So I would not count that as supporting the notion that the right to own a gun is pre-existing. The document I can think of that was agreed to by the founders that says anything like that is Declaration of Independence, which does mention “endowed by their creator”, but they only apply that phrase to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I know you like to think that “among these” must cover guns, but that is just your supposition. That is not proof.

 

[JonNC]

The Bill of Rights was agreed to by the founders as a whole. Therefore I give it more credence than the writings of any one individual founder. So I would not count that as supporting the notion that the right to own a gun is pre-existing. The document I can think of that was agreed to by the founders that says anything like that is Declaration of Independence, which does mention “endowed by their creator”, but they only apply that phrase to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I know you like to think that “among these” must cover guns, but that is just your supposition. That is not proof.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
   firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
   traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
   Pp. 2–53.
   (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
   does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
   clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
   connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
   (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule.** The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right** of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) **Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. **Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

The SCOTUS confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was not established by the constitution, but seeks to protect a right already existing, a right that existed prior to and long before the Constitution itself.
I love you, Leaf, but you and Rau are just plain wrong on this issue, and it isn’t my supposition, but the Supreme Court that affirms this right, a right protected by not established by the Constitution.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
All highlighting was mine.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The SCOTUS confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was not established by the constitution, but seeks to protect a right already existing, a right that existed prior to and long before the Constitution itself.
I love you, Leaf, but you and Rau are just plain wrong on this issue, and it isn’t my supposition, but the Supreme Court that affirms this right, a right protected by not established by the Constitution.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
All highlighting was mine.

Jon

Well, you got me there. These written opinions do show that the justices considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right, in that it has a precedent in English law and earlier.

However, these opinions do not say anything about where the right comes from, i.e. from God, or that it just has a long history. These opinions were written as legal opinions, not as treatises in philosophy.

Since this is a forum on Social Justice and religiously-oriented, the questions of morality are of more interest than the questions of legality (even “pre-existing” legality).

As to the specific question of this thread, “What is wrong with background checks”, it is worth noting that the very opinions you cited in your link above also include a statement to the effect that this right to bear arms is not absolute, and these findings of a pre-existing individual right should not be construed to prohibit the usual limitation of this right for individuals such as the mentally incompetent, the felons, etc. Nor should it be construed as invalidating regulations about carrying weapons in sensitive areas, such as in government buildings and on passenger aircraft.

To the point of certain individuals being disqualified from carrying weapons, the background checks referred to are a reasonable way to enforce that disqualification. Indeed they are the only way. For if an unknown buyer cannot be checked, there is no way to know if that buyer is a disqualified individual.

 

[JonNC]

Well, you got me there. These written opinions do show that the justices considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right, in that it has a precedent in English law and earlier.

However, these opinions do not say anything about where the right comes from, i.e. from God, or that it just has a long history. These opinions were written as legal opinions, not as treatises in philosophy.

Since this is a forum on Social Justice and religiously-oriented, the questions of morality are of more interest than the questions of legality (even “pre-existing” legality).

As to the specific question of this thread, “What is wrong with background checks”, it is worth noting that the very opinions you cited in your link above also include a statement to the effect that this right to bear arms is not absolute, and these findings of a pre-existing individual right should not be construed to prohibit the usual limitation of this right for individuals such as the mentally incompetent, the felons, etc. Nor should it be construed as invalidating regulations about carrying weapons in sensitive areas, such as in government buildings and on passenger aircraft.

To the point of certain individuals being disqualified from carrying weapons, the background checks referred to are a reasonable way to enforce that disqualification. Indeed they are the only way. For if an unknown buyer cannot be checked, there is no way to know if that buyer is a disqualified individual.

I don’t disagree with the basic idea of background checks. It has its flaws as the Orlando event indicates. I think in my earlier posts on this thread, I stated some caveats, such as that no federal agency should be able to keep a record of NICS applications, as that would be be tantamount to registration, which I oppose. I would also add that no-fly and terror watch lists are not equivalent to due process and adjudication, when applied to US citizens.
The burden of proof remains on the state before any enumerated right can be confiscated.
Mental illness, incapacitation, etc. must also be adjudicated in order for any right to be withheld.

Jon

 

[starshiptrooper]

I refer you to the catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1905 and following for a more authoritative definition of the common good. The Church most certainly does teach that there is such a thing, and that it is determined by legitimate authority - not by each individual deciding for himself what it should be.

That paragraph gives an ambiguous definition of the common good that could be construed to justify anything. However, it did define the “common good” in relation to individual rights so at least that concurs with my position.

I personally have no authority to disarm you, but legitimate authority (I.e. Government) does have that authority, according to the catechism.

Government is only legitimate because it draws its power from the individuals who live with it. Since as you admitted, individuals do not have the moral authority to disarm me, logically a group that represents those individuals also lacks that authority.

Now you are disputing the legitimacy of building codes? Hardly anyone disputes that.

The bandwagon fallacy is not a persuasive argument.

Look closely at the catechism and see if you can find any support for your very limited government philosophy.

I saw nothing contradicting it.

That’s fine so long as you accept you forfeit the benefits of society.

Sure, just as long as society forfeits extracting taxes from me.

The society gave you the right to guns and withholds other rights. I assume it is only the right to guns over which you take this extreme stance?

Society does not give me any rights, it can only infringe on them. As for this “extreme stance”, why would you assume that it is not consistent? Feel free to ask about my opinions on pornography, or drug use.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Government is only legitimate because it draws its power from the individuals who live with it.

This is false. Legitimate government draws its power from God, not from the people. For example, a benevolent monarchy could be a legitimate government, according to the catechism, even though it does not hold elections or offer a direct way for the people to give their assent to that power. Since your premise is false, all that you derived from it is equally false.

The bandwagon fallacy is not a persuasive argument.

I do not see how my comment about the legitimacy of building codes is a bandwagon fallacy.

I saw nothing contradicting it.

Good. Then we can conclude that the idea of very limited government powers is an area that people of good faith can adopt or not, as they see fit. You are free to adopt it. I am free to reject it.

(to Rau) As for this “extreme stance”, why would you assume that it is not consistent? Feel free to ask about my opinions on pornography, or drug use.

OK, so you are a libertarian. We get it.

 

[JonNC]

This is false. Legitimate government draws its power from God, not from the people. For example, a benevolent monarchy could be a legitimate government, according to the catechism, even though it does not hold elections or offer a direct way for the people to give their assent to that power. Since your premise is false, all that you derived from it is equally false.

I do not see how my comment about the legitimacy of building codes is a bandwagon fallacy.

Good. Then we can conclude that the idea of very limited government powers is an area that people of good faith can adopt or not, as they see fit. You are free to adopt it. I am free to reject it.

OK, so you are a libertarian. We get it.

That’s not the American model. That was the model of the monarchies: “divine right of kings”, etc. All of the founding era writings affirm that government receives its power from the consent of the governed, that people receive their rights from God.
God —> individual rights —> government’s power to govern.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not the American model. That was the model of the monarchies: “divine right of kings”, etc. All of the founding era writings affirm that government receives its power from the consent of the governed.

Yes, that is the American model. But if you trace back through the discussion between me and starshiptrooper, you will see that the discussion had become more general than just the US and the founders. It was to that more general point that my comments were addressed.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, that is the American model. But if you trace back through the discussion between me and starshiptrooper, you will see that the discussion had become more general than just the US and the founders. It was to that more general point that my comments were addressed.

I understand, but the American model stands in opposition to the notion of "benevolent " monarch/dictator/despot, which always ends up as tyranny.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I understand, but the American model stands in opposition to the notion of "benevolent " monarch/dictator/despot, which always ends up as tyranny.

Jon

The catechism does not restrict legitimate government to democracies, which can also become corrupt. But I suggest you read up on Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia, better known as St Wenceslaus or “Good King Wenceslaus” as per the Christmas carol about him. At the age of 18 he overthrew his mother’s evil regency, just as she had feared, and began to rule for himself. A stern but fair monarch, he stopped the persecution of priests and tamed the rebellious nobility. He was known for his kindness to the poor. Many of the Bohemian nobles resented Wenceslas’s attempts to spread Christianity, and were displeased when he swore allegiance to the king of Germany, Henry I.

Yes, the American model stands against such forms of government, and that is their prerogative. But I would not presume that the American form of government is the only form approved by God.

 

[Bill1940]

To say the Catechism does not address the issue is incorrect. See sections 1883-85 and 2209 regarding the Principle of Subsidiarity which is applicable to this and other aspects of government versus the rights of people to govern themselves. It is inappropriate to call those who apply the Principle of Subsidiarity to these issues “libertarians”. Shall we call those who do not “statists”?

 

[LethalMouse]

To say the Catechism does not address the issue is incorrect. See sections 1883-85 and 2209 regarding the Principle of Subsidiarity which is applicable to this and other aspects of government versus the rights of people to govern themselves. It is inappropriate to call those who apply the Principle of Subsidiarity to these issues “libertarians”. Shall we call those who do not “statists”?

That is the awesomest thing I have seen

I also think given the political winds of approximately 60-ish % of the carholic population really are out of step with the CCC.

As an adult I have come to like the CC because that which is actual teaching vs the insanities of man tend to seem to be logical. I had not yet cone across this part of the CCC and WOW! The true techings just don’t dissapoint despite the hunans who claim the name

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To say the Catechism does not address the issue is incorrect. See sections 1883-85 and 2209 regarding the Principle of Subsidiarity which is applicable to this and other aspects of government versus the rights of people to govern themselves.

The issue the Catechism addresses in the paragraphs you quoted does not apply so generally as to deprecate all government actions relating to things like the possession of guns. The thing I was saying that the Catechism does not address is the form a government must take in order to be legitimate. starshiptropper was claiming that the only government that can be considered legitimate is one that derives its powers from the people it governs - i.e. representative government. And indeed the Catechism does not address forms of government as such, so that even a benign monarchy, such as under King St Wenceslaus, can be considered legitimate, even though they held no elections for the office of King.

What you are pointing out is that a legitimate government must act a certain way regarding subsidiarity and personal and family freedoms. This says nothing about the form the government takes. King Wenceslaus’ rule probably was right in line with the Catechism.

As for the specifics in paragraphs 1883-85 and 2209, what do you think they imply regarding guns, etc. as they are the subject of this thread? I don’t think it is a violation of subsidiarity to have a law that limits the kind of gun you may own, or the kinds of places in which you may carry it, or the that requires that you notify the government when you sell that weapon. These are all reasonable issues relating to the common good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is inappropriate to call those who apply the Principle of Subsidiarity to these issues “libertarians”. Shall we call those who do not “statists”?

What, is “libertarian” a bad word now? I know a lot of libertarians that are proud to be called a libertarian.

 

[LethalMouse]

What, is “libertarian” a bad word now? I know a lot of libertarians that are proud to be called a libertarian.

I call myself an independent, but would essentially call myself a Libertarian in my understanding of the term.

However, thosed opposed to said views mixed with perhaps some odd or even anarchist type libertarians have attached some odd negativity.

Most notably, some hardcore left democrat friends are convinced that “libertarian” carries with it meaning that I never heard a libertarian talk about, but if they hear libertarian, those dems will go off about our strange ideas… that well are strange, but idk whose ideas they are lol.

So I could see people familiar with these alternate definitions view the word as an insult, and I know some people who are clearly (to my definition) libertarian but refute the name bc they ascribe other meanings to it. So they would be a bit insulted or taken back being called it

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I call myself an independent, but would essentially call myself a Libertarian in my understanding of the term.

However, thosed opposed to said views mixed with perhaps some odd or even anarchist type libertarians have attached some odd negativity.

Most notably, some hardcore left democrat friends are convinced that “libertarian” carries with it meaning that I never heard a libertarian talk about, but if they hear libertarian, those dems will go off about our strange ideas… that well are strange, but idk whose ideas they are lol.

So I could see people familiar with these alternate definitions view the word as an insult, and I know some people who are clearly (to my definition) libertarian but refute the name bc they ascribe other meanings to it. So they would be a bit insulted or taken back being called it

Well, I certainly did not mean it as an insult.