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

[mikekle]

Please tell me how convinced you are of condition #3, and support that position with a reasonable argument. Then show how you can justify condition #4. These are the conditions I think are the hardest to meet.

Well, the ‘catch’ to those conditions, a majority of the people would ALL have to agree such and such has happened or is happening, many of those things listed, people could be swayed into believing either way and like we see today, some will naturally side with the tyrannical authority.

The small number of people who DO believe revolution is long past due, they are almost ostracized by society, they are labeled ‘crazy wacky conspiracy theorists’ people laugh them and their theories off. LOL

Thats why Ive said for awhile, our modern Govt we have today has accomplished something truly brilliant, they have found a way to avoid any kind of public uprising or revolution, they simply ‘spin and twist’ media, and public sentiment to a certain degree, basically ‘conditioning’ the public to believe what they want them to believe.

Example would be…

Lets say we want to ban guns, cant do that without a fight, but if there are suddenly regular mass shootings, and media spins it a certain way and for long enough(this is the key), eventually they are going to convince most people they are right.(this ‘method’ could be used for nearly anything and everything), its really all about slowly and methodically changing public opinion/ sentiment to be more in line with what THEY want or the direction they want to go.

There would have been no way for our founding fathers to foresee or guard against this type of tactic, as they had no idea how media could have such a strong effect on public sentiment because they lived in a time when ‘media’ was much different than we have today.

 

[SilverShadow22]

My hero, Jesus, allowed himself to be used and abused on Good Friday. I think none the less of Him for that. I care more about what He thinks than what Rousseau thinks.

By reserving armed rebellion for only the most extreme cases, I am in no way advocating a passive response in other ways. There are many active things that can be done when the rulers are not acting for the common good. Things such as encouraging like-minded people, recruiting people to our view, voting, campaigning, petitioning, etc. There is no reason a Christian should cut back in these efforts, just because he is reluctant to pick up a gun and start shooting police.

So, you are advocating skipping some of the conditions of the catechism because you think there will never be a better opportunity to revolt than now? Well, my view is that following the catechism is more important than missing an opportunity to revolt.

Yes, push back, by all means! But not by armed rebellion, unless and until all 5 conditions have been satisfied.

First of all, Jesus is not analogous to a model citizen, nor was that his role. Each individual is called to be a martyr if necessary, but we are NOT called to martyr the entire society.

But the problem is, we ARE passive. Fulfilling the five conditions is an ideal. Much as I’m an idealist, I’m also a cynical pragmatist. This country is no longer Christian, let alone Catholic. Any revolt that starts most likely won’t be led by the religious, and the most we’ll be able to do is get some moral influence in there and keep the revolt from becoming its own tyranny, or taking revenge on the former govt supporters.

The church’s teaching is supposed to be a guide and an ideal that warns us not to start armed uprisings at the slightest offense. But we’re now so used to not resisting anything except the loss of our pleasures that I fear we’re almost past resisting at all… Let alone resisting morally.

Something to think about, considering what America celebrates this weekend. We may have freed ourselves from England… But we didn’t free ourselves from the enemy within.

We also have too many disparate ideas of the breaking point to revolt effectively. I can see already that my breaking point definitely won’t be yours… And so we fall.

 

[pnewton]

Are they going to revoke your Texas citizenship??

Not everyone in Texas is paranoid about the federal government confiscating all their guns. I have heard this same claim all my life and have yet to hear even the most liberal of politicians who believed this should be done. That is why I call such concerns paranoia. I have no problem with gun ownership or concealed carry. Yet I find the NRA position of opposing all laws on gun control both absurd and lazy. Yes, I think the motivation for too many is that they do not want to be troubled by any sort of duty to track gun sales and run background checks for the safety of society, ironic for people who are supposedly patriotic.

*Background check do no good? * Felons cannot own guns. Anything that helps enforce the law is good in and of itself, unless the NRA is also anti-law enforcement.

*Criminals will find guns anyway? * This, as was pointed out, is an argument against all laws, pro-anarchy. It is also used by the abortion lobby. I also believe it to be false. If I wanted to commit a crime, I would not have the foggiest idea how to obtain a gun illegally. I am curious if anyone here would know how to obtain and illegal firearm. It would bet most people do not know how.

The government will use registration to confiscate all guns? Again, after decades of this tired old saw, I find it absurd. No one has suggested this. There is zero indication this is anything except paranoia.

*If we are invaded, the data could be used to confiscate guns? * Some people watch too many movies. If we lose a war, we will have much greater concerns as any defeat that was fast enough for this to be a danger will much more likely take your life than your gun, and possible end all human life.

No, I can think of no reason, except the hassle, to oppose background checks and the paperwork that would entail.

 

[JonNC]

For those who think it is paranoia to believe government won’t use data against the people.

nytimes.com/2000/03/17/us/report-says-census-bureau-helped-relocate-japanese.html

Jon

 

[mikekle]

For those who think it is paranoia to believe government won’t use data against the people.

nytimes.com/2000/03/17/us/report-says-census-bureau-helped-relocate-japanese.html

Jon

I saw proof of this when the Ed Snowden thing happened, when people should have had their eyes opened to what our Govt has been doing, and banding together to fight it, instead they went after the messenger…? what kind of world is this? LOL

Its almost like people do not want to know the real truth, they are content as long as their own lives are not inconvenienced or impacted too much. Just another case of ‘going along to get along’.

 

[pnewton]

For those who think it is paranoia to believe government won’t use data against the people.

No one has said this. If you are referring to my last post, you can re-read if and see what was actually said. By the way, I also think it silly to think the federal government will confiscate all our cars.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Here is a little more thoughtful commentary on 1901. It addresses the question “Is Democracy the Only Acceptable Form of Government?” in the negative by saying…

How are the people going to make a free decision as required by the CCC unless some sort of referendum is held?

Not everyone in Texas is paranoid about the federal government confiscating all their guns. I have heard this same claim all my life and have yet to hear even the most liberal of politicians who believed this should be done. That is why I call such concerns paranoia.

Numerous politicians have spoken favorably about Australia’s policies. They confiscated guns.

*Background check do no good? * Felons cannot own guns. Anything that helps enforce the law is good in and of itself, unless the NRA is also anti-law enforcement.

Felons buy their guns from other felons. Shockingly, people who disobey laws about rape, robbery, and murder also disregard background checks when selling guns to their buddies.

*Criminals will find guns anyway? * This, as was pointed out, is an argument against all laws, pro-anarchy. It is also used by the abortion lobby.

No, this is an argument against laws that create victimless crimes. If I sell my gun to my brother whom I have known all his life, who has been harmed? Why should the state send armed agents to stop a consensual transaction between 2 peaceable people?

I also believe it to be false. If I wanted to commit a crime, I would not have the foggiest idea how to obtain a gun illegally. I am curious if anyone here would know how to obtain and illegal firearm. It would bet most people do not know how.

Most people here probably do not hang out around habitual criminals. If they did, they would be able to acquire an illegal weapon that much easier, or you can simply buy the tools and find plans online for firearms that work just fine for crimes.

The government will use registration to confiscate all guns? Again, after decades of this tired old saw, I find it absurd. No one has suggested this. There is zero indication this is anything except paranoia.

There are only 2 reasons to register firearms, for confiscation at a later date or to tax them. Either situation is unacceptable.

No, I can think of no reason, except the hassle, to oppose background checks and the paperwork that would entail.

They are ineffective, create a victimless crime, and pose both unnecessary expense and delay in the exercise of my rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If I sell my gun to my brother whom I have known all his life, who has been harmed? Why should the state send armed agents to stop a consensual transaction between 2 peaceable people?

This may be fine for you and your brother whom you know well, but what about you and some stranger who just responded to your craigslist ad? Are you claiming to be able to tell just by looking at the guy that he is not mentally unstable or otherwise unqualified to own a gun according to current laws? And if you do sell your gun to him and he turns out to be a criminal, are you willing to take responsibility for the crimes he commits with that gun?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There are only 2 reasons to register firearms, for confiscation at a later date or to tax them.

I can think of at least one more. To establish a chain of responsibility in case that weapon ever turns up in the commission of a crime.

 

[pnewton]

If I sell my gun to my brother whom I have known all his life, who has been harmed? Why should the state send armed agents to stop a consensual transaction between 2 peaceable people?

Why would any legal transaction be stopped, or what makes you think this is even an issue? I think I will call straw man on this, unless you are arming a felon, in which case you be an accessory to any crime he commits.

 

[pnewton]

I can think of at least one more. To establish a chain of responsibility in case that weapon ever turns up in the commission of a crime.

The other reason is to limit access of firearms to criminals, the mentally ill and minors. The stated and obvious reasons were not even mentioned, in favor of the confiscation boogey man.

 

[starshiptrooper]

This may be fine for you and your brother whom you know well, but what about you and some stranger who just responded to your craigslist ad? Are you claiming to be able to tell just by looking at the guy that he is not mentally unstable or otherwise unqualified to own a gun according to current laws? And if you do sell your gun to him and he turns out to be a criminal, are you willing to take responsibility for the crimes he commits with that gun?

Selling to a felon is already illegal. In other words, people already have sufficient incentive for due diligence.

I can think of at least one more. To establish a chain of responsibility in case that weapon ever turns up in the commission of a crime.

If you believe that criminals are going to register their guns, I have some oceanfront property in Colorado that you might be interested in.

Why would any legal transaction be stopped, or what makes you think this is even an issue? I think I will call straw man on this, unless you are arming a felon, in which case you be an accessory to any crime he commits.

Why should I have to perform a background check before selling a gun to my brother? I am definitely able to better assess his character than simply looking for a criminal record.

The other reason is to limit access of firearms to criminals, the mentally ill and minors. The stated and obvious reasons were not even mentioned, in favor of the confiscation boogey man.

Because people who rob, rape, and murder will register their guns? How does the government keeping a list keep criminals from having guns? Do you really think bad guys are going to care about a record that will not apply to them?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Selling to a felon is already illegal. In other words, people already have sufficient incentive for due diligence.

In the vast majority of cases, the seller has no way of doing that diligence without outside help, like a formal background check. Citing a sale to your brother is a case of rare cases make for bad law. Would you be satisfied with an exception for family members? That sounds like a very reasonable exception that most pro gun control people would agree with.

If you believe that criminals are going to register their guns…

Registering guns in general makes it harder for criminals to get unregistered guns. Sure, some of them will 3-D print their own guns or buy smuggled guns on the black market. But that small hurdle will likely mean that most criminals will take the easy route and try to buy through normal channels. What to they care if their gun is registered? If they get caught committing a crime with it, it will not be more trouble for him. It will be trouble for the one who sold the gun to him. But the criminal does not care about him.

 

[pnewton]

Because people who rob, rape, and murder will register their guns? ?

Many do. Yes. As far as your brother example. Yes, family members can and do get charged with crimes for assisting being an accessory. If I were to sell a gun to a family member, for my own sake, I would document the sale, whether required by law or not. If I were the buyer, I would expect the same thing. Prudence is a virtue.

There a no reason why such a check should not be run on a non felon. One should not be able to provide a fire arm for a felon just because he is kin.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Many do. Yes. As far as your brother example. Yes, family members can and do get charged with crimes for assisting being an accessory. If I were to sell a gun to a family member, for my own sake, I would document the sale, whether required by law or not. If I were the buyer, I would expect the same thing. Prudence is a virtue.

There a no reason why such a check should not be run on a non felon. One should not be able to provide a fire arm for a felon just because he is kin.

Yes, they should. When I buy a gun, I don’t want to be on any lists the government shall use to assume my guilt. I have zero record of anything and have no restrictions.

But it’s still none of their business.

And ‘felon’ can be a rather arbitrary term.

 

[JonNC]

No one has said this. If you are referring to my last post, you can re-read if and see what was actually said. By the way, I also think it silly to think the federal government will confiscate all our cars.

The government will use registration to confiscate all guns?

Again, after decades of this tired old saw, I find it absurd. No one has suggested this. There is zero indication this is anything except paranoia.

Sounds like what I read the first time.

People in the progressive authoritarian movement have been suggesting confiscation, most recently Charles Rangel.
dailycaller.com/2016/06/22/rangel-no-guns-for-americans-but-i-need-police-protection-audio/

If they thought for a minute that cars were a threat to large central government they would want them too.

Jon

 

[pnewton]

dailycaller.com/2016/06/22/rangel-no-guns-for-americans-but-i-need-police-protection-audio/

From the article (this is a quote from the congressman, not the author who gave it a dubiously inaccurate title: )

“Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,”

The author said
“…he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.”

For the record, I am all for the right to own firearms, and even believe in the right to carry most places for most people. But honestly, this article, nothing it it, is about confiscation of firearms. It is about retired police being able to carry guns easier than the general populace. Even in Texas retired police were afforded this right before and easier than everyone else. There is eve a retired peace office license that is issued, and with sound reason.

If there is such a good argument against gun control, then why do you and this author have to keep “paraphrasing” other people to the point of spinning statements into something that is not said? Simple restating or quoting is sufficient in honest discussion.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Human right to own a gun is hogwash. If people have a right to anything it’s food and shelter, with 9,500 children dying every day due to malnutrition.

Human Right…I don’t know…It is a Constitutional Right though…Oh wait…I forgot the Constitution is just an archaic joke…Silly Me!

 

[JonNC]

From the article (this is a quote from the congressman, not the author who gave it a dubiously inaccurate title: )

“Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun. You’re not gonna push me in that direction,”

The author said
“…he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.”

For the record, I am all for the right to own firearms, and even believe in the right to carry most places for most people. But honestly, this article, nothing it it, is about confiscation of firearms. It is about retired police being able to carry guns easier than the general populace. Even in Texas retired police were afforded this right before and easier than everyone else. There is eve a retired peace office license that is issued, and with sound reason.

If there is such a good argument against gun control, then why do you and this author have to keep “paraphrasing” other people to the point of spinning statements into something that is not said? Simple restating or quoting is sufficient in honest discussion.

Did you read his other comment?

The top needs gave the best reasons for the right to keep and bear arms not to be infringed. There is nothing wrong with background checks as long as it doesn’t become a data base of owners.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is nothing wrong with background checks as long as it doesn’t become a data base of owners.

Jon

There is a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. There is no such Constitutional Right to do so anonymously.