Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Would you support a Universal Background Check that does NOT record serial numbers?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2085466" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>A background check is a prior restraint on a right because it is a hoop you have to jump through before exercising the right in question. That is the definition of a prior restraint. One big problem with prior restraints is that they are very overbroad -- they put a burden on millions of people who are not threats just to try to stop the few "bad apples." Also, such burdens always have a chilling effect on the right in question. It is just common sense -- make it harder for people to do something, and less people will do it. </p><p></p><p>But the best argument against background checks is what I referred to in my previous post -- the non-aggression principle. It is simply unjust to threaten to initiate force against people who aren't threatening others in any way. Voluntary exchange between people, by itself, almost never falls into this category. If a person alleges that another person's ownership or transferring of a gun violates someone's rights, he should be the one to have to prove it, not the accused. Any determination that a person does not have the right to possess a gun needs to be an individual inquiry -- not a broad prohibition of an entire category of people, not all of whom are threats to the rights of others when armed. This is also a highly overbroad use of force. </p><p></p><p>As to the comparison with voting, the "right to vote" is a creation of government, and has nothing to do with natural rights. It is just a procedure for engaging in a particular system created by government. By contrast, the right to free association, including the right to free exchange, is part of people's natural rights, because like I said, it can be done without threatening the rights of others in any way. </p><p></p><p>And before someone starts pointing out all the long-standing and widely supported laws that violate this principle, I will say that the fact that our natural rights are violated in many ways in our current society does not disprove their existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2085466, member: 4235"] A background check is a prior restraint on a right because it is a hoop you have to jump through before exercising the right in question. That is the definition of a prior restraint. One big problem with prior restraints is that they are very overbroad -- they put a burden on millions of people who are not threats just to try to stop the few "bad apples." Also, such burdens always have a chilling effect on the right in question. It is just common sense -- make it harder for people to do something, and less people will do it. But the best argument against background checks is what I referred to in my previous post -- the non-aggression principle. It is simply unjust to threaten to initiate force against people who aren't threatening others in any way. Voluntary exchange between people, by itself, almost never falls into this category. If a person alleges that another person's ownership or transferring of a gun violates someone's rights, he should be the one to have to prove it, not the accused. Any determination that a person does not have the right to possess a gun needs to be an individual inquiry -- not a broad prohibition of an entire category of people, not all of whom are threats to the rights of others when armed. This is also a highly overbroad use of force. As to the comparison with voting, the "right to vote" is a creation of government, and has nothing to do with natural rights. It is just a procedure for engaging in a particular system created by government. By contrast, the right to free association, including the right to free exchange, is part of people's natural rights, because like I said, it can be done without threatening the rights of others in any way. And before someone starts pointing out all the long-standing and widely supported laws that violate this principle, I will say that the fact that our natural rights are violated in many ways in our current society does not disprove their existence. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Would you support a Universal Background Check that does NOT record serial numbers?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom