Here is the fundamental problem with the background checks: they very easily can be turned into a de facto registration. As is, quite rightly, the government is not supposed to keep records of the background checks done for firearms, because otherwise it is, after all, a registration, and flat out, the only value a registration has is to later facilitate a seizure of those firearms. It is of little to no (erring far torwards no) value for actually limiting any crime.
Which, as was noted, is at an all time low.
And, of course, all of this, I feel, misses the core point. So many arguments around this are all 'repeal the second amendment!' or defending it on some other merit, but I feel as if folks missed the entire premise of what the Second Amendment and, indeed, the Bill of Rights is about: even if, by some miracle, you could repeal the Second, or really ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, that wouldn't remove the fundamental right.
You don't have a right to free speech, or more expansively, Freedom of Expression, because the Constitution says you do. Hell, the Constitution even lays that fact out. It is an enumeration of some of your rights that you ALREADY HAVE, ones that can't be taken, but merely infringed. A right can never be 'taken away,' not really, because by default, a right is something you HAVE, it's something that you always have, no matter what, and that someone else is morally and ethically barred from interfering with. If they do, they don't take it away, they merely infringe upon it. And, when you break it down, the fundamental basis of rights derives from the principle of self-ownership, and by extension, the right to property.
IE: you have a right to free speech because no one has a right to stop you from speaking, as you own yourself and they have no right to dictate what you do. The Third Amendment is oft forgotten, about no quartering of troops, but that is fundamentally based in the idea you have a right to property, and to do with your property what you will. This principle has been lost on many, hence why we now have so many taxes and regulations and the like that de facto make it so you don't really own things. The fact that you have to pay a property tax means you are, in essence, naught but renting property from the government, if they have a right to seize it if you fail to pay.
This interacts with the Second Amendment in several ways. Firstly, you've a right to yourself, and thus the products of your labor, and thus to property, meaning if you have a gun, the state has no right to say you can't have it. You also have a right to self-defense, because again, you own yourself and thus are entitled to defend yourself. Between the right to property and the right to self-defense, the state has zero place dictating what you can and cannot buy for the purposes of self-defense against those who wish to do you harm, be they individual or state.
Now, here is the fundamental truth: even if someone could prove gun ownership is literally a detriment, you still couldn't make a moral or ethical argument for banning, or really even restricting, guns, BECAUSE of the fundamental rights-based nature of it. You can't make an argument with any sort of moral or ethical high ground when you're treading on rights. The fact that so many are so quick to say 'hey, lets let the state use their no-fly list which is so explicitly racist it's just considered a trope at this point to strip individuals of their rights' is honestly just sad, yet not at all surprising because so few people bother to boil the arguments down to the core principles.
The fact that no argument can be made to say gun ownership is a detriment (as you can't even draw a correlation between guns and gun crime, let alone crime in general) is its own argument as well, mind you, but one that I feel is almost corollary, and I wish folks would sometimes go to a more principled, rights based argument instead.
I will close with something only partially related:
True. It's another common joke among gun owners. If anyone ever asked where your guns went if some sort or restriction or ban went into place, the answer is 'sorry, I lost them in a tragic boating accident.'
Which, as was noted, is at an all time low.
And, of course, all of this, I feel, misses the core point. So many arguments around this are all 'repeal the second amendment!' or defending it on some other merit, but I feel as if folks missed the entire premise of what the Second Amendment and, indeed, the Bill of Rights is about: even if, by some miracle, you could repeal the Second, or really ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, that wouldn't remove the fundamental right.
You don't have a right to free speech, or more expansively, Freedom of Expression, because the Constitution says you do. Hell, the Constitution even lays that fact out. It is an enumeration of some of your rights that you ALREADY HAVE, ones that can't be taken, but merely infringed. A right can never be 'taken away,' not really, because by default, a right is something you HAVE, it's something that you always have, no matter what, and that someone else is morally and ethically barred from interfering with. If they do, they don't take it away, they merely infringe upon it. And, when you break it down, the fundamental basis of rights derives from the principle of self-ownership, and by extension, the right to property.
IE: you have a right to free speech because no one has a right to stop you from speaking, as you own yourself and they have no right to dictate what you do. The Third Amendment is oft forgotten, about no quartering of troops, but that is fundamentally based in the idea you have a right to property, and to do with your property what you will. This principle has been lost on many, hence why we now have so many taxes and regulations and the like that de facto make it so you don't really own things. The fact that you have to pay a property tax means you are, in essence, naught but renting property from the government, if they have a right to seize it if you fail to pay.
This interacts with the Second Amendment in several ways. Firstly, you've a right to yourself, and thus the products of your labor, and thus to property, meaning if you have a gun, the state has no right to say you can't have it. You also have a right to self-defense, because again, you own yourself and thus are entitled to defend yourself. Between the right to property and the right to self-defense, the state has zero place dictating what you can and cannot buy for the purposes of self-defense against those who wish to do you harm, be they individual or state.
Now, here is the fundamental truth: even if someone could prove gun ownership is literally a detriment, you still couldn't make a moral or ethical argument for banning, or really even restricting, guns, BECAUSE of the fundamental rights-based nature of it. You can't make an argument with any sort of moral or ethical high ground when you're treading on rights. The fact that so many are so quick to say 'hey, lets let the state use their no-fly list which is so explicitly racist it's just considered a trope at this point to strip individuals of their rights' is honestly just sad, yet not at all surprising because so few people bother to boil the arguments down to the core principles.
The fact that no argument can be made to say gun ownership is a detriment (as you can't even draw a correlation between guns and gun crime, let alone crime in general) is its own argument as well, mind you, but one that I feel is almost corollary, and I wish folks would sometimes go to a more principled, rights based argument instead.
I will close with something only partially related:
The Connecticut assault weapons database is a joke, so many guns turned up "missing" or "lost on a fishing trip"
True. It's another common joke among gun owners. If anyone ever asked where your guns went if some sort or restriction or ban went into place, the answer is 'sorry, I lost them in a tragic boating accident.'