A New Jersey man gets seven years for being a responsible gun owner!

[ddarko]

You are incorrect. The Catechism doesn’t say that only a government has the duty to protect someone. Even here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal responsibility to protect anybody.

Second, it doesn’t say that those with authority must be blessed by God. My manager has authority over me at work; I do not believe it came from God.

Unfortunately that is a non-Catholic way of looking at it.

There is something called “Piety” which you might want to look in to. Then you will fully understand what I mean by authority of the government.

Nothing in this Universe happens without God knowing. In short, your manager might treat you badly, but that is him abusing his God given position. But the authority was nevertheless given to him by God.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Again, forgive me for paraphrasing. You consistently maintain that people love guns because of the power they give. I do not. I think that is an insult to responsible gun owners. We are also not paranoid.

Yes, the United States was founded by the gun. And we do have a high level of gun crime. However, there has been evidence brought forward clearly showing the correlation between less gun control and the decrease in violent crime. You have what appears to be, from my limited knowledge of the subject, a highly opinionated account of conflict between the British and Irish. Bring forth evidence to back up your claim, and I will consider it.

As to the “mindset” you are continuously talking about: in high school policy debate, there is a common argument called the Security Critique. It hinges on the idea that violence and war is solely caused by expecting a need to defend oneself. I believe this is your argument’s essence, am I correct? The argument I would make against that is this: the argument only works assuming ALL OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE adopt this view. Is this the status quo? If not, can you propose a way to reach this conclusion? If you can, I think many people would be interested, including myself.

From what I gather, this posts is not referring to me?

And you are certainly correct. Authorities do need guns given the world condition. But if the gun was never invented and was not so common place among criminals, our authorities won’t need it either.

But if I may point out something about ‘‘evidence’’, please refer to my post #111. I have given academic sources to support the claim that Gun ownership in homes increase the likelihood of homicide and suicide.

God Bless

 

[Alex246]

I’m sorry ddarko, I was addressing that post to colmcille1. Once I have analysed all of the evidence presented, I will make a response

 

[ddarko]

I’m sorry ddarko, I was addressing that post to colmcille1. Once I have analysed all of the evidence presented, I will make a response

Oh ok. no worries. I was a bit confused because there was no quote to gather who the reply was for

God Bless

 

[wabrams]

Unfortunately that is a non-Catholic way of looking at it.

There is something called “Piety” which you might want to look in to. Then you will fully understand what I mean by authority of the government.

Nothing in this Universe happens without God knowing. In short, your manager might treat you badly, but that is him abusing his God given position. But the authority was nevertheless given to him by God.

God Bless

You know, I’m not gonna go back and forth with somoene who makes stuff up or twists it around to suit their own little agenda.

 

[ddarko]

You know, I’m not gonna go back and forth with somoene who makes stuff up or twists it around to suit their own little agenda.

I understand it might appear that way. So here it is in the words of the Encyclical Immortale Dei, released in 1885

“Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society; for he can not, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his faculties. Hence it is Divinely ordained that he should be born into the society and company of men, as well domestic as civil. Only civil society can ensure perfect self-sufficiency of life [an Aristotelean term]. But since no society can hold together unless there be some one over all, impelling individuals efficaciously and harmoniously to one common purpose, a ruling authority becomes a necessity for every civil commonwealth of men; and this authority, no less than society itself, is natural, and therefore has God for its author. Hence it follows that public power of itself cannot be otherwise than of God.”

You also might want to read this

newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hi Knight,
See my post on paranoia.
God Bless you sir in your fears,
Colmcille.

“paranoia” is to have an irrational fear of something. What I have presented is a very realistic observation. To deny reality is to be delusional.

God Bless you in your delusions.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hi knight,
Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Turned his life around, didn’t it?
God Bless you in your fears,
Colmcille.

You’re talking about the wrong “Saul”. King Saul fell out of favor with God for FAILING to do violence and according to scripture, he died out of God’s favor.

God Bless you in your delusions.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Hi LDN,
This is true. He was referring to King Saul.
I, on the other hand, was referring to Paul to illustrate the point that a man can be converted away from blood lust.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

And I was pointing out that sometimes God expects us to resort to the sword and failure to do so is displeasing to Him. Case in point: King Saul.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t mean to sound insensitive but why on earth do you want to keep Guns?

Many studies have shown that having a gun in the house increases the rate of homicide AND suicide. So really people, as Catholics we are called to love our enemy and turn the other cheek. Not put a bullet between the eyes of our enemies So even an argument of keeping a gun for self-defence feels wrong.

But that is just my two cents. Didn’t mean to offend anyone.

God Bless

You have a complete misunderstanding of the teaching of turning the other cheek.

 

[ddarko]

And I was pointing out that sometimes God expects us to resort to the sword and failure to do so is displeasing to Him. Case in point: King Saul.

FALSE. Read my post made in direct reply to this.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

You have a complete misunderstanding of the teaching of turning the other cheek.

Well that maybe, but you see, I take the Catholic teaching together with entirety of Scripture and Tradition. I don’t look at only the biblical quotes that justify me to bear a “sword” and forget about the times it spoke out against bearing a sword.

I can assure, I am not a pacifist. Neither am I a gunslinger. I am a Roman Catholic.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Dear sir,

Considering your are a Knights of Columbus, I find this deeply disturbing.

Why?

The apostles of Christ were persecuted to death during their time. None of them took up the sword. None of them decided to level the playing field with the Roman Empire using a sword. But you do?

The Apostles weren’t charged with physically overthrowing the Roman Empire but spreading the Word. They also did not lay down and die. They did everything possible to preserve their life short of denying the faith.

While it is noble to defend the helpless, but one should never live in fear of thy neighbour or with a notion of levelling the playing field against those that might be more powerful. You can’t truly love your neighbour when you are carrying a gun around.

And the CCC teaches that we are duty bound to take greater care of our own lives than that of another. If we are to protect the helpless, then we have an even greater duty to protect ourselves.

I can understand if its your personal opinion, BUT I am sorry, that is simply not an acceptable Christian way of thinking.

It most definitely IS a Christian way of thinking.

 

[Sir_Knight]

FALSE. Read my post made in direct reply to this.

God Bless

What part is false? Did God not command Saul to slay his enemy? Did Saul not fail to take up the sword? Did Saul’s action to take up the sword displease God so much that God regretted making Saul King? Did God not withdraw His Spirit from Saul for his failure to take up the sword?

Which part is false?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Another misinterpretation. God was displeased with Saul for NOT OBEYING HIS INSTRUCTIONS/COMMAND. Not because Saul didn’t like to use a sword. In fact, the stress is continuously laid on the word “OBEY”.

God Bless

And what were His instructions? To take up the sword against an enemy! Proving that being a pacifist is not always pleasing to God. Being a pacifist in this case displeased God. Showing that there are times when a sword or a gun is the proper response.

 

[ddarko]

And what were His instructions? To take up the sword against an enemy! Proving that being a pacifist is not always pleasing to God. Being a pacifist in this case displeased God. Showing that there are times when a sword or a gun is the proper response.

You sir are reading the scripture with coloured glasses.

God’s command was to Israel for that specific instance. It does not apply to all events in history. Have you received a command from God to kill anyone? Christ to be specific? If you have, I humbly respect your agenda.

What did Christ say when Peter cut the ear of the soldier in Gethsamene?

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

You do not have “Legitimate Authority”. Legitimate Authority in the Catechism refers to Governments and law enforcement in this respect i.e. those with authority given by God.

You have to read the Catechism properly and the meaning of all the words. Not just the word “Grave” and stop there.

God Bless

Legitimate Authority ALSO refers to a father protecting his children or a husband protecting his wife and I most certainly have that authority. From the Vatican’s own website …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

… Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144). It is not only a RIGHT but can also be a DUTY.

 

[ddarko]

What part is false? Did God not command Saul to slay his enemy? Did Saul not fail to take up the sword? Did Saul’s action to take up the sword displease God so much that God regretted making Saul King? Did God not withdraw His Spirit from Saul for his failure to take up the sword?

Which part is false?

The part that is false, if you interpreting it as God punishing Saul for the inability to use the sword. What actually happened was punishment for NOT OBEYING God.

You need to get your interpretations in line with rest of Scripture. As I am sure you are well aware as a Knight of Columbus, we interpret Scripture and Tradition in it’s entirety. No part may contradict the other. But your interpretation here contradicts God’s very nature.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Legitimate Authority ALSO refers to a father protecting his children or a husband protecting his wife and I most certainly have that authority. From the Vatican’s own website …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

… Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144). It is not only a RIGHT but can also be a DUTY.

First, did you bother to read the rest of that document you just cited? It says the following below.

“This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms. Nonetheless, in our meeting today the topic is fairly limited. Here we are discussing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. This is, in a manner of speaking, a negative statement of the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the international arms trade.”

Secondly, please refer to my Post #111.

Academic studies have proved that you having a gun in the house is more detrimental to your family compared to those who do not.

So yes, if you are a responsible father, you would get that Gun out of your house.

Also, please answer the question, did the Apostles of Christ EVER take up the sword against the persecuting Roman Empire?

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

You sir are reading the scripture with coloured glasses.

I am reading what happened. If anyone has colored glasses on, then it would be you

God’s command was to Israel for that specific instance.

Showing that taking up the swords is not always wrong.

It does not apply to all events in history.

Not all but is shows that it can apply to some when appropriate.

Have you received a command from God to kill anyone? Christ to be specific? If you have, I humbly respect your agenda.

Have you received instructions from Christ to the contrary? Christ did instruct His followers to arm themselves with a sword – the equivalent of what a gun would be today.

What did Christ say when Peter cut the ear of the soldier in Gethsamene?

Jesus said that because Peter was attempting to stop Jesus from carrying out His mission – the MAIN reason why He came into this world.

Let’s not forget that earlier, Jesus instructed them to buy swords if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloaks to do so. Jesus, a strong supporter of the poor instructed them to sell their cloaks and not give the proceeds to the poor but to buy swords – showing that being well armed was more important than caring for the poor … keeping in mind that a sword has only ONE purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively. Jesus would not have commanded them to buy a weapon if He did not intend for them to use it – otherwise that would have been very wasteful.