Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[GaryTaylor]

Really? Give an example of when this particular Bishops Conference statement has been disregarded when its doesn’t seem to fit the anti-gun agenda. I’m having a hard time imagining what sort of scenario that might be.

This “particular” statement. No what I said, its the Christian paradigm in general in which I mentioned martyrdom. Which I think is fine to discuss, and we did.

But we are talking also a country which by large appeals to secular thinking. So for example what I am saying is you can’t expect martyrdom to be their thinking.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This “particular” statement. No what I said, its the Christian paradigm in general in which I mentioned martyrdom. Which I think is fine to discuss, and we did.

But we are talking also a country which by large appeals to secular thinking. So for example what I am saying is you can’t expect martyrdom to be their thinking.

OK, I can understand why the Bishop’s statement doesn’t mean much to a secular world. So we could hardly expect to use it to convince non-Catholics of its truth. But we should at least be in agreement among ourselves as Catholics that it is true. That’s not asking too much, is it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

OK, I can understand why the Bishop’s statement doesn’t mean much to a secular world. So we could hardly expect to use it to convince non-Catholics of its truth. But we should at least be in agreement among ourselves as Catholics that it is true. That’s not asking too much, is it?

Course not, in fact I’m pretty convinced as I have been thinking about this some time. Its also true even when discussing for example the Bishops or martyrdom, what I have found is usually true is by removing the religious lingo and using the exact principle, just changing to secular lingo, people often arrive at the same conclusions.

For example I have discussed martyrdom not used in this term, but yet the same basic situation, I would contend many secular do this without the conscience awareness, as I believe would also hold true for the Bishops and for seven deadly sins which I believe I showed, as also the principles hold true with God and Country-Rights.

Really the conversation becomes one of inclusion which then leads to the Church teaching. This is what I have found to be helpful. Just saying, I’m open to other ideas.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Course not, in fact I’m pretty convinced as I have been thinking about this some time. Its also true even when discussing for example the Bishops or martyrdom, what I have found is usually true is by removing the religious lingo and using the exact principle, just changing to secular lingo, people often arrive at the same conclusions.

For example I have discussed martyrdom not used in this term, but yet the same basic situation, I would contend many secular do this without the conscience awareness, as I believe would also hold true for the Bishops and for seven deadly sins which I believe I showed, as also the principles hold true with God and Country-Rights.

Really the conversation becomes one of inclusion which then leads to the Church teaching. This is what I have found to be helpful. Just saying, I’m open to other ideas.

Also let me give you another example with the seven deadly sins. Many years ago with the addiction issue in NYC-NJ-CT, we used …

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTherapeutic_community&ei=BZCMU_f_D6TKsQTahIGQBQ&usg=AFQjCNFgOEjgPe-N19MYV-NHa_BZzzpIXw

When we started with this we did exactly as I am saying in the above post, we taught the Catholic Faith-Bible morals in relation to the seven deadly sins. Daytop was started by a Catholic Priest. My point is the finish leading directly to the -Catholic Mass was never finished. It couldn’t be with secular “equal rights” and restrictions. But this is why I know how, as I said, in correct thinking we arrive at the same conclusions. Even with martyrdom.

So yes there is much confusion. I’m not advocating for the above, though they would be a big help on a non-profit level with this gun, drug, behavior issue. Lots of anger with many of these youths, along with many other issues as with California, which as you see reading the seven deadly sins, can go anywhere. They sure beat the crazy idea of prison here in the USA. We use to try to rescue innocent people from there.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Martyrdom has important and known consistencies. I hope I by some chance I made sense. Perhaps badly explaining. Martyrdom is death for an ideal.

The soldier kills or may be killed for a cause

The Police kill or may be killed for a cause.

So forth to an individual cause.

Even the secularization of martyrdom doesn’t confuse the two. Further when we speak of the order down it is God and Country. Be it as it may some will argue the “intent” wasn’t for God. But all for sure state and by this Country-For God and Country, which is Life-Liberty and the Right to protect Life and Liberty correctly understood and in relation to the seven deadly sins. Even if they need be broke down in secular understanding.

Further, Phil of Duck Dynasty is an example of this, be at as it may be his Catholic interpretation needs communication as with the secular minded.

So yes I contend as Phil correctly did, if you are not for God you are not for America.

The seven deadly sins are the problem, the rest, symptoms of the problem, also to be understood in communication religious-secular.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The District of Columbia is not a state. The state with the highest murder rate is Louisiana. It is number 14 in percentage of gun ownership.

Just a little fact clarification.

DC is a federal district, treated in the same category as that of states for the purpose of the statistical survey.

And Louisiana is number 13 in percentage of gun ownership.

More fact clarification.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

God and Country? Thats what I am saying. Heres the thing. I think this is great. But this paradigm is rolled out when needed, but disregarded when its doesn’t seem to fit the anti-gun agenda. Martyrdom was of course applied, but what about the secular?

Not by you of course, but on this very thread also.

Right, we should leave the easy access to guns to criminals only…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Evening Zoltan: It had appeared to me that you were talking about both, however, you would know your intent better than I do. As for paperweights being used to kill people, then I suppose that settles it. This leads me to the conclusion that anyone needing self defense should just get a paperweight. Great idea, Zoltan.

Hi Gary:

It IS a great idea, thank you.
However it is not without its hurtles.

Firstly, there would be a need to prevent criminals from obtaining paperweights and assaulting innocent people. Registration and permits come to mind.

Secondly, restrictions to the size and type of paperweights would be required. In keeping with Aquinas’ teaching, a 70 year old grandmother, would not be allowed to use a heavier paperweight to defend herself against a home invasion thug who is carrying a small concealable one.

Then, of course, some incidentals like required training and proficiency and state, local and federal agencies created to control the manufacture, distribution, and licensing of paperweights.

All workable.

Rights are a practicality that people came up with. As for God’s will, well, who can say? I have ideas about what God’s will is, but they may not match everyone else’s.

We agree that rights are a practically.

Should we strive to make them equal in number, or should we eliminate what we can?

We should be practical and focus on the serious threats to life. If we truly have man’s best interest at hand we would be eliminating dangers that kill the most people…automobiles and, of course abortion.

As rights relate to this topic, you currently have a right to own a gun. In the state where I live you can own as many as you want, including assault weapons and whatever else might flip your trigger.

Do you worry or concern yourself about the law abiding citizens in your state who own assault weapons? It wouldn’t bother me in the least.

I have said before that each is known in contrast with an in relation to the other, therefore I think they are co-dependent. Fair needs foul as Crazy Jane said to the Bishop, and existence surely is a curious thing.

Like Pooh, I will have to ponder that one…

Ideals are abstracts.

I agree.

Ideals are a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. They can be an abstraction that incorporates a great number of concretes. It is only by means of ideals that a person can set their long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only ideals that enable us to plan our future and to achieve it.

Please feel free to continue.

Thank you,
Gary

There are only two possible solutions to eliminate “gun violence”.

1. The total elimination of ALL guns. Gun violence would then be impossible. Knowing man’s nature, there would be other violence but gun violence would come to a screeching halt.

2. Reality check. Admitting that there is good and evil in the world and evil PEOPLE do evil things with or without guns…and guns exist…then all laws and restrictions concerning guns should be repealed. (Only the good obey laws anyway). There could one primary law affecting guns.** Any use of a gun for criminal or evil purpose will be serious capital crime.** This law will be enforced to the fullest extent.
Will this eliminate gun violence…no, but there would be a remarkable reduction.

 

[LongingSoul]

Right, we should leave the easy access to guns to criminals only…

There are two veins that are stripped with the implementation of gun restrictions. That is the actual volume of guns in the community available to be illegally used is restricted in the first instance and the power of the ‘myth’ that makes guns not just a desired and attractive element of everyday life but a necessity.

It is estimated that there are 89 guns per 100 individuals in the US. When you speak of illegal guns, that isn’t referencing some distinct type of weapon… it is referencing in the main legal guns that have been stolen or illegally used in some way. Reducing the overall volume in the community is naturally going to limit the supply of potentially illegally used guns also.

As far as the power of ‘myths’… it is evident all over our everyday lives. I used the example of kids and trading cards earlier to demonstrate how something can take on a mystique greater than the sum of its parts… simply through the suggestion that it affords one power and esteem. Alternately, to not have a thing in your life that holds this mystique can make one feel inordinately vulnerable and a quintessential victim. That isn’t the case in the real world. Many countries do not rely on private gun protection in dealing with crime and yet don’t feel the level of fear and vulnerablity as a culture, that comes over in the pro gun arguments of the gun rich US. It simply doesn’t follow that without private defense guns, every country devolves into crime ridden dens of lawlessness.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However, when correctly understood as intended, protection of life, then simply through the suggestion that it affords one power and esteem doesn’t apply. Now the confused on the seven deadly sin path this may indeed be true.

As far as every country devolves into crime ridden dens of lawlessness, seems to me that also has more to do with the seven deadly sins and progression to this point, which no doubt violence is part of. Look at secular school violence and by large this has nothing to do with weapons of any sort.

Seven deadly sins. The public schools are contending but I know no-one who doesn’t think the behavior is way out of line. I think they are becoming more comfortable with it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The idea of world peace, very alluring, don’t know anyone who hasn’t thought about it. But war is a continuation of politics, and throughout recorded history as I have mentioned, statistically speaking there will be no peace save Jesus Christ. Those politics always been the slight issue, but more again to do with the seven deadly sins.

 

[EMFrost]

But we should at least be in agreement among ourselves as Catholics that it is true. That’s not asking too much, is it?

Why do we have to be in agreement on whether or not to own a gun and if there should be gun restrictions? The Church allows for gun ownership. If you are truly Catholic and a gun owner- in regards to the sanctity of life- you would have to be a responsible gun owner. If you don’t own a gun you still have to act responsibly as a Catholic, just you don’t have the added responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

We can be in agreement among ourselves as Catholics that those of us who choose to own guns- we absolutely must use them responsibly.

Hey look! No one here is disagreeing with that.

Oh and one more note about Louisiana, our gun restrictions and crime rates vary greatly by area. So yes there’s a terrible amount of crime in New Orleans (where guns are more restricted), but the area where I live- we had zero murders last year and we can have our guns (as in- not just our shot guns). Not saying gun freedom always translates to low crime, but it also doesn’t automatically translate to high crime.
Just clarifying further how murky that statistic was and how things are like down here. It’s not a murder happy state. Actually for a couple of years now- we’re the most pro-life state. For New Orleans and a couple of other problem areas like in Baton Rouge- something needs to be done- but how do we go about it?
Disarming the law abiding citizens of the guns they legally owned when there are gangs running around with illegal guns and no apparent qualms with murdering in drive-by’s, home invasions, etc. despite all morality and laws?
No, that’s not helping my fellow Louisianians.

And GaryTaylor, I’m afraid no one noticed yet that you have lost brothers who served overseas. Be they brothers by blood or brothers in arms- I am sorry for your loss and God bless them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would further contend that is no such thing as pro gun or anti gun, just guns and people. I think we are at this point? Lets face it, if I put a gun on the table it will sit there until someone picks it up. Their intention again is what we are talking about and in relation to the deadly sins.

Also, war and politics, war is also defined as “confusion”. We have this going on throughout the states, in particular whats disturbing is the north-south and mid-west, individual which heightens old wounds, these are very good people. Also the racial tension, same thing. I believe its all intentional and of the seven deadly sins.

 

[Gorgias]

Think about the cold war and the arms race.

Apples and oranges, though, right? You, too, are asserting that the rights of states and the rights of individuals are different matters… so really, we can’t apply the logic of international policy to that of individual safety!

When you are dealing with random crime, is there really a good way of assessing what a criminal is intendig or likely to do? Wouldn’t it mean, considering an individuals lack of expertise in crime response and criminal habits, that every act of crime is potentially a deadly situation. The Trayvon Martin case demonstrates that reality. Was the threat he posed one where a policeman or soldier would have shot him dead? Who can blame Zimmerman… he did exactly what his gun was for. But is that the best response to plan for?

We can discuss Zimmerman, if you wish, but that’s a single instance. It would be unreasonable to extrapolate a general principle from this single case.

Aquinas on self defense says… “it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”

So soldiers and police arm themselved

Aquinas says “[those] who have public authority”, not “soldiers and police.” Do not American citizens “have public authority” to carry, based on the 2nd amendment?

 

[pnewton]

DC is a federal district, treated in the same category as that of states for the purpose of the statistical survey.

And Louisiana is number 13 in percentage of gun ownership.
.

Yet you did call it a state and it is not one.

You prove Twain’s adage about statistics. The District of Columbia is 100% urban. No other state is even remotely similar in demographics. It makes as much sense to use DC as an example as it would to use Manhattan. By doing so, you totally show that this correlation has much more reasonable basis for causation. Now, I would think that common sense would tell us DC is an aberration, one based on the fact that it is** not** a state.

 

[pnewton]

Right, we should leave the easy access to guns to criminals only…

This is a straw man. No one has suggested easy access to criminals only.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yet you did call it a state and it is not one.

Which for the purposes of the survey it is treated as it was a state. Within context it is referred as that.

Perhaps I need to include a disclaimer with links to the Oxford/MW dictionaries for those that are more sensitive over definitions taken out of context. Or perhaps not.

You prove Twain’s adage about statistics. The District of Columbia is 100% urban. No other state is even remotely similar in demographics. It makes as much sense to use DC as an example as it would to use Manhattan. By doing so, you totally show that this correlation has much more reasonable basis for causation. Now, I would think that common sense would tell us DC is an aberration, one based on the fact that it is** not** a state.

Perhaps you should address those people responsible for the survey and they might correct the offense or mistake.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is a straw man. No one has suggested easy access to criminals only.

Sarcasm, not straw man.

 

[LongingSoul]

However, when correctly understood as intended, protection of life, then simply through the suggestion that it affords one power and esteem doesn’t apply.

But bullet proof vests protect lives also. If crime is a genuine reality in a place wouldn’t it make more sense to fit every person with bullet proof defenses? That would make a more level playing field as far as the right to ‘security of person’. It is within reach of absolutely every person… just not the specially qualified to own. It would also ensure greater personal safety without the need to make a life and death call over anothers life.

Unfortunately bullet proof garments don’t hold that mystique. They don’t afford one power and esteem. Just greater security.

 

[LongingSoul]

Apples and oranges, though, right? You, too, are asserting that the rights of states and the rights of individuals are different matters… so really, we can’t apply the logic of international policy to that of individual safety!

The point I was making was not to do with the different levels of authority, but the notion of one upmanship in trying to achieve a sense of security. I could as easily have used a schoolyard example where a disagreement of words can turn into a disagreement of fists can turn into a disagreement of weapons. Once one party ups the anti… it is inevitable that the other will up the anti again. Both parties have a right to feel secure but each upping of the anti serves only to inspire a more offensive response from each party each time. The defensive response is the only response that allows for a growth of trust and reconciliation.

Aquinas says “[those] who have public authority”, not “soldiers and police.” Do not American citizens “have public authority” to carry, based on the 2nd amendment?

And honestly, here is where it is nuts. Each person is a self ordained soldier of war. But is each person out there defending his community against the enemy? No. He is about himself. His stuff, his blood. Those with his DNA. This is not the ‘well regulated militia’ that the constitution envisaged I’m quite sure. If the citizens had a genuine regard for the community they lived in, every person with a gun would need to be accountable to the common good in the way the police and military are. There really is no accountability of that sort in private gun ownership. When police or military weapons are stolen, there is hell to pay. When private guns are stolen, no one blames the gun owner. He doesn’t have to be accountable for his weapon with the same sort of vigilance as the proper public authorities. If he were, how would so many find their way into criminal hands. Just wouldn’t happen. There is no accountability for the private owner. Just suggestions.