H
HappyCatholic01
Guest
And if speeding and reckless driving were protected rights of the citizenry under our Constitution, this would be a comparable example.
- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
From Zoltan Cobalt:
Hi Gary:
Bear with me as I tend to get a little abstract at times. Please ask questions to avoid confusion I don’t mind…(unless you are trying to trip me up.)
I would think my two statements flow together very logically. Please understand that my use of the term “right to life” refers to the INDIVIDUAL rights of man. Perhaps I should have said “the right to HIS OWN life”.
The source of man’s individual rights is his Creator, not government or even congressional law. Rights are conditions of existence required by our nature for our proper survival. If we are to live on earth, it is right for us to use our mind, it is right to act on our own free judgment. If life on earth is our purpose, we have a right to live as rational beings. Any group, any gang, any government that attempts to negate our rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
From Zoltan Cobalt:
Hi Gary:
Bear with me as I tend to get a little abstract at times. Please ask questions to avoid confusion I don’t mind…(unless you are trying to trip me up
I would think my two statements flow together very logically. Please understand that my use of the term “right to life” refers to the INDIVIDUAL rights of man. Perhaps I should have said “the right to HIS OWN life”.
The source of man’s individual rights is his Creator, not government or even congressional law. Rights are conditions of existence required by our nature for our proper survival. If we are to live on earth, it is right for us to use our mind, it is right to act on our own free judgment, it is right to protect ourselves. If life on earth is our purpose, we have a right to live as rational beings.** Any group, any gang, any government that attempts to negate our rights,** is wrong**, which means: is evil, which means: is acting against God’s will.**
The individual right to to keep and bear arms is a direct corollary of our God-given individual right to our own life. The founders of our Country recognized this and that is one of the reasons America is exceptional.
To your follow on question:
Here you refer to a “Device”. True, a device designed to “take away the one right that God gave us”. But without considering the INTENT of the individual — that “device” could be a Rosary.
In other words, good guys carry “devices” with good intentions and the hope of never using them. Evil persons carry “devices” with the express purpose of violating the rights of others.
A
Annie39
Guest
“I wonder if you have thought these scenarios through very closely.”
Well, yes of course. If memory serves you are very familiar with guns and people who carry them. Every gun owner of my acquaintance knows that he/she is responsible for every bullet that he/she fires. I’m thinking that you know this as well.
“If everyone in a crowd had a gun, there is no way to assure or even assume that everyone in that crowd who also have guns would know who the original shooter was once the return fire starts.”
I did a little web research on the topic that you write about and could find nothing. Do you know of an example to share that I could read on the internet? The only examples of shootouts that I know of or have read about are between bad guys and the police or bad guys on bad guys in gang areas. For the reason that I stated above citizens are reluctant to pull their gun and, although when they do they will use them if necessary as a rule the mere appearance of a gun will cause the perp to run or as in a recent case shoot himself. There was a shooter in a mall recently where a gun toting citizen pulled his gun and the bad guy stopped shooting others and shot himself.
“And then there’s the problem with bullets. They often pass trough the person you were aiming for and hit another person, or miss the person you were aiming for and hit another person, or ricochet off of other objects and hit other people.”
The only cases I know of where this happened is when the police shoot someone. It is my experience that private citizens use hollow point bullets.
“ I imagine what you might have on your hands in such a situation is one deranged person with a gun attended by a lot of other people with guns who are very excited and full of adrenalin.”
Oh yes and you can imagine many kinds of scenarios. When my boys were old enough to drive but not adults with no more sense than any other teenager I cannot tell you how worried I became many a night when they gave me reasons to worry. What if they broke down on the freeway (pre-cell phone days) and were robbed. What if he was in an accident (do I wait for the knock on the door?) There were many scenarios that went through my head. I suppose it would have been worse if one of them was a girl.
It is my experience that people who “pack” also train and practice a lot. If we wanted to eliminate every potential death from people using deadly weapons cars would be confiscated (The Isla Vista guy was not the only person to use his car in a deadly rampage). We would ban all knives and baseball bats. We could go so far as to ban everything that is known to kill accidentally as well. No more skateboards (a neighbor boy was killed when he hit his head on concrete while riding one) remember Sony Bono? Lets ban skis.
Annie
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is not how the Catholc Church interprets the “right to life”. The Church does not say you may do anything and everything that might protect your life. If anything, the right to life is an injunction on others not to take that life from you. It is not a blank check to you to do whatever you please, even if in so doing you believe you are protecting your life.
The Church does say you have the right, and even the duty, to use whatever means are at hand, inclding lethal force, at the time of an attack to defend your life and the lives of those under your care. But the Church stops short of mandating that everyone acquire firearms. Nor does she condemn reasonable restrictions on firearms.
If your “corollary” really did follow logically from the God-given right to life, then ex-cons and the mentally imbalanced would also have a God-given right to own a gun, because they too have the right to life, unless they are lawfully subject to capital punishment. Even an insane person might conceivably have occasion to protect himself from a home invasion. Are you ready to declare that your “corollary” is absolute, based only on God’s gift of the right to life?
A
Annie39
Guest
Hi Sally
You write: I believe there was someone in the Aurora theatre that was armed and unable to stop the idiot shooter.
I had not heard that and attempted to find that information on the internet but the only thing that I could find is a witness attempted to close the door on him before the shooting started. Where did you hear about the armed person?
"Then there are the idiots who don’t understand the theory of what goes up must come down, and shoot their guns into the air, killing or injuring people far away.”
I guess that we have all heard of this but it is not common in my corner of the world. We know that there are teenagers who irresponsibly race their cars through the streets but I’m not sure how many people would be in favor of taking cars from the majority of the people because of the stupidity of the few.
“What about the idiots that do drive bys? How would you stop them if they have already sped away?”
Two of my boys were at ground zero of a drive by. Not every bad act can be stopped by the best intentioned person. If the gang bangers had broken into my home rather than shot at a person near my boys I (along with members of my family) may have been murdered.
“Or the idiots that don’t lock up their guns when they have children around?”
Once again there are irresponsible people of every stripe. Recently a child called 911 on her mother who was driving drunk while she was in the car.
“Most of the high-profile shootings/findings (as in China recently) are not stoppable because these people are idiots and crazy (I know, not the politically correct term). The rest of us having a gun will never stop them.”
I can’t discuss China except to note that the last mass murder of children at a school there was committed with a knife. However, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns with quite a bit of regularity here in the good ole US of A
“ If preventing them is the main reason for being against gun laws, you will not be successful. Idiots and crazy people are much more inventive and devious than you or I will ever be.”
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However evidence available does not support that opinion. Here in Arizona if we see a sign on a restaurant that has a picture of a gun with a line through it we move on. It isn’t so much that we like being armed but we know that if a bad guy is looking to rob a place he would chose a soft target that is telling him “safe to rob” and we value our lives.
“Btw, I hope your pain goes away soon.”
Thank you I appreciate it. I’m doing a bit better today.
You write: I believe there was someone in the Aurora theatre that was armed and unable to stop the idiot shooter.
I had not heard that and attempted to find that information on the internet but the only thing that I could find is a witness attempted to close the door on him before the shooting started. Where did you hear about the armed person?
"Then there are the idiots who don’t understand the theory of what goes up must come down, and shoot their guns into the air, killing or injuring people far away.”
I guess that we have all heard of this but it is not common in my corner of the world. We know that there are teenagers who irresponsibly race their cars through the streets but I’m not sure how many people would be in favor of taking cars from the majority of the people because of the stupidity of the few.
“What about the idiots that do drive bys? How would you stop them if they have already sped away?”
Two of my boys were at ground zero of a drive by. Not every bad act can be stopped by the best intentioned person. If the gang bangers had broken into my home rather than shot at a person near my boys I (along with members of my family) may have been murdered.
“Or the idiots that don’t lock up their guns when they have children around?”
Once again there are irresponsible people of every stripe. Recently a child called 911 on her mother who was driving drunk while she was in the car.
“Most of the high-profile shootings/findings (as in China recently) are not stoppable because these people are idiots and crazy (I know, not the politically correct term). The rest of us having a gun will never stop them.”
I can’t discuss China except to note that the last mass murder of children at a school there was committed with a knife. However, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns with quite a bit of regularity here in the good ole US of A
“ If preventing them is the main reason for being against gun laws, you will not be successful. Idiots and crazy people are much more inventive and devious than you or I will ever be.”
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However evidence available does not support that opinion. Here in Arizona if we see a sign on a restaurant that has a picture of a gun with a line through it we move on. It isn’t so much that we like being armed but we know that if a bad guy is looking to rob a place he would chose a soft target that is telling him “safe to rob” and we value our lives.
“Btw, I hope your pain goes away soon.”
Thank you I appreciate it. I’m doing a bit better today.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Ex-cons and Felons can and do have their right to keep and bear arms restored. It is time consuming and expensive but happens every day. The U.S. government cannot infringe on a God-given right.
Mentally imbalanced people legally obtain firearms everyday. Look at the latest mass murder near Santa Barbara.
Since man has inalienable God-given individual rights, meaning that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. People who do not respect the rights of others, either willfully or through no fault of their own (Mentally imbalanced) must be removed from society. This is one of the few duties of a proper government.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I noticed you stopped short of saying this was right and proper that mentally imbalanced people should have firearms. Time to commit. Is it a God-given right for everyone to own a gun or not?
Now you are contradicting yourself. If the right to own a gun is a God-given corollary to the right to life, then it would not be proper for any government to take away this right from them, just as it is not the right of government to deny a mentally-imbalanced person the right to live. Removing such people from society is even more of an affront to their right to life than denying them the use of a gun. After all, the MIGHT use it for self-defense.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Is there no hunting with firearms allowed in Australia?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Of course it is.
It is impossible for anyone, including a government, to “take away” anyone’s rights. However there are circumstances when a government or society refuses to recognize rights.
Example: A convict does not lose his right to keep and bear arms. In his present situation, he just does not have the ability to exercise that right.
Likewise, women ALWAYS had the right to vote. The government did not grant that right, it finally recognized that right. A “right” granted by a government is a permission. A permission can be later denied. (Maybe a permission would have been better than a recognition…
)We never lose our God-given rights. Evil people violate our rights and governments infringe on them or refuse to recognize them. It is up to us to defend our rights or establish a proper government that exists only to protect our rights.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Same question to you, is there no firearms hunting allowed in the UK?
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Were you ever in the military?Thats a funny thing to say. So down under most people cannot own a gun legally but you know were to get one in case of war. Here in the USA most people can own a gun but military people cannot carry weapons on military bases.
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
It wasn’t Longing Soul, it was Petaro who said that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you want me to use the term “ability to exercise rights”, then fine. Is it or is it not good and proper for a government to deny convicts and the mentally unstable to exercise their right to own a gun? You can’t dance out of the problem by saying that they have the right, and it is good and proper that they do, and yet the government can and should deny them the exercise of that right. Let’s keep in mind how this all relates to the original discussion, which was the rightness or wrongness of government regulations on gun ownership.
So, I repeat: Is it good for a government to deny a mentally imbalanced person the exercise of his right to own a gun, even if the supposed use of that gun is for self-defense?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
L
LongingSoul
Guest
On the other hand the right to ‘security of person’ can be applied across the board without exception. All people quality for this right without exception. The right to bear arms as a citizen, must not encroach on the universal human right to security of person. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, most people who argue this right are not thinking as a unified and well regulated militia… they are thinking in terms of self defense. The defense of myself and those I care about. They are not thinking of their wider communities safety and outright reject any suggestion that gun crime against each other should matter over their own personal security. The attitude as as far from that of a unified, well regulated militia as black is from white.
The argument that I support is that the prevalence of guns in the community, far from providing security of person, has actually reduced security of persons, especially the vulnerable. People have turned their weapons overwhelmingly on each other rather than on the goverment they were enlisted to control by their weapons. It is not the government who has destroyed the peoples security … it is the supposed ‘well regulated militia’ that exists to protect them!
The argument that I support is that the prevalence of guns in the community, far from providing security of person, has actually reduced security of persons, especially the vulnerable. People have turned their weapons overwhelmingly on each other rather than on the goverment they were enlisted to control by their weapons. It is not the government who has destroyed the peoples security … it is the supposed ‘well regulated militia’ that exists to protect them!
P
pnewton
Guest
Murder and crime rate are equally pertinent. Bad check and theft do not matter, but a person can protect themselves from assault, robbery, rape and any violent crime. You may or may not also put burglary in that category, depending on your opinion on “stand your ground.”
Both stats matter though.
P
pnewton
Guest
State government can. In Texas, a felon can not be in a possession of any firearm. Period. No defense.
As to the idea that this is a “God-given right”, I look to the Church to teach on theology, not politics or the NRA. I do not think this is an area the Catholic Church has addressed. The right to legitimate self-defense is a God-given right, but that does not logically equate to using a gun, or any other offensive weapon.
Can you show where the Catholic Church has said owning a gun is a divine right?
P
pnewton
Guest
I too am of two minds. I guess I believe that we should maintain the right to gun ownership, but I am not a fan of guns, nor do I believe they make the best defense. I am one of the three oddballs that voted anti-gun (personally) but I own a gun.
A
Annie39
Guest
Gun control as been discussed over and over again on CA. LongingSoul has used Aquinas to bolster her argument (see post #253) and has used it before and it has been replied to here is the Aquinas url that answers her claims. newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7.
Annie
Annie
- Status