Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Annie39]

You write: “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?”

We are all, every one of us born with a right to life and may if necessary use lethal force to protect that right. There are some people who are not able to exercise this right. The mentally ill should not be allowed to exercise this right and felons at least violent felons it should be understood have voluntarily given up this right. The fact that there are a few acceptions to the rule does not negate the fact that we are allowed to self-defense and a firearm is a very good tool for this defense.

I believe that all children have the right to grow to adulthood and become independent but there are exceptions to this too. Our grandchild is severely autistic and although she is being taught life skills and has come a very long way she will never be able to be as independent as her brother.

 

[Annie39]

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?

Well, I can’t but I can’t find where the Church has said that owning a tomahawk is a divine right either. Do you have an authoritative list of approved weapons published by the Church?

 

[Annie39]

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.

I’m interested, what weapon would you say makes the best defense? Would you pull your gun if your house is broken into and your life or those of your family members was at stake?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You write: “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?”

We are all, every one of us born with a right to life and may if necessary use lethal force to protect that right. There are some people who are not able to exercise this right. The mentally ill should not be allowed to exercise this right and felons at least violent felons it should be understood have voluntarily given up this right. The fact that there are a few acceptions to the rule does not negate the fact that we are allowed to self-defense and a firearm is a very good tool for this defense.

I believe that all children have the right to grow to adulthood and become independent but there are exceptions to this too. Our grandchild is severely autistic and although she is being taught life skills and has come a very long way she will never be able to be as independent as her brother.

Sounds like you agree with me then.

 

[Annie39]

Sounds like you agree with me then.

If that is what you meant, I guess that you are right.

 

[pnewton]

Well, I can’t but I can’t find where the Church has said that owning a tomahawk is a divine right either. Do you have an authoritative list of approved weapons published by the Church?

Exactly. The Church has not spoken. Gun ownership is not a divine right. Self-defense is.

 

[pnewton]

I’m interested, what weapon would you say makes the best defense? Would you pull your gun if your house is broken into and your life or those of your family members was at stake?

The best defense is proper locks, followed by an alarm system. I think the OC makes a good defense as it denies area and can create separation. Yes, I would use a gun if I must. However, the vast majority of the time, I have no gun and a gun is not an option. Crime rarely happens when we are prepared. The one weapon we always have, is ourselves, our brain first and a trained body second.

I have no objection to those that believe otherwise and want a gun, I just think they are planning on always being prepared, which is not likely. On the other hand, those that speak of using a gun for self-defense yet do not take steps like I mentioned above that are truly defense, no offensive capability at all, I find to be disingenuous on there commitment to proper self-defense, where the least force should be exercised first.

Get good locks. Get an alarm (or a dog) second.

Bullets just cannot be recalled, unlike other force options. You, a friend or a family member are far more likely to be the recipient of that bullet than a burglar, that might well be thwarted without putting you are your family at risk from death from your own gun.

FYI - This is my own reasoning and is applicable to me only. I still respect that others not only differ in opinion, but in circumstance and may feel the need to have the protection of a fire arm.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

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.

Good Morning Zoltan Cobalt: I still don’t understand your reasoning, and of course I’m not trying to trip you up. I am just unable to see how devices that are designed to take life support the right to life. As for God- given rights, I really don’t see how we actually have any rights other than the ones we convey on ourselves. Looking at nature and the world around us, I don’t perceive that God actually has ideas about such things as rights and fairness. I think these are ideas that we came up with. They’re situational and I think God’s view is more a matter of seeing things as a whole. You mention good guys and evil people, but we are all good guys and evil people. Neither is a constant, and no saint was ever good every minute of their lives and no sinner is bad every minute of theirs. Knowing that we have both in each of us should be cause to look for ever new ways to direct our behavior in the most constructive and positive ways, and to that end I have to think that we are able to come up with better solutions to violence than violence.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

I don’t think that that is an oddball position at all. If a society gives something legal status, as a citizen of that society, you have to make the common sense decision about how best to live with those conditions. For example, the Church says that even though we are to be opposed to abortion as an intrinsic evil… we are permitted to vote for a political candidate that holds the least tolerant position on abortion even if it is not outright opposition.

When the constitutional right was proposed, the vision of citizens turning their guns on each other in violence and crime was likely far from their minds. But it is an undeniable problem of our times. The volume of guns in society generates an elevated sense of insecurity among people but at the same time, the gun promotes itself as the saviour against those insecurities. It’s effect is a double edged sword in many ways and it will take time to carefully draw that sword out of the flesh of society without causing more harm.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

Yes. If it were possible.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes. If it were possible.

If what were possible? If it were possible to deny him gun ownership? Of course it is possible in cases where the mental illness is sufficiently documented. But if that is your position, how do you reconcile it with your statement that gun ownership is God-given, like the right to life? If it really were an unalienable right, government would be wrong to deny him the exercise of that right.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

Notice I said “the U.S. government” not the state of Texas. States have the ability to defend or trample on our rights as they see fit.

Of course the Catholic Church has never said that owning a gun was a divine right…but the Declaration of Independence is pretty clear on the subject:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”

Would the Catholic Church argue that point?

 

[pnewton]

Notice I said “the U.S. government” not the state of Texas. States have the ability to defend or trample on our rights as they see fit.

Would the Catholic Church argue that point?

It might well disagree with you, me, or anyone else on what those inalienable rights are. I would say that human dignity is one right that the Church has spoken on frequently. Surely life, and thus self-defense are basic rights. However, there is also this where the Catechism quotes St. Thomas:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.

So even in self-defense, there are moral limits, even in defense of one’s own property, in one’s own home, there are moral limits. The law may allow greater leeway for lethal force. I would say that such leeway must be granted, as it is usually not possible to determine threat level. Yet, we know we have to answer to a higher judge some day and are called to a greater respect for life. One cannot kill to protect a television, then picket to end abortion without a great deal of hypocrisy.

If one believes a gun is necessary for self-defense, that is a decision that we should respect. However, if such a one does not also take basic defensive steps to prevent a violent confrontation, as I mentioned earlier, then surely the question must arise as to whether it is protection one seeks, or power to kill.

 

[thequietsinger]

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.

I agree on having the right to own a gun. However, I don’t think I’d personally be able to shoot anyone in self defense. I’d never forgive myself if that person died because of me.

 

[Hobbes42]

Exactly. The Church has not spoken. Gun ownership is not a divine right. Self-defense is.

Too true. It seems that when it comes to firearm ownership people tend to rank Thomas Jefferson up there amongst Peter and Paul .

The Church has only spoken to self defense being a duty and a right to preserve life. It does not speak to the construct of a right that people can go around with assault weapons looking for the chance to provoke something. There are methods of self defense that do not involve firearms, and also preserve life. (Guess what, I said it, a midlength M4 knockoff with a full size magazine is entirely similar to the Sturmgewehr 44 which was the original assault rifle, only needs a quick sear mod)

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Well, I can’t but I can’t find where the Church has said that owning a tomahawk is a divine right either. Do you have an authoritative list of approved weapons published by the Church?

1. The Rosary.
2. Any speech by Sister Carol Keehan, LCWR.

That’s it, I believe.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Morning Zoltan Cobalt: I still don’t understand your reasoning, and of course I’m not trying to trip you up. I am just unable to see how devices that are designed to take life support the right to life.

Good Morning Gary:

Now I am frustrated.

I thought I made it pretty clear. Device does not equal “intent.” God-given rights have no bearing on a device or an inanimate object.

An abortionist has the** right **to carry the tools of his trade to and from work. Most of those tools are designed to SAVE lives. It is for what purpose he uses them that violates the right to life.

As for God- given rights, I really don’t see how we actually have any rights other than the ones we convey on ourselves. Looking at nature and the world around us, I don’t perceive that God actually has ideas about such things as rights and fairness. I think these are ideas that we came up with. They’re situational and I think God’s view is more a matter of seeing things as a whole.

I am sure God has little concern about rights and fairness. As rational human beings, we NEED some concept of rights, fairness and justice. “Rights” therefore become a moral concept.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

You mention good guys and evil people, but we are all good guys and evil people. Neither is a constant, and no saint was ever good every minute of their lives and no sinner is bad every minute of theirs. Knowing that we have both in each of us should be cause to look for ever new ways to direct our behavior in the most constructive and positive ways, and to that end I have to think that we are able to come up with better solutions to violence than violence.

Thank you,
Gary

In my life time I have been around the world three times, shook hands with everyone twice and even had lunch with the pope. I have become a fair judge of people. I KNOW there are good people and EVIL people. I, for one, do not care to be included with the EVIL

“…but we are all good guys and evil people” What you mean “we” ???

 

[pnewton]

I agree on having the right to own a gun. However, I don’t think I’d personally be able to shoot anyone in self defense. I’d never forgive myself if that person died because of me.

I think I could. What concerns me more is someone else using my gun (I have a family) or shooting someone by mistake, which also happens. Even if one is exonerated the cost is great.

 

[pnewton]

“…but we are all good guys and evil people” What you mean “we” ???

Everyone has the right to human dignity. This is why all human life is of value, even though they are in the midst of criminal activity. True, their actions could cost them their life, but self-defense to the point of taking a life must be the last alternative, per Aquinas.

As to we are all evil, a simple reading of the epistles of St. Paul supports this. " If anyone thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall." “That which I hate, I do.” etc. If anyone owns a gun and is not honest with his own temptations, especially if he ever drinks, is ever angry, can be jealous, then he is a danger. A bullet does not know friend or foe. It can kill a loved one, or a burglar.

 

[Annie39]

“So even in self-defense, there are moral limits, even in defense of one’s own property, in one’s own home, there are moral limits. The law may allow greater leeway for lethal force. I would say that such leeway must be granted, as it is usually not possible to determine threat level. Yet, we know we have to answer to a higher judge some day and are called to a greater respect for life. One cannot kill to protect a television, then picket to end abortion without a great deal of hypocrisy.”

I agree with the above. If we discover a that a person is in our house just taking our “stuff” we might point our gun at him and tell him to stay put until the police get there but he decides to call our bluff its bye-bye TV. Several people who give home safety courses recommend that one plans for an eventual break in by setting up a “safety room” with a cell phone and a weapon and light sticks to alert the police what room you are in if the break in occurs at night. The plan is if someone is trying to break in everyone in the house should head for that room and call the police. If the bad guys are after the occupants of the house and find where they are he/they should be warned that the people/person has a gun and will use it. If he backs off he should not be shot.

I personally recommend that people get a security system installed. Since my son is in the security business it is easy and cheap for us to have the cameras and monitors for a good system. If you are like me and would like cameras installed in the house along with outside it would be good so that you could see which room the perps are in. Someone else recommended getting a dog along with the security system. That’s not a bad idea but remember that the cameras don’t protect you and dogs can be the bad guys first victim.

Something like the above scenario happened in one of our largest cities. A man in his twenties broke into the house of a woman who was alone at the time. He was after her, not her possessions. She had retreated to her bathroom but he found her and broke down the door. He was even able to punch her in the face so it is apparent that she was not trigger happy. She was armed and shot him in the stomach. He is expected to live but her daughter said that he is not expected to walk again.

Annie