Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[LongingSoul]

In the United States, the ONLY responsibility government lawmakers have is to “…uphold and defend the Constitution.” Nothing more. Oh…well they also spend our money.

As an elected “lawmaker” my first duty would be to defend the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution. Rather than being restrictive (it does not work) I would enable law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

But isn’t part of the constitution to uphold the equality of all including the weak and vulnerable? If you promote the right to use a gun for self defense (except if you don’t qualify by our standards)… isn’t that pitting two important principles of the constitution against each other. The weak, sick and vulnerable seem expendable under such a scheme. It seems to lean more towards a survival of the fittest philosophy that most civilised people fundamentally reject in our day.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But isn’t part of the constitution to uphold the equality of all including the weak and vulnerable? If you promote the right to use a gun for self defense (except if you don’t qualify by our standards)… isn’t that pitting two important principles of the constitution against each other. The weak, sick and vulnerable seem expendable under such a scheme. It seems to lean more towards a survival of the fittest philosophy that most civilised people fundamentally reject in our day.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are profound and lethal violations of this principle of equality to which the law (and President Obama) must respond also then? What about the LIFE of the unborn who’s parent in many cases are indeed weak and vulnerable, and apparently severely taken advantage of. What about the unborn rights? They have None?

 

[Annie39]

For me, I am all about gun education focusing first on preventing the need to use it. Secure one’s home and person first. Then the need for defense is less likely. I am also in favor of combing databases of those with mental illness and including that as part of a background check.

But let’s face it, there are lot’s of possible answers to the gun issue, some better than others, without a repeal of the Second Amendment.

I’m for a single database where people who know that a person is dangerously mentally ill can alert everyone else. Gun stores should be able to access this data base. If it is already on record that a person is dangerous it should be legal to put that person on the list. It should not be a list where someone who dislikes another person just puts his enemy on that list, it should be those already known to be dangerous. The person in my life has already been involuntarily committed to a psyche ward. She should be on a list that goes across the nation that she should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. The Isla Vista guy could have been stopped. He of course could have killed his roommates with that knife and maybe one more but that may have been it. We could be concentrating on outlawing knives but if we outlawed knives then only outlaws would have knives. How would we cut our steaks? Then maybe we could outlaw BMWs and then cars in general.

Annie

 

[GaryTaylor]

The weak, sick and vulnerable seem expendable under such a scheme. It seems to lean more towards a survival of the fittest philosophy that most civilised people fundamentally reject in our day.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifenetwork.org.au%2F_blog%2FAbortion_in_Australia%2Fpost%2FHow_many_abortions_occur_in_Australia%2F&ei=cfuIU7eYFcTKsQSKvILQAg&usg=AFQjCNHN7RLxA-YNssXxOR1G9X53VYny-w

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAbortion_in_Australia&ei=cfuIU7eYFcTKsQSKvILQAg&usg=AFQjCNE6uHiNbhF6cXE2c3cK-zPvKbesig

Whats this say about your civilized society? Inflated self opinion? Double standard? Your more worried about our weak, sick and vulnerable than yours?

 

[GaryTaylor]

23 million people in 2013 -Australia

320 million people in 2013- USA

I say your all killing pretty darn well?

 

[LongingSoul]

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are profound and lethal violations of this principle of equality to which the law (and President Obama) must respond also then? What about the LIFE of the unborn who’s parent in many cases are indeed weak and vulnerable, and apparently severely taken advantage of. What about the unborn rights? They have None?

That’s really the whole point and importance of fighting the culture of death through thorough examination of governmental policies regarding life and death issues like war, drugs, capital punishment and gun ownership. Any policy that tolerates human death as ‘collateral damage’ is overstepping the limits of human authority. We aren’t capable or permitted to make judgements on the worth of any person and when we have reached to point as a society of acknowledging the personhood of every unborn baby, there will be no possible justification for abortion left.

 

[pnewton]

But isn’t part of the constitution to uphold the equality of all including the weak and vulnerable? If you promote the right to use a gun for self defense (except if you don’t qualify by our standards)… isn’t that pitting two important principles of the constitution against each other.

Not really. The weak and vulnerable would still be vulnerable bereft of guns, only more so. They did not call the 45 Sam Colt’s equalizer for nothing.

In any case, the Constitution does have a provision by which it can be changed. The Second Amendment could be modified or repealed if enough people favor such a change.

 

[pnewton]

That’s really the whole point and importance of fighting the culture of death through thorough examination of governmental policies regarding life and death issues like war, drugs, capital punishment and gun ownership.

I happen to agree with you here. In fact, I made a poll a while back on this very subject. I do not think we will see any significant reversal in abortion happening without changes in the areas you mentioned, except I would add movies and video games as well. Not that these things need to be outlawed, but until they become unpopular and wide-spread moral conversion takes place, we will lose on all fronts.

In this, we need to embrace as allies all people of faith and morals, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

 

[LongingSoul]

Not really. The weak and vulnerable would still be vulnerable bereft of guns, only more so. They did not call the 45 Sam Colt’s equalizer for nothing.

Unfortunately if Sam Colt’s equalizer is forbidden to the vulnerable and they are not afforded another equalizer like government subsidised extra protection of some sort… they are expendable victims of a gun rich culture.

In any case, the Constitution does have a provision by which it can be changed. The Second Amendment could be modified or repealed if enough people favor such a change.

I did not know that. Some don’t seem to believe that to be true and are arguing on a false basis then.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s really the whole point and importance of fighting the culture of death

Right, your right on top of this in Australia?

through thorough examination of governmental policies

Its been examined not a thing wrong with the bill of rights 1 or 2 in fact I can’t see where they can be separated. But in the imagination of the fearful. Its served the US well since it installation. The homicide statistics are above “they went down” and the population grew?

regarding life and death issues like war, drugs, capital punishment and gun ownership.

Life-Liberty and the right to protect Life and Liberty. The right to bear arms. Can’t be separated.

Any policy that tolerates human death as ‘collateral damage’ is overstepping the limits of human authority

Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by collateral damage. I highly doubt your thinking and mine are the same here. So I won’t assume.

We aren’t capable or permitted to make judgements on the worth of any person

Right, doesn’t have anything to do with guns.

and when we have reached to point as a society of acknowledging the personhood of every unborn baby, there will be no possible justification for abortion left.

Right, so your working on this in Australia.

.

 

[LongingSoul]

Right, your right on top of this in Australia?

Firstly, this is not a ‘my country verses your country’ conversation. That’s childish. The US itself (and rightly so) has followed, conversed and even intervened in the affairs of many other nations perpetrating violations of universal human rights at one point or another. The culture of death is a global phenomenon and we are more intimately connected to and affected by each other than ever before. Global peace and prosperity depends on global unity and co-operation.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Any policy that tolerates human death as ‘collateral damage’ is overstepping the limits of human authority

Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by collateral damage. I highly doubt your thinking and mine are the same here. So I won’t assume.

Collateral damage implies tolerated death. Sacrifice of some lives so that others might live. It implies that the rights of some people are less applicable than the rights of others. There are some campaigning for drugs to be legalised because everyone should have the right to choose. The fact that drugs will kill many people is irrelevant in light of the exalted ‘right of an individual’ to choose. Collateral damage.

In war, the more civilised emphasis on getting to an isolated target rather than in incendiary approach that used to be used sacrificing villages and whole groups. That sort of thing. The sense that something justifies the expendability of some people.

 

[dogen]

I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

whoops
youtube.com/watch?v=QL5Xc8Gq8f4

The fact that drugs will kill many people is irrelevant in light of the exalted ‘right of an individual’ to choose.

and anti-drug laws don’t result in collateral damage?

 

[dogen]

They create a greater danger to their owners than anyone the owner might encounter. The person most likely to die with your handgun is you or your family.

That’s a baseless lie.

I believe there are far better options for self-defense.

Believe? So you’re guessing?
At least you didn’t say you knew it or that it’s a fact, because it’s not true and you’d be lying.

 

[Z_Ninja]

I am pro-2nd amendment. I believe the criminal will not follow the law and we have the right to defend ourselves. If you don’t like guns, you have the right to not buy one. For those that say guns are designed to kill, a gun is designed to operate by pulling the trigger which causes the mechanism to “activate” a striker or hammer that impacts the primer which ignites the gun powder with which the pressure ejects a projectile, bullet. I think design is being confused with intent. As has been said, criminals will not obey any laws created. A murderer will kill whether it be with a gun, knife, car or spoon or paper cut.

On a personal story, I owned a gun at the time but never really considered carrying concealed. (Lived in Florida at the time, so no open carry) . Well, two days before Christmas, while delivering presents to some friends, we were robbed at gunpoint, it was a home invasion at our friends’ apartment. They made off with several hundred dollars in cash and possessions. The end result would have been different had I decide to bring my pistol with me. Considered doing so since it was late at night. I don’t want to kill, but if it came to my family and friends or the criminal, I would do what is necessary to protect them. Perspectives change when you feel helpless when some piece if trash is pointing a gun at your wife and/or you are staring down the barrel of a gun. And no, I was not afraid, more so thinking about my wife and our (at the time) infant son at home.

Another issue is why we have the 2nd amendment. It was to protect against the government taking our freedoms/rights. The founding fathers did not start out fighting for independence, rather they were fighting for equal representation with regard to taxes. Basically wanting to be treated as equal subjects as those living in England. When that didn’t happen and when the ones in power tried to enforce stricter rules is when the fight turned into a fight for independence.

Sorry about the long post, just get a little passionate about some issues.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

Oddly enough, in Lutheran thought we don’t really have no right to personal defense. We should accept abuses.

But we do have an obligation to defend those that depend on us - family, friends, and employees and fellow citizens - and if that means protecting ourselves so that we may care for others then that is what we’re to do.

From Ezekiel 33:6 - But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Thanks for the information. But what may work in a township would be difficult, to say the least, in a large urban center such as New York City or Chicago.

Kennesaw is a bit more than a township as it is considered Metro Atlanta, I live about 10 minutes north of Kennesaw and our city is also part of the North Metro Atlanta. So it is hardly a township if you include the whole area. That being said, the crime rate has dropped significantly since the law went into effect, there are plenty of ways to get around the mandatory gun ownership law if you don’t want to own one. I read the statistic a long time ago and can’t remember the number, but it has been proven to work as a crime deterrent.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Someone can correct me, but isn’t there something about personal defense and defense of the innocent in the Catechism? Even to some extent on the death penalty where if the only way to protect society from certain individuals that will continue to do harm is to execute them?

 

[benjohnson]

Someone can correct me, but isn’t there something about personal defense and defense of the innocent in the Catechism? Even to some extent on the death penalty where if the only way to protect society from certain individuals that will continue to do harm is to execute them?

The two that come to mind from the CCC:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

and

2267* Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”*

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I am talking about RIGHTS. devices have no rights.

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.

There are a lot of things that I don’t understand about God. I would agree that He has no concept of “rights”. But as simple humans we need a basic understanding of His will and that means we need a moral concept…rights (?)

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.

Hmmm…let’s see: 1.2 MILLION Abortions last year. How many murders with firearms???

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

Remember I am focusing on RIGHTS.

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.

Gary, I am getting the feeling that you are saying there is no difference between good and evil. That there is no evil and there is no good???

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.

Since there is no “us vs them” and we are all “us”…then my answer to your question would be the only acceptable solution to the problem facing “us”. No argument. A separation of ideals would be an illusion…“we is we”.

Ideals are abstracts.

So, if you are sitting down…shall I continue?

Please feel free to continue.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Z_Ninja]

Haha, you sound a lot like me when I try to wrap my head around what my opinions are on this matter! It’s a complicated issue for me as well.

I will say that I feel that I should have the right to NOT carry a gun, and still feel safe. I grew up in an area where plenty of people are hunters and go to shooting ranges, and where I live now, that is even more true. I don’t have a problem with people hunting of course (especially when they share their venison with me! ) but I don’t think I should HAVE to have the responsibility of a weapon - either by law or in order to feel safe in a public place. For me personally, I think I would be more anxious by knowing there was a gun in my apartment (even locked up) or on my person than I would being nervous about a potential attack and need to defend myself. I realize that I would go through training and need to feel confident in my skills, but in general, I think I’d be more worried about someone hitting me in the back of the head and stealing my gun than I would feel protected by carrying it. Which, of course, is why I don’t have one and don’t intend to have one.

You certainly have the right to not purchase one. They aren’t for everyone. I thought about the issue of being anxious or even looking for trouble because I owned a gun. For me, it was the opposite. I have in a sense felt safer. Not so much because I have a gun, but because I have become more aware of my surroundings and making sure the doors are locked at night. You see, when I bought my first gun, a Walther P99 9mm, I sat down with it and a bullet and recognized that this little 9mm projectile has the ability to take a life. While I don’t intend to nor would ever want to, (I bought it to go to the range) I needed to accept that it is possible to kill someone and to know that I do respect life. As someone else said, gun safety is the most important aspect along with education.
My earliest memory of guns was my dad telling me where the guns were and where the ammunition was and how to use them. I never went looking for them because of my exposure to them at an early age.