Armed citizens

[Semper_Fi_1]

Guns are designed to kill people.

No. Guns are not designed to “kill people”. Guns were designed for hunting, and for personal protection. To protect yourself you do not have to kill someone. As the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. I am a libertarian at heart and I think that an armed and well trained citizenry is better equipped than the government to protect itself. I’m not going to rely on a bunch of bureaucrats to protect me or my family. Once you take guns away from the citizenry, only the criminals will have access to them. More people die in car accidents than from firearm related causes. We had a thing here in Colorado where a former police officer used his vehicle as a lethal weapon and murdered two innocent people. Should we now ban cars?

FightingFat:

Jesus said don’t call your brother an idiot- let alone kill him. He said if someone wants to steal from you, let him and if someone strikes you to turn the other cheek.

Just as He did to the money changers in the temple? If I recall He whipped them.

FightingFat:

You’re attitude seems incredible to me!

You are using straw-men and ad-hominems.

 

[FightingFat]

No. Guns are not designed to “kill people”. Guns were designed for hunting, and for personal protection.

Yeah-- that’s what I said; killing stuff. Come on, seriously, it’s a bit of stretch to pretend that they weren’t! They were!!

A gun is a common name given to an object that fires high-velocity projectiles.

They were invented to kill things.

End of.

To protect yourself you do not have to kill someone.

I could not agree more!

So what about what when Ani lbi says
"Ani lbi:

Simply kill. To not be prepared to do so is very dangerous.

??

As the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people; people kill people.

Yeah but guns do help quite a bit don’t they? I mean, armed with a gun, anyone can kill anyone!! No fear of reprisals, no need to concern yourself with physical superiority or surprise, just shot 'em- Bang!

I am a libertarian at heart and I think that an armed and well trained citizenry is better equipped than the government to protect itself. I’m not going to rely on a bunch of bureaucrats to protect me or my family. Once you take guns away from the citizenry, only the criminals will have access to them.

What about if we worked towards a culture where it wasn’t necessary to have guns for defense? Would that be better?

More people die in car accidents than from firearm related causes.

I don’t see what that has to do with it?

We had a thing here in Colorado where a former police officer used his vehicle as a lethal weapon and murdered two innocent people. Should we now ban cars?

Well an automobile is a machine that poor or unconsiderate use of will prove deadly. A gun is a deadly thing that poor use of may mean someone lives!! Big difference!!

Just as He did to the money changers in the temple? If I recall He whipped them.

I think if you wanted to use scripture to back up owning guns, you’d be better served by Jesus non-condemnation of the Roman soldier. Still I would say that using Scripture to condone violence is pretty shaky ground all round!

Peace be with you!

Semper Fi? Are you or have you been a soldier?

You are using straw-men and ad-hominems.

Eh?

A straw man is constructing an caricature of the opposite viewpoint. Haven’t done that-- don’t need to.

Ad hominem is an argument that addresses an individual instead of the subject. Haven’t done that either. Stating that I find someones opinion incredible is not the same thing as saying their argument stinks because they stink!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Yeah-- that’s what I said; killing stuff. Come on, seriously, it’s a bit of stretch to pretend that they weren’t! They were!!

A well trained marksmen knows that his gun can be a deadly weapon, or that it can mean disabling of an aggressor. Most people trained by the NRA or NRA approved classes are taught to use other methods to first avoid the situation, but if it’s impossible to disable the aggressor. Most of the time this just requires shooting below the belt which usually is not deadly.

FightingFat:

A gun is a common name given to an object that fires high-velocity projectiles.

They were invented to kill things.

End of.

FightingFat:

So what about what when Ani lbi says

I am not Ani Ibi.

FightingFat:

Yeah but guns do help quite a bit don’t they? I mean, armed with a gun, anyone can kill anyone!! No fear of reprisals, no need to concern yourself with physical superiority or surprise, just shot 'em- Bang!

So do kitchen knives, pocket knives, crossbows, throwing stars, etc.

FightingFat:

What about if we worked towards a culture where it wasn’t necessary to have guns for defense? Would that be better?

That would be great. But what are we supposed to do till then?

FightingFat:

Well an automobile is a machine that poor or unconsiderate use of will prove deadly. A gun is a deadly thing that poor use of may mean someone lives!! Big difference!!

Not really. In this case the perp knew exactly what he was doing; using his automobile as a lethal weapon.

FightingFat:

I think if you wanted to use scripture to back up owning guns, you’d be better served by Jesus non-condemnation of the Roman soldier. Still I would say that using Scripture to condone violence is pretty shaky ground all round!

Guns weren’t around in Jesus’ time. He didn’t tell Peter to throw away his sword, and in fact He told all of His apostles to carry one.

Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword; let him sell his garment, and buy one.

FightingFat:

A straw man is constructing an caricature of the opposite viewpoint. Haven’t done that-- don’t need to.

Ad hominem is an argument that addresses an individual instead of the subject. Haven’t done that either. Stating that I find someones opinion incredible is not the same thing as saying their argument stinks because they stink!

No? Here in your response to Vern:

FightingFat:

You’re attitude seems incredible to me!

 

[vern_humphrey]

LOL! No it’s not! What nonsense!!

Oh, yes it is! And the proof is you raised the issue on a thread discussing armed citizens!

Most people I know who train, train for fun, to gain confidence. They are the sort of people who meet their mates down the pub and say “Oh yeah, at karate last night so and so broke two boards with his bare hands” and never get any whare near a real fight. Some people have been harressed or bullied and use MA training to gain the confidence to go out of their house again.

Most people I know who shoot, shoot for fun, to gain confidence. They are the sort of people who meet their mates down the pub and say “Oh yeah, at at the range this afternoon so and so broke the 2s with his Remington” and never get any whare near a real fight. Some people have been harressed or bullied and use weapons training to gain the confidence to go out of their house again.

Training a MA doesn’t turn you into some lethal killing machine. If you train really hard and realistically for a long time, it might improove the odds if you ever get into a fight. For self defense, you would always expect to strike and run away.

Training with weapons doesn’t turn you into some lethal killing machine. If you train really hard and realistically for a long time, it might improove the odds if you ever get into a fight. For self defense, you would always expect to stop the attack simply by being armed.

A small minority get into sport fighting and take their training to a whole new level.

Like those who boast about it on the internet, and fantacize beating, maiming and killing other people?

 

[FightingFat]

Guns weren’t around in Jesus’ time. He didn’t tell Peter to throw away his sword, and in fact He told all of His apostles to carry one.

Luke 22:36

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18).

No? Here in your response to Vern:

It’s a remark about his attitude, doesn’t attack him at all, just making a statement about his attitude! You have to admit he is rather bellicose!

 

[vern_humphrey]

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly.

Riiiiiight! The Desciples whom Jesus chose personally, whom He taught, who traveled with Him, ate with Him, and sat at His feet, who were born into the same time and land as Him, who spoke His language as their mother tongue – those doofuses didn’t understand .

But you do.

They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it.

What’s not right is your claim to understand Christ better than His Apostles.

As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle.

Wrong – and the proof is, Jesus knew they had swords. He didn’t tell them “Get rid of those nasty 'ol swords.” And in the Roman Empire it was illegal for them to carry – and still he didn’t tell them to get rid of the swords.

And “they” didn’t draw swords – Peter drew his sword.

They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18).

So how come you practice martial arts?

It’s a remark about his attitude, doesn’t attack him at all, just making a statement about his attitude! You have to admit he is rather bellicose!

Does he practice beating other people?

 

[FightingFat]

Riiiiiight! The Desciples whom Jesus chose personally, whom He taught, who traveled with Him, ate with Him, and sat at His feet, who were born into the same time and land as Him, who spoke His language as their mother tongue – those doofuses didn’t understand .

But you do.

What’s not right is your claim to understand Christ better than His Apostles.

LOL! You very funny man! How about if the USCCB told you I was right and you’re wrong?

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#foot13

:doh2:

I certainly wouldn’t claim to be an expert (although I do have a degree in Catholic Theology) but it would seem basic scripture to me!!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18).

I do not understand your interpretation of this scripture at all. It’s quite literal. The reason Jesus stopped the fight between Peter and the Romans was because He was to die as the Paschal Sacrifice to be risen again on the 3rd day. Jesus commands us all to protect ourselves and our families, but He does say that to live by the sword is to die by the sword as well. So obviously merely owning something for self-protection isn’t prohibited, but being obsessed with it is to set one up for failure. There’s a fine line, but it is well established within the Catholic Tradition that self-defense is a must and that someone who doesn’t believe this is heterodox. Being properly trained with a firearm prepares one for these pitfalls. Just going out and purchasing one without the proper training is irresponsible and will also set one up for failure. It’s about the stability of mind and spirit, and one must be dually trained spiritually, physically and mentally. Merely placing a machine in someone’s hand doesn’t automatically make one a killer as you seem to suggest.

 

[FightingFat]

The reason Jesus stopped the fight is because He was to die as the Paschal Sacrifice to be risen again on the 3rd day. Jesus commands us all to protect ourselves and our families, but He does say that to live by the sword is to die by the sword as well. So obviously merely owning something for self-protection isn’t prohibited, but being obsessed with it is to set one up for failure. There’s a fine line, but it is well established within the Catholic Tradition that self-defense is a must and that someone who doesn’t believe this is heterodox. Being properly trained with a firearm prepares one for these pitfalls. Just going out and purchasing one without the proper training is irresponsible and will also set one up for failure. It’s about the stability of mind and spirit, and one must be dually trained spiritually, physically and mentally. Merely placing a machine in someone’s hand doesn’t automatically make one a killer as you seem to suggest.

Well, my interpretation is the orthodox Catholic one!

OK I disagree though!

 

[vern_humphrey]

LOL! You very funny man! How about if the USCCB told you I was right and you’re wrong?

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#foot13

How many times are you going to try this pathetic trick?

There is an anonymous footnote in the NAB, and the NAB happens to be posted on the Bishops’ website – but that’s a long ways from “the USCCB telling” you anything.

I certainly wouldn’t claim to be an expert

Afte rthat pathetic trick, I should hope not!!

(although I do have a degree in Catholic Theology) but it would seem basic scripture to me!!

You must not have been paying attention in class, then, if you think an anonymous footnote amounts to a formal pronouncement by the UISCCB.

 

[FightingFat]

How many times are you going to try this pathetic trick?

There is an anonymous footnote in the NAB, and the NAB happens to be posted on the Bishops’ website – but that’s a long ways from “the USCCB telling” you anything.

It’s not hard to see why you took to politics Vern! LOL!
Vern Humphrey:

Afte rthat pathetic trick, I should hope not!!

You must not have been paying attention in class, then, if you think an anonymous footnote amounts to a formal pronouncement by the UISCCB.

Look Semper Fi-- this is ad hominem- Verns totally ignoring the issue and just attacking me. See?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not hard to see why you took to politics Vern! LOL!

You consider running for public office to be some sort of offense, do you?

Look Semper Fi-- this is ad hominem- Verns totally ignoring the issue and just attacking me. See?

No, M’lad, you attack yourself with this sophistry and boasting about your martial arts training, your theological education and so on.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Well, my interpretation is the orthodox Catholic one!

OK I disagree though!

No, it’s not. Your interpretation is the one someone would expect from a British citizen though.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

LOL! You very funny man! How about if the USCCB told you I was right and you’re wrong?

Footnotes of the New American Bible are not infallible Catholic Dogma Doctrine or Tradition. Many disregard the NAB specifically because of its outrageous footnotes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You may not have noticed this, but there are people who are smarter, better and, well . . . holier than the rest of us. Their mission is to save us from ourselves, and they don’t have to produce any evidence – they have reached antinomianism. When the rest of us don’t accept their pronouncments at face value, they naturally become angry and denounce us for the ignorant hillbillies we are.

Some of these people post here.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The disciples take Jesus’ remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it.

The one problem with this arguement is that while Jesus spoke in parable to the crowds, scripture tells us that He explained everything in detail when speaking to the twleve and that explaination was recorded in scripture. If the “sword” was not to be taken literally, then the great teacher would have corrected the Apostles when they brought the two swords to Him and explained what He meant. Since no explaination is recorded, their understanding of it being literal swords was correct.

 

[Sir_Knight]

LOL! You very funny man! How about if the USCCB told you I was right and you’re wrong?

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#foot13

If the bishops disagree with the CCC, which represents the official teaching of the Church, then they are wrong and the CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from death and serious injury. If limits are place on how we are to do that, then the duty can not be considered “grave” but the CCC tells us that it IS “grave”. Therefore, no limits can be place upon that duty and that extends to the use of firearms for that purpose.

 

[FightingFat]

You guys! You’re amazing!

 

[vern_humphrey]

You guys! You’re amazing!

Now,** there’s** a brilliant comeback.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You guys! You’re amazing!

Thank you.