Armed citizens

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Jaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dante,

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You think that guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing.
If a person carrys a tool intended for the purpose of killing, and they use said tool in self-defense, they therefore must have intended to kill their attacker.

And since in the CCC is specifically states that the killing of the aggressor cannot be the intention of the defensive action.

Am I understanding your logic correctly?
 
This is classic gun control debate/time wasting!

Do not all parties acknowledge that VT happened largely because the government has not yet implemented restrictions on mentally ill folks’ ability to legally buy guns? Do not the vast majority of people agree that someone mentally ill should be ineligible for a FOID card? (beside ACLU nutjobs who seem to have no problem with bans on normal folk buying a gun, but object to a ban on the mentally ill buying them??)

Instead of hurling ourselves at one another, why not push for action on common ground?
 
Manualman,

See Draftdog’s post #31, then see my post #35.

How do we go about determining who is mentally ill and who is not? And who makes this determination?

Unfortunately, in order for a people to remain free we have to tolerate some risks. The founding fathers knew full well that the 2nd Amendment would expose the citizens to risks of murderers. However, they weighed both sides and wisely decided that it is better to be armed, and fear criminals, than it is to be unarmed and fear the government.

There just is no way to protect ourselves against such thugs without exposing ourselves to even worse possibilities. At least no way that anyone has thought of yet.

However, I’m all for discussing *real *solutions. You know what I think would be a step towards solving this whole problem? If the NRA would take 1% of their legal defense budget and give it to a Catholic inner-city mission. That money would go farther in protecting our rights to own guns than the other 99%. Why? Because it is the moral decay of the inner-city that keeps fueling the morgue with reasons for the gun control advocates. If the Catholic inner-city missions could more adequately accomplish their missions that 20,000 gun deaths per year figure would vaporize. Not to mention the NRA would succor good publicity by looking compassionate.
 
This is classic gun control debate/time wasting!

Do not all parties acknowledge that VT happened largely because the government has not yet implemented restrictions on mentally ill folks’ ability to legally buy guns? Do not the vast majority of people agree that someone mentally ill should be ineligible for a FOID card? (beside ACLU nutjobs who seem to have no problem with bans on normal folk buying a gun, but object to a ban on the mentally ill buying them??)

Instead of hurling ourselves at one another, why not push for action on common ground?
Illinois is the only state in the union that has a FOID card. That being said, It is a felony for a person declared mentally incompetent or unfit to own, purchase or possess a firearm. Remember when a license is required to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right. Illinois is one of the most repressive, anti constitution states in the country. It is also one of the most dangerous to live in, due to the Chicagoland area. While I love Chicago, you could not pay me enough to live withing 100 miles of it.

No, we do not agree about the government doing enough. They have done too much already. They have made it impossible for citizens to protect themselves, all the while saying that police have no duty to protect. Our government has gotten out of control and all of your rights, not only the 2nd amendment, are in jeopardy because of it.

Will they go door to door taking Catholics because they accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and abortion saying we are hate criminals? Will they shut down our schools because of their supposed separation of Church and State(communist/socialist in origin)? Where do we draw the line? This whole thing goes way beyond gun control and self defense and guns. It strikes at the very roots of our society. Do we really want to be like Europe, an almost atheist society that refuses to acknowledge who built Europe into what it is.

What will you do if this happens? Will you just go along with it because they say so? I hope it doesn’t come to that, but that is where we are headed.
 
It is a felony to reply falsely to the questions you must answer when you buy a firearm. The defenders of the Brady Act were wont to trumpet how many “felons” had been stopped by the act.

Then someone looked at the numbers. Yes, lots of people had been stopped, but almost none had been prosecuted. Some folks began to ask the logical question – “If you’ve stopped thousands and thousands of dangerous felons from buying guns, why aren’t you prosecuting them?”

In response the government trotted out a “poster child” – a man who was barred from owning a gun because of a felony conviction. It seems he was caught with a deck of cards with naked women on the backs. He was Black and the women in the pictures were white.

Now, to that dangerous crime, we can add depression after a death in the family, a divorce, and so on.
 
Dante,

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You think that guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing.
If a person carrys a tool intended for the purpose of killing, and they use said tool in self-defense, they therefore must have intended to kill their attacker.

And since in the CCC is specifically states that the killing of the aggressor cannot be the intention of the defensive action.

Am I understanding your logic correctly?
I had no intention of responding to another post in this thread, but this is more or less an accurate summary of my opinion.

Peace,
Dante

EDIT: I have thought more about your summary of my position, and I wish to clarify:

I cannot say that owning, carrying, and using a firearm in self-defense which leads to the death of an attacker definitively means that the carrier has a priori intended the attacker’s death. I will, however, say that it seems this way to me, and the possibility thereof is not something to be taken lightly.
 
Debate in good faith, and give others the courtesy of assuming they debate in good faith.
I do, and have done.
Do not ascribe malice to people who disagree with you.
I do not, unless they speak disrespectfully to me.
Do not try to recast other people’s arguments – this is called the “strawman” approach.
This is precisely what you did that caused me to lose interest in responding to you.
Do not try to hold a position that has been overturned – a good example would be continuing to argue that self-defense is somehow immoral when the Catechism clearly says the opposite.
I am not holding a position that has been overturned – least of all, that “self defense is immoral”. I never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way, but you persisted in equating what I said with this obvious falsehood.

For these reasons, I am not interested in further discussion with you, Vern.

Peace,
Dante
 
This is what get me, people get offended when their own tone is used back at them. When everyone else’s views differ and they can’t stand that. That is ok, I think you knew this is how it would turn out and entered the conversation anyway. I’m sorry if your feelings are hurt, but as adults we should be able to deal with that. As for the difference of opinion, you are entitled to that. However, you are not entitled to expect everyone else to change their’s. When words like “How dare you” are used in a sentence they are generally taken offense to. No one here has tried to change your opinion. We have only stated ours and the reasons for them. Those reasons based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are a few Saints, St. Benedict and St. Francis, etc, who encourage non-violence. I can understand why you would have this opinion and I commend you for it, if for the right reasons. I however believe if you have children or others in your care that their defense comes before any personal beliefs. If they are harmed on your watch, that is on you. I don’t believe anyone here has any malice in their hearts against you, only the difference of opinion. If anything was said hurtful by me, I am truly sorry.
I never intended anything I wrote to have a disrespectful tone, and yet such was used in responding to me. Why am I called out for being offended by this?

If anyone has mistakenly interpreted anything I’ve said as being rude or condescending, I apologize for not being more clear. It was not my intention to belittle anyone.

I am a teacher. I have as many as 37 students under my care at any given moment during the day. In the event that (God forbid) some madman came onto my campus waving a gun around, you’d better believe I’d do everything I could to protect those students – including lay down my life that they might escape. What I resent is being told that, in rejecting firearms, I am somehow lax in my “duty” to protect those entrusted to me.

Peace,
Dante
 
The CCC also says that the death of the agressor ought to be “unintended”, and JPII did not say otherwise – nor do I.

Peace,
Dante
Exactly,

Now if I, in the course of an attack, shoot someone in order to stop their attack and afterward call for medical assistance, how could it be said that I INTENDED the attacker to die.

If the INTENT is to cause the death of the attacker, why would one call for an ambulance (as I would). Would not a fatal intent require me to walk up to the diabled attacker and fire into their skull?

Is that the level of intent that you are accusing of of having. If so, state so and I’ll let the moderators handle that one.

Generally speaking, if I draw my gun, the first intent\hope is that the the attacker reconsider and surrender secondly to reconsider and flee.

Third and final, is that if they DO continue with the attack, that the use of force is sufficent to stop them.

This is the EXACT same intent that the Police use.

If we followed your logic, no Catholic could ever become a Police officer, because, in your mind, an in intent to use a firearm is ALWAYS and intent to kill. It is not. The intent is to stop the attack.

Which is exactly what +John Paul is saying.
 
I do, and have done.

I do not, unless they speak disrespectfully to me.

This is precisely what you did that caused me to lose interest in responding to you.

I am not holding a position that has been overturned – least of all, that “self defense is immoral”. I never said anything that could possibly be interpreted that way, but you persisted in equating what I said with this obvious falsehood.

For these reasons, I am not interested in further discussion with you, Vern.

Peace,
Dante
For a guy who left in a huff, announcing he would not respond again, you certainly are loquatious.😃
 
Try not being so snippy to the rest of us.😛
I’m not being snippy to anyone, Vern – to you, I am being firm and polite, and asking you to stop talking to me as though I don’t deserve to be treated politely.

Clearly I’m wasting my time, so say what you like; I’m done responding to your baiting.

Peace,
Dante
 
Exactly,

Now if I, in the course of an attack, shoot someone in order to stop their attack and afterward call for medical assistance, how could it be said that I INTENDED the attacker to die.

If the INTENT is to cause the death of the attacker, why would one call for an ambulance (as I would). Would not a fatal intent require me to walk up to the diabled attacker and fire into their skull?

Is that the level of intent that you are accusing of of having. If so, state so and I’ll let the moderators handle that one.

Generally speaking, if I draw my gun, the first intent\hope is that the the attacker reconsider and surrender secondly to reconsider and flee.

Third and final, is that if they DO continue with the attack, that the use of force is sufficent to stop them.

This is the EXACT same intent that the Police use.

If we followed your logic, no Catholic could ever become a Police officer, because, in your mind, an in intent to use a firearm is ALWAYS and intent to kill. It is not. The intent is to stop the attack.

Which is exactly what +John Paul is saying.
When reading this, I am reminded of what old Colonel E. J. Kennedy was wont to say to, “It is sufficient to merely surprise the enemy. You don’t have to freakin’ astonish him!”😃

This is another example where one word has been assumed to have a meaning outside its intent. “Unintended” does not mean freakin’ astonished!

But the lad with whom you are debating would have it so.

To understand the meaning of “unintended” in the Church’s context, let us look at a tubal pregnancy. If nothing is done, both mother and child will die. If the tube is removed, the child will die, but the mother will live. And the Church considers this a morally acceptable act. Now there is no question of the surgeon being freakin’ astonished. He knows the child will die. But that is not his intention. His intention is to save the mother.

Consider a patient dying of pancreatic cancer (as my Mother-in-Law died.) This is a horribly painful death, and the amount of painkillers needed to control the pain can hasten death. The Church agrees with such pallative treatment – if the intent is to allow the patient to die with dignity, and not to kill. The doctor who prescribes the morphine drip knows it may hasten death, but that is not his intention.

Similarly, when facing an unjust aggressor and in fear of your own life, you may take action to stop his attack – even though you are not freakin’ astonished when he dies.

And as has been pointed out, as soon as the attack ceases, you must take action to save the attacker’s life if possible.
 
I’m not being snippy to anyone, Vern – to you, I am being firm and polite, and asking you to stop talking to me as though I don’t deserve to be treated politely.

Clearly I’m wasting my time, so say what you like; I’m done responding to your baiting.

Peace,
Dante
Goodbye.
 
That’s why I moved across the river to PA – shall issue state 👍
 
10-15 miles north-west of Allentown where I-78 crosses PA-100.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top