Regulating guns does not have to infringe any right - you still have the unrestricted right to own a weapon, just not whatever type of weapon you choose. Why is that a problem? If you want to be true to the Constitution in the most literal sense, then go out buy weapons from that period. The framers had no concept of the capability of today’s weapons, whereby one man can be A MILITIA.
So you are saying my example of travel, where the government only lets you travel during certain hours, is not infringing a right? You seem to be arguing for abstract rights. I have the right to an abstract gun but not any specific gun. That is a problem because then the government could say I have no right to any actually existing weapons only abstract ones. If so the right is really no right at all. It is meaningless.
Just as they had no concept of broadcast mass media, and religions like the Moonies or JW’s.
I don’t even bother reading when it starts off with something I never said, or insinuated. How does that contribute to a constructive discussion?
Where does God give a right to carry a gun?
The framers also had no concept as to how powerful and large our military and law enforcement agencies would become. Your argument seems to ignore this fact.
“I don’t even bother reading when it starts off with something I never said, or insinuated. How does that contribute to a constructive discussion.”
Yes, but the framers also allowed amendments to the Constitution to take newer technologies and conditions into account.
Don’t need to respond to a post that spins what I said to be something I did not say, or insinuate. I did not speak against democracy, or God. I am not an atheist. I respond to constructive discussion, not falsehoods.
It’s still being written, but I digress.
Does the Catechism (ie. God through His Church) come straight out and say that Catholics have a right to carry a gun? No. But it also does not come out and say that Catholics should not carry a gun. This is why Catholics can be for or against gun control…and everything in between.
But no clarifications for the poster that said my comments were atheistic? Why is that?
Because that wasn’t the focus of my point. But if it bothers you that much I would say that you are not atheistic. Feel better?
Everyone is charged with the protection of others.
By the Good Samaritan rule?
If the opportunity presented itself, yes; within the limitations as explained by the Church. There are many ways to defend others from violence, one of which would be controls on military replicas that attract a certain psyche, like that of the mass shooters. It’s not always physical.
Legal definitions do not exist outside of a law. If there was a law restricting or banning assault weapons, then within the wording of that law would have to be specific definition. From this point of view, dangerous drugs did not exist until a law was framed defining what a dangerous drug was.
Well, that is a matter of opinion, but that is the very gist of the debate. The bishops used the word “reasonable” which I like better because it ties to a reason. Take *seekers *statement:
This is true. There should be nothing that bothers legitimate gun owners to regulations that tie the right to bear arms to a responsibility for that gun. When one owns a gun, he should be responsible for what that gun can do.
Ah, so only “bad” people want those types of weapons. Yeah, I’ll let the vets I know who own the civilian version of the M16 or M4 because they already know how to operate and maintain it that they have the same type psyche as mass shooters.