Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Anthony_Joseph]

Perhaps they should comply to avoid going to jail and having a criminal record? How much good will it be to have a weapon at home for defense whose use will land you in jail?

That is a question for the individual answer. If they want to keep weapons after a possible ban goes through – like the Celts did in Scotland when the English Kings forbade them from having weapons – they do risk going to jail, but is it worth remaining a law biding citizen to the assurance that the government may protect you? Or is it worth breaking a law, to protect your family and property from potential criminals and from the Government when it becomes tyrannical?

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

The government of a free republic is not entitled to a monopoly on guns.

Furthermore, in the 20th century, more people were killed by their own government by men with guns than any other group.

 

[SamH]

Sure, let’s remove the murder laws as well. Should save the taxpayers court and jail time money significantly as a bonus.

No one suggested that.

It’s like making the speed limit 55 MPH. Then because some people break the speed limit a law is passed saying no one can own a car that can go faster than 55 mph. No one needs a car that can go faster than 55 MPH. Such a law would be more “legal” because the Constitution doesn’t say that anyone can own a car.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I must respectfully correct you. The States created the Constitution. The federal government is a creation of the States and the people and the people are the final controlling authority of the US government.

The use of spoons can also in that regard be an intrinsic evil using that logic because there are lots of people who use big spoons to eat and become gluttons and get obese.

There is state government, and federal government. Government, men, created the constitution, not God. God is the final authority of all things.

When the Church addresses ‘spoons’, I will listen to their guidance.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The government of a free republic is not entitled to a monopoly on guns.

Furthermore, in the 20th century, more people were killed by their own government by men with guns than any other group.

What happens in a ‘free’ republic when the majority of people agree?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What we refer to as “the government” in the United States … is merely the Executive Branch … one of three branches … Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, and Executive Branch.

AND, there is supposed to be a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from gaining power.

The House of Representatives of the Legislative Branch is required to decide on how much money the government has to spend. [They have quit doing that and instead use “Continuing Resolutions”, which are non-legal.]

The Judicial Branch is controlled by the Congress, which determines the jurisdiction.

The Senate of the Legislative Branch is determined by the State Legislatures, … we got rid of that.

The “Bill of Rights” of the Constitution does NOT determine our rights. The First Ten Amendments put VERY strict limitations and prohibitions ON THE GOVERNMENT, particularly the Congress [Legislative Branch].

Read the Constitution. It is an amazing document. And very brief and concise.

If in doubt on any question or issue, read the Federalist Papers. They were originally a set of newspaper articles. Easy reading.

 

[SamH]

That is a question for the individual answer. If they want to keep weapons after a possible ban goes through – like the Celts did in Scotland when the English Kings forbade them from having weapons – they do risk going to jail, but is it worth remaining a law biding citizen to the assurance that the government may protect you? Or is it worth breaking a law, to protect your family and property from potential criminals and from the Government when it becomes tyrannical?

BOSTON - National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a right-wing extremist faction made up of local citizens. Government estimates put the killed at 72 and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed refusal by citizens to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons and ammunition. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals and outlaws”, issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual interfering with the governments efforts.

News reporters on the scene supported the government’s action. One pointed out that “no one would have been killed or injured had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

The governor has called for bi-partisan support of a joint task force established to restore law and order. He also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John hancock, who have been identified as “ring-leaders” of the extremists, remain at large.

 

[styrgwillidar]

… to the extent even the police are willing to take a life, or through inaction allow life to be taken, to that extent, they contribute to the culture of death.

Interesting concept, do you truly mean it? That police inaction which allows life to be taken contributes to the culture of death?

In the US, the police have no responsibility to take action to prevent deaths. That in fact, there is no recourse in civil or criminal law if the police or law enforcement fail to take action even after being notifed. Literally, they can ignore a call for help or assistance.

The innocent or victim can not sue them, they can not be charged for failure to respond, for failing to take action. Yet the guilty can sue them for actions they do take over whether their response was proportional or excessive.

That is the precedent in the US, the arguably two most important cases are

Warren vs DC (police have no duty to protect an individual unless a special relationship exists)
Castle Rock vs Gonzalez ( a restraining order does not create a special relationship between an individual and law enforcement)

(If you have a strong stomach you can search for descriptions of the incidents)

A few additional examples

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.” (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals case Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened “If I can’t have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you.” The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand”, wrote a dissenting opinion, “is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” Riss v. New York,
22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

Ruth Brunell called the police on twenty different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her.
When she called police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he
was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell’s pleas for help.
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.
3d 6 (1975).

So, if we disarm the victims who can have no expectation of police protection, aren’t we also contributing to the culture of death?

 

[pnewton]

Interesting concept, do you truly mean it? That police inaction which allows life to be taken contributes to the culture of death?

In the US, the police have no responsibility to take action to prevent deaths. That in fact, there is no recourse in civil or criminal law if the police or law enforcement fail to take action even after being notifed. Literally, they can ignore a call for help or assistance.

True, they can not be civilly held liable for inaction. That does not mean God does not hold them liable. According to the Catechism, it is a grave duty to act in defense of life, even if it is not a legal obligation.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Folks who are interested in learning about Western Civilization *, and also the how’s and where’s of the Constitution, should click here:

online.hillsdale.edu/register*

 

[styrgwillidar]

True, they can not be civilly held liable for inaction. That does not mean God does not hold them liable. According to the Catechism, it is a grave duty to act in defense of life, even if it is not a legal obligation.

Yet, disarming victims makes them vulnerable to both criminals and government
tyranny, as born out be the history of the world, particularly in the last century.

So, if it is a grave duty to act in defense of life, isn’t disarming folks and making them defenseless a violation of that grave duty. Will God hold us liable for stripping others of the means to defend themselves?

It is one thing if we choose not to use violence even in defense of our own lives, it is another to force that choice on others.

It is similar to those who say we must force others to support others by having the government confiscate their property. Vice seeing charity as a moral duty and choice of each individual.