Bring guns to church?

[triumphguy]

The right to arm and defend oneself and others is an innate right too. It just so happens that in this day and time we have firearms.

The right to defend oneself is certainly a natural right.

Bearing arms in certain situations, therefore is a corollary to that, not a natural right in itself.

The right to bear arms is consequent to “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

 

[twf]

Particularly those who never threw off the yoke of British oppression, and are happy to continue with a British royal as their head of state.

I guess the American founders saw the need to throw out the oppressors, and made sure the Constitution included the right keep and bear arms for future generations.

Yes, white, landholding Protestants in America threw off the yoke of white, landholding Protestants in Britain, so that the white, landholding Protestants in America could in turn repress the Catholics, blacks, Jews, women, and other non-Protestants of America…
The US President has far more royal trappings and prestige than any European monarch could ever hope to have. I see how excited Americans get at the opportunity just have a glimpse of the president. Canadians, Australians, and Brits don’t treat their Prime Ministers this way. They’re just guys.

 

[Brendan]

The right to defend oneself is certainly a natural right.

Bearing arms in certain situations, therefore is a corollary to that, not a natural right in itself.

And under what circumstances does the natural law not apply? The Church teaches that it applies always and everywhere

Do the circumstances that you refer to apply in the US, but not in Canada? Does an attempt on ones life in Mexico entail certain rights, under the natural law, that do not apply in Australia?

 

[triumphguy]

OK, let’s discuss the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, where the Jews in Warsaw took arms to defend themselves against the Nazi’s

Was that a legitimate use of arms by the Jews?

If so, where did they get the right, the legitimacy, to use arms, was it from the civil law or the natural moral law?

Of course it’s legitimate because we have a natural right to defend ourselves or others…

But the bearing of arms in and of ITSELF is not a natural right, but a consequence of the natural right to defend oneself.

That’s because “arms” are a tool for a purpose.

 

[triumphguy]

And under what circumstances does the natural law not apply? The Church teaches that it applies always and everywhere

Do the circumstances that you refer to apply in the US, but not in Canada? Does an attempt on ones life in Mexico entail certain rights, under the natural law, that do not apply in Australia?

Of course the right to defend oneself exists everywhere, because it’s a natural right.

But the state has the right (when exercised legitimately) to give limits to the citizens. Your state put those limits in the constitution, and gave you the right to bear arms. Other states legitimately do not. Some states ILLEGITIMATELY take the tools to defend themselves away from their citizens.

So when the Nazis tried to disarm the Jews in Warsaw not only did the Jews have the right (and duty) to resists, but civilized countries had the duty to help them resist and supply them with arms. Only some Polish resistance fighters helped.

 

[Brendan]

Of course it’s legitimate because we have a natural right to defend ourselves or others…

But the bearing of arms in and of ITSELF is not a natural right, but a consequence of the natural right to defend oneself.

That’s because “arms” are a tool for a purpose.

Does the right of self defense include the right to use arms when the threat to life that you are opposing is armed?

 

[Brendan]

Of course the right to defend oneself exists everywhere, because it’s a natural right.

But the state has the right (when exercised legitimately) to give limits to the citizens. Your state put those limits in the constitution, and gave you the right to bear arms. .

So when the Nazis tried to disarm the Jews in Warsaw not only did the Jews have the right (and duty) to resists, but civilized countries had the duty to help them resist and supply them with arms. Only some Polish resistance fighters helped.

But if it the State that grants rights to bear arms, your claim about the Jews makes no sense. Either the natural right to defend oneself includes the right to use arms, (in which case the Jews were on solid moral footing)

Or the State can grant, and thus legitimately remove, the right to bear arms.

Which is it?

 

[GEddie]

Yes, white, landholding Protestants in America threw off the yoke of white, landholding Protestants in Britain, so that the white, landholding Protestants in America could in turn repress the Catholics, blacks, Jews, women, and other non-Protestants of America…
The US President has far more royal trappings and prestige than any European monarch could ever hope to have. I see how excited Americans get at the opportunity just have a glimpse of the president. Canadians, Australians, and Brits don’t treat their Prime Ministers this way. They’re just guys.

But the PM is not the head of state for those nations, the British monarch is.

How excited do Brits, Aussies and Canucks get for the Queen or one of the princes?

ICXC NIKA

 

[styrgwillidar]

Of course the right to defend oneself exists everywhere, because it’s a natural right.

But the state has the right (when exercised legitimately) to give limits to the citizens. Your state put those limits in the constitution, and gave you the right to bear arms. Other states legitimately do not. Some states ILLEGITIMATELY take the tools to defend themselves away from their citizens.

No. The state did not give the people the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers assured the citizens that certain specific rights the people had would continue to be respected by the new government. In the case of 2A-- specifically the right the people already had to keep and beak arms to defend themselves against tyranny, for self defense and hunting would not be infringed upon by the new government. One reason being that without the people retaining the right to keep and bear arms, there could be no well-regulated militia, it would be impossible.

The right the people already held was not to be infringed upon by the new government.

 

[triumphguy]

Does the right of self defense include the right to use arms when the threat to life that you are opposing is armed?

The right to self defence is proportionate to the threat.

So sometimes we have the right to ask people to leave our property.
Sometimes we have the right to call the police.
Sometimes we have the right to use our hands
Sometimes we have the right to use weapons.
Sometimes we have the right to use the armed forces.

I would imagine you would agree with the above.

We don’t have the right to use a revolver when the threat is not proportionate.

 

[triumphguy]

styrgwillidar:
So the right came from a pre-existing practice the people had assumed to themselves.

So, not the State, but the proto-state.

Still doesn’t make it an innate (i.e., natural law or “God-given”) right.

 

[triumphguy]

Does the right of self defense include the right to use arms when the threat to life that you are opposing is armed?

Why the confusion?

Of course it does. Is that not prudential?

Is that not Catholic teaching?

 

[triumphguy]

But if it the State that grants rights to bear arms, your claim about the Jews makes no sense. Either the natural right to defend oneself includes the right to use arms, (in which case the Jews were on solid moral footing)

Or the State can grant, and thus legitimately remove, the right to bear arms.

Which is it?

You obviously missed the word legitimate in my post.

Do you think that what the Nazis did was legitimate?

Obviously not, so the Jews had the right to take up arms.

How you Americans work out the right to bear arms vs the Governments attempts to restrict arms is up to you guys.

 

[Brendan]

The right to self defence is proportionate to the threat.

So sometimes we have the right to ask people to leave our property.
Sometimes we have the right to call the police.
Sometimes we have the right to use our hands
Sometimes we have the right to use weapons.
Sometimes we have the right to use the armed forces.

I would imagine you would agree with the above.

We don’t have the right to use a revolver when the threat is not proportionate.

And I agree with all of that.

Now if the threat IS appropriate for the use of a revolver, are we entitled under the natural law then to use a revolver, even if the civil law states otherwise?

 

[LongingSoul]

The place where reasonable debate might be engaged, it seems, is whether the right to bear arms is a necessary part of the right to self-defense. If your answer is ‘no’, then it would seem reasonable to ask what ‘self-defense’ means – either on a personal / individual level, or on the level of self-defense against a tyranny – in the context of a world in which firearms exist.

Aquinas’ gold standard is “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Now ‘blameless defense’ would indicate that we have to weigh the morality of our defensive actions in the context. During war where there is an active aggressor and imminent danger to lives, appropriate weapons are prudent for the duration of the threat.

Outside of war, we know that the concept of ‘cold war’ is detrimental to relationship growth and the building of peace which is why it was abandoned as a national philosophy. Developing an attitude of distrust and permanent caution against ones neighbour redirects energy and effort away from serving the common good and keeps the community in a state of permanent inequality. The gun laws in the US mean that only the strong and elite are able to defend themselves and despite the constitutional condition of arms bearing there is a huge resistence against any ‘well ordered’ regulation of a defensive peoples army. That means that only some are safe against the 300 million barely accounted for weapons, and those some won’t order themselves to defend the vulnerable who are prevented from defending themselves, like children and old ladies in Church. Total obvious discrimination.

If people genuinely embraced the 2ndA you would see something like the well ordered militia in Switzerland. Every male is required to do military service and there are strict rules regarding weapon use. They have a right and proper attitude towards the right of self defense weapons and as a result of that they have a good hold over the destructive force of civilian weapons. The US seems to pay lip service to the terms of the constitution only and are paying the price with massive murder and massacre statistics.

 

[triumphguy]

And I agree with all of that.

Now if the threat IS appropriate for the use of a revolver, are we entitled under the natural law then to use a revolver, even if the civil law states otherwise?

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I agree with all that: but I just believe that it is NOT Church teaching that we have a GOD given right to own a gun.

That right is given by the state.

We have a God given right to defend ourselves, even IF it means disobeying the state ESPECIALLY when the state is acting illegitimately.

 

[LongingSoul]

You tell me, where did the Jews get the legitimacy to use arms in self defense, what legio or law gave them that right?

Was it the civil law, or the natural law.

Or is it your premise that the Jewish civilians had no legitimate right to use arms, after all, the use of arms was banned by the civil law in force at the time.

First you answer the question I asked.

Are you saying that all those many, many, many countries that ban the TRADE in self defense weaponry… are flouting a god given right of human beings?

 

[LongingSoul]

But if it the State that grants rights to bear arms, your claim about the Jews makes no sense. Either the natural right to defend oneself includes the right to use arms, (in which case the Jews were on solid moral footing)

Or the State can grant, and thus legitimately remove, the right to bear arms.

Which is it?

If people have a natural right to adequate food that does not translate as a natural right to eat chocolate. Adequate food implies the minimal to stay healthy and beyond that anything else is a privilege. The governments god given job is to make sure that that right is equally granted every person in the community. If the government has gone rogue you are essentially living in war conditions and all bets are off. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[Thomas_White]

The gun laws in the US mean that only the strong and elite are able to defend themselves

In the U.S. only the strong and elite are able to defend themselves…"? But defend themselves against what? Are there not already 300 million guns in the hands of the public? This is crazy.

I certainly agree that many people today have no business whatever walking around with a loaded weapon. Nevertheless, even ownership of assault weapons is permitted. The purpose of assault weapons is to kill human beings, plain and simple. It is what they were designed for, and it is their intended use. There is no good civilian use for such weapons, and neither is there a good reason for civilians to have access to them. Allowing the civilian population to have access to these and other types of military weapons is insanity.

 

[twf]

I think the American experience is what has put the hatred and revulsion of guns into the civilised world. We know that guns are a fact of war and we know that guns are a fact of policing and we know that rifles are necessary for farming and sport. They are a necessary evil in limited circumstances.

What many people see as being distorted is the type of love or lust for guns that sees people fight against regulation or any examination of the gun problems, despite a history of crazed gunman, massacres that make no sense to anyone, carnage of little kindergartners. Many people would wonder if the founding fathers meant for there to be bare limits on gun ownership despite the fact that more Americans are killed by their fellow Americans every day than are ever lost to ‘foreign or domestic enemies’. It seems like the gun has become the point rather than genuine security of person.

Actually, the Founding Fathers believed very strongly in extremely tight gun control. It was simple…guns for white male Protestants but no one else. Certainly couldn’t allow the black slaves to have guns…then they might manage to throw off THEIR oppressors.