Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Cor_Cordis]

How does background checks, registrations, banning of specific type weapons, or any of the suggestions by the Cardinal, or USCCB, prevent anyone from self defense?

Background checks can be used by this corrupt Administration to remove arms from their political adversaries at their discretion. Existing background checks are adequate.

Registrations - likewise.

Banning any existing weapons will do nothing to keep them out of the arms of criminals.

So how would any of these “controls” have stopped ANY of the mass shootings you keep referencing?

 

[Northumbrian]

Show me the specifics where the Church defined self-defense and it’s limitations and allowances in terms of specific secular legislation.

Did you red the catechism quoets cited by the good cardinal?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Did you red the catechism quoets cited by the good cardinal?

Do they specify specific secular legislation?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Background checks can be used by this corrupt Administration to remove arms from their political adversaries at their discretion. Existing background checks are adequate.

Registrations - likewise.

Banning any existing weapons will do nothing to keep them out of the arms of criminals.

So how would any of these “controls” have stopped ANY of the mass shootings you keep referencing?

Conspiracy is theoretical. If one asks of us:

Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.

The weapon Lanza used was ‘banned’, but his mother’s was grandfathered. Half-way laws don’t work.

The weapon used against the first responders was obtained through a ‘straw purchase.’ The one used in the mall was ‘stolen.’

As the Cardinal said:

No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing. But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns

Is the only way to defend yourself, or your family, with an AR15? What other ways can you protect?

 

[Northumbrian]

Do they specify specific secular legislation?

I think they answered your question.

Specs of tech change but the catechism is our constant guide.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Conspiracy is theoretical. If one asks of us:

And the legislation you are advocating is a theoretical conspiracy against law abiding citizens.

And again, the scripture you cite has no relevance to this topic. No matter how many times you reference it.

 

[livingwordunity]

Prodigal Son,

Cardinal Dolan also has said that abortions should be banned and that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Do you agree with that, too?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show me the specifics where the Church defined self-defense and it’s limitations and allowances in terms of specific secular legislation.

And then show me where that judgment renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

** If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful**. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

‘Caesar’ gave the right to bear arms, through the constitution. The constitution is from ‘men.’ Giving, or sacrificing, to save lives of innocent people, is giving to God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son,

Cardinal Dolan also has said that abortions should be banned and that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Do you agree with that, too?

Yes!

I haven’t seen him say anything that I disagree with.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the legislation you are advocating is a theoretical conspiracy against law abiding citizens.

And again, the scripture you cite has no relevance to this topic. No matter how many times you reference it.

Legislation is to prevent the deaths of innocent people.

I’m sorry you can see the application of scriptures. I sincerely see them as applicable.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The weapon Lanza used was ‘banned’, but his mother’s was grandfathered. Half-way laws don’t work.

The weapon used against the first responders was obtained through a ‘straw purchase.’ The one used in the mall was ‘stolen.’

Is the only way to defend yourself, or your family, with an AR15? What other ways can you protect?

And none of your suggested legislation would prevent any of that. Lanza could have inflicted similar harm with any number of guns.

An AR15 is a serious defensive weapon. Because the first thing the aggressor has to wonder is “has that thing been modified for fully automatic fire?” I would call that quite the deterrent. Wouldn’t you?

But again assault rifles only account FOR LESS THAN 2% OF ALL “ASSAULT” WEAPON CRIMES. And the AR15 accounts for even less than that small percentage.

So is less than 2% of all these crimes more evil than the rest?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think they answered your question.

Specs of tech change but the catechism is our constant guide.

Show me.

 

[Northumbrian]

Show me.

That technology changes?

That the catechism is our guide?

You want me to show you that?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

‘Caesar’ gave the right to bear arms, through the constitution. The constitution is from ‘men.’ Giving, or sacrificing, to save lives of innocent people, is giving to God.

“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66”

Show me where the Catechism defined:

“necessary violence”

“repels force with moderation”

And define these terms in reference in the defense of one’s loved ones, friends, and neighbors.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And none of your suggested legislation would prevent any of that. Lanza could have inflicted similar harm with any number of guns.

An AR15 is a serious defensive weapon. Because the first thing the aggressor has to wonder is “has that thing been modified for fully automatic fire?” I would call that quite the deterrent. Wouldn’t you?

But again assault rifles only account FOR LESS THAN 2% OF ALL “ASSAULT” WEAPON CRIMES. And the AR15 accounts for even less than that small percentage.

So is less than 2% of all these crimes more evil than the rest?

Could have, but didn’t. Lanza used an AR 15, as did the shooters in the theater, the mall, and against the first responders. Where have those ‘deterrents’, you refer to, been in any mass shooting over the last 20 years? In the hands of the mass shooters.

There are what, 300,000,000 guns in the US? The only one you can defend with is the AR15?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Legislation is to prevent the deaths of innocent people.

I’m sorry you can see the application of scriptures. I sincerely see them as applicable.

Really?

Like the legislation that legalized abortion?

None of the legislation you are advocating would have prevented those mass shootings.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

That technology changes?

That the catechism is our guide?

You want me to show you that?

You never showed me any specifics in the Catechism to begin with. Therefore your follow-up question is baseless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66”

Show me where the Catechism defined:

“necessary violence”

“repels force with moderation”

And define these terms in reference in the defense of one’s loved ones, friends, and neighbors.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH This link will take you to:

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2263 and 2264 speaks to individuals, and their families.

2265 speaks to, ‘those who legitimately hold authority.’ We see that again in 2266, ‘Legitimate public authority.’

Read the entire chapter.

 

[Northumbrian]

You never showed me any specifics in the Catechism to begin with. Therefore your follow-up question is baseless.

I think I posted the quotes of the two parts of the catechism cited by the good cardinal.

It is up to you to read them.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Could have, but didn’t. Lanza used an AR 15, as did the shooters in the theater, the mall, and against the first responders. Where have those ‘deterrents’, you refer to, been in any mass shooting over the last 20 years? In the hands of the mass shooters.

Could Lanza not have accomplished the same evil results with other weapons? Yes.

But if the school were secure and the teachers were armed - the loss of life would have been far less.

Do you think if the people involved in those other mass shootings were carrying concealed weapons the results would have been far less tragic? You betcha.