C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Spudbynight
Guest
I didn’t call you narrow minded.It is not “narrow minded” Should I give up my Roman Catholic beliefs because people like you call me "narrow minded’?
What I said was that not caring what the “people in the UK think” is a narrow minded belief. I fail to see why you think anyone has suggested you give up your faith.
I think in this matter you (and anyone else who feels the same way) should listen to what other people think. You don’t need to agree, just be receptive to the views of others.
Anyway - I am done on this.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Racism?I did catch it - I thought I was on Catholic Answers.
I don’t see any point discussing this topic on here - certainly not with people who resort to veiled ad hominem attacks and borderline racism.
Enjoy your guns.
I never addressed race.
BTW, “Enjoy your guns” was an ad hominem attack.
Peace.
S
Spudbynight
Guest
M
msokeefe
Guest
In America, we call that taking the ball and running home.I did catch it - I thought I was on Catholic Answers.
I don’t see any point discussing this topic on here - certainly not with people who resort to veiled ad hominem attacks and borderline racism.
Enjoy your guns.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
I’m sorry too.I am not engaging with you any more.
Sorry.
I hold no animosity towards you, and I’m truly sorry if I caused any.
Go in Peace.
E
Ender
Guest
Given that the issue at hand is what the church teaches on the subject, what is not relevant is how the British feel about American gun laws. The only thing relevant to the topic of this thread is how the church feels about the private ownership of guns and that question has been answered: she has no teaching that would prohibit it.How is ANY of that in any way relevant to the issue at hand?
Ender
S
shipwrkd
Guest
youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SYI think in this matter you (and anyone else who feels the same way) should listen to what other people think. You don’t need to agree, just be receptive to the views of others.
C
CMatt25
Guest
You are correct. When people cry 2nd amendment in opposition to such regulation, their argument holds no water. Because what they fail to understand is amendments have restrictions. We have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t make it right to yell “fire” in a crowded bldg when there is none. Nor does it make it a good thing to display child pornography in public for children to see. Just because we have freedom of speech. It’s the same with guns. The 2nd amendment written in the 18th century doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.Assault weapons are made to kill a large amount of people in a very short amount of time. The Supreme Court has recently said that the 2nd amendment does protect the individual right to own a gun but it ALSO said that the government has the right to regulate that. Background checks, magazine clip limits, and assault weapons ban does NOTHING to violate the second amendment. It is the act of selfish people who would rather see more people get massacred than losing ANY KIND OF obstacle to them playing with their toys.
S
SamH
Guest
Actually they envisioned the people owning the same kinds of weapons the government owned.doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Correction: The writers did envision the current form of centralized non-representative tyrannical dictatorship the Democrats have foisted upon this formerly great nation. Which is precisely why the writers gave us the 2nd Amendment.The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.
S
scipio337
Guest
Source?You are correct. When people cry 2nd amendment in opposition to such regulation, their argument holds no water. Because what they fail to understand is amendments have restrictions. We have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t make it right to yell “fire” in a crowded bldg when there is none. Nor does it make it a good thing to display child pornography in public for children to see. Just because we have freedom of speech. It’s the same with guns. The 2nd amendment written in the 18th century doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.
You do realize that a majority of the cannon used by the Continental Army (and some warships) were privately owned?
S
shipwrkd
Guest
Quote:
You are correct. When people cry 2nd amendment in opposition to such regulation, their argument holds no water. Because what they fail to understand is amendments have restrictions. We have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t make it right to yell “fire” in a crowded bldg when there is none. Nor does it make it a good thing to display child pornography in public for children to see. Just because we have freedom of speech. It’s the same with guns. The 2nd amendment written in the 18th century doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.Originally Posted by BigBlueCane
Assault weapons are made to kill a large amount of people in a very short amount of time. The Supreme Court has recently said that the 2nd amendment does protect the individual right to own a gun but it ALSO said that the government has the right to regulate that. Background checks, magazine clip limits, and assault weapons ban does NOTHING to violate the second amendment. It is the act of selfish people who would rather see more people get massacred than losing ANY KIND OF obstacle to them playing with their toys.
And the 2nd amendment is already regulated in the fact that any military style weapon is illegal. All military weapons are capable of firing full automatic and are not available to your average Joe. The military wouldn’t stand for having the limited firepower that’s available to the public. Your talking BB guns when compared to the M16, M249 SAW, M79, M203 and M320. These would be your real “assault” weapons. Having one of these would be way worse then hollering “fire” when there is none. The BB guns your talking about are simply semi automatic firearms.
So, we don’t have the envisioned type of weaponry available to us.
L
Least
Guest
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueCane
Assault weapons are made to kill a large amount of people in a very short amount of time. The Supreme Court has recently said that the 2nd amendment does protect the individual right to own a gun but it ALSO said that the government has the right to regulate that. Background checks, magazine clip limits, and assault weapons ban does NOTHING to violate the second amendment. It is the act of selfish people who would rather see more people get massacred than losing ANY KIND OF obstacle to them playing with their toys.
You are correct. When people cry 2nd amendment in opposition to such regulation, their argument holds no water. Because what they fail to understand is amendments have restrictions. We have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t make it right to yell “fire” in a crowded bldg when there is none. Nor does it make it a good thing to display child pornography in public for children to see. Just because we have freedom of speech. It’s the same with guns. The 2nd amendment written in the 18th century doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.
Holy Bovine people. Get it straight. The founding fathers of the US did envision the citizenry arming themselves with whatever they could come-by. IT IS DAMNABLE MALFESENCE TO STATE THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DIDN’T ENVISION THE CITIZENRY FROM OWNING WEAPONS THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE ALSO ENVISIONED THE STATE FROM POSESSING. Therefore, if the “State” can own them, so can we. The average US “Joe” can own military weapons to include fully automatic weapons, and even grenades/mines, tanks, etc. These things are ‘regulated’ in the form of taxation under the guise of needing to aid in the funding of a federal agency necessary to “track” the use and trafficking of such things NOT THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THEM!And the 2nd amendment is already regulated in the fact that any military style weapon is illegal. All military weapons are capable of firing full automatic and are not available to your average Joe. The military wouldn’t stand for having the limited firepower that’s available to the public. Your talking BB guns when compared to the M16, M249 SAW, M79, M203 and M320. These would be your real “assault” weapons. Having one of these would be way worse then hollering “fire” when there is none. The BB guns your talking about are simply semi automatic firearms.
So, we don’t have the envisioned type of weaponry available to us.
IN THE US (AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IF THE REST OF YOU WOULD WAKE-UP) G O V E R N M E N T = W E T H E P E O P L E.
IT IS NOT SELFISH OF ME TO ASK, THEN FORCE YOU (if you are in my government, or if you oppose me) TO UPHOLD THE FACT THAT I AM AS EQUALLY A NOBLE CREATURE AS YOU. IF (a member of my government) CANNOT SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THEY SLAVED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ME (AT LEAST COLLECTIVELY) THEY NEED TO PACK THEIR GEAR AND GO HOME (THE FOUNDING FATHERS ALSO PUT THAT AS THE OPENING SENTENCE TO OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. *“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” *) ANYONE THINKING THAT IT WAS NOT PRESCRIBED AS AN ON-GOING ASSESSMENT BE HEREBY OTHERWISE APPRISED.
Allow me to fear, for a moment, the rigidity and the solemnity of that fact, and I will re-direct the proper attention to that problem. THAT is the true nature and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
L
Least
Guest
*fear for. . .
US Declaration of Independence. [emphasis added]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
L
Least
Guest
Thanks ‘Ender’ but let us cover the whole problem. It doesn’t matter if the Church opposes gun (weapon) ownership. The Church, like the American Government is also We The People (Under GOD). If the Church opposes gun (weapon) ownership then it will not outlive those that employ them, and good Christians (or weak Christians) will determine their own fate with or without them, and they too will outlive the Organized Catholic (and any other) Church.Given that the issue at hand is what the church teaches on the subject, what is not relevant is how the British feel about American gun laws. The only thing relevant to the topic of this thread is how the church feels about the private ownership of guns and that question has been answered: she has no teaching that would prohibit it.
You can say that is the point (GOD’s point) of human existence . But I do not believe that to be the case. Further, GOD WILLING, I intend to be around to hand it back to HIM when he arrives (if within my lifetime).
E
Ender
Guest
It matters in the practical sense as to how the debate proceeds. If it could be shown that the church in fact opposed the private ownership of guns then you would lose the support of a great many people who might otherwise support your position. Given that this is in fact the intention of many of the people on this thread who oppose you you really ought to appreciate the implication of the argument. That’s why the thread was started. By citing the comments of Cardinal Dolan which were supportive of gun bans the inference was made that the church supports gun bans and therefore we have a moral obligation to support them as well. The proper response to that argument is not that it doesn’t matter but that it is incorrect.Thanks ‘Ender’ but let us cover the whole problem. It doesn’t matter if the Church opposes gun (weapon) ownership.
Ender
L
Least
Guest
It matters in the practical sense as to how the debate proceeds. If it could be shown that the church in fact opposed the private ownership of guns then you would lose the support of a great many people who might otherwise support your position. Given that this is in fact the intention of many of the people on this thread who oppose you you really ought to appreciate the implication of the argument. That’s why the thread was started. By citing the comments of Cardinal Dolan which were supportive of gun bans the inference was made that the church supports gun bans and therefore we have a moral obligation to support them as well. The proper response to that argument is not that it doesn’t matter but that it is incorrect.
My thanks was not facetious, but, to me, the entire argument has purposefully avoided the **logical *and the practical. One could claim that those two notions should have no bearing on how we interact as we come together to serve the LORD, but that * notion is ignorant of immense corporeal and spiritual forces mounted against that particular idea.Ender
It is illogical to give creedence to a notion/movement that is also against against you [here insert your favorite quote from Homer, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Washington, etc., if you don’t have a favorite quote that says essentially that, google it and get one].
CAF has a sub-byline that states “TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE FAITH” (emphasis mine). If the Church believes it only needs to do that verbally, that is one thing. If it thinks it can convince enough people to abandon the means of defending themselves *otherwise, *then it has become irrelevant in that particular manner, and it has ITSELF driven a wedge between itself and the faithful it purports to protect, and whom the Church is counting on for the Church’s physical defense, if not support, while also claiming to provide (in its, perhaps, more limited temporal capacity) for the defense of the “faith” and the spirituality of the faithful.
It is impractical, to ask those imbued with any knowledge of human nature, human history and physics, to step out of the mental realm associated with that personal-physicality with any finality, while at the same time, appearing to aid those who may (potentially) be bent on violently returning those same people to it.
R
RobbyS
Guest
I think you miss the point: The NRA takes an absolutist position because the Democratic administration is taking one. The end point is government control over all weapons. Now this is not consistent with republican government, or at least not with the right of revolution expressed in the Declaration of independence, which was a rejection of monarchical authority. The people must not be disarmed if they are to remain free. It may seem to be silly to think that small weapons can somehow resist the military might of the Pentagon, but this underestimates the difficulties that regular forces have in suppressing well-armed insurgencies. We have more than 300 million small weapons in this country. The insurgency in Iraq was so hard to suppress because a huge number of weapons fell into the hands of private parties after the invasion. My son who patrolled Bagdad and searched weapons would find numerous ones in a single household. Fidel Castro, with a few thousand supporters was able to overcome the Cuban army with 20,000 regulars. A well-armed and well-led insurgency in this country would be very hard to suppress. All that is needed is the right cause.You are correct. When people cry 2nd amendment in opposition to such regulation, their argument holds no water. Because what they fail to understand is amendments have restrictions. We have freedom of speech. But that doesn’t make it right to yell “fire” in a crowded bldg when there is none. Nor does it make it a good thing to display child pornography in public for children to see. Just because we have freedom of speech. It’s the same with guns. The 2nd amendment written in the 18th century doesn’t mean you have the right to own any kind of weaponry now manufactured in the 21st century. The writers of the 2nd amendment could not even envision the type of weaponry and magazines available today.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.