Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[starshiptrooper]

Brendan,

Individuals also face being bombed and blown up by airplanes. Does that mean they have a right to purchase an F-117 stealth fighter? Individuals face the possibility of being blown up by nuclear weapons. Does that mean they have a right to Plutonium and Uranium to manufacture their own nuclear weapons for protection?

Wrong, the individuals are not threatened because they are individuals but because they are part of a nation. The the examples you mentioned are national threats and should be met with equivalent force on the national level.

Your reasoning here is flawed. The right of civil authorities to bear arms is a right afforded to them by God (see Romans 13:1-6).

In Christ,

David

Romans 13:1-6 is not about the right to bear arms, it merely talks about the authority of a just government and its power to punish criminals. Remember, Paul was writing to the Romans and the sword was the instrument of capital punishment for Roman citizens.

The civil authorities however, recieve their power from the people, and it is impossible to give something if you do not posses it. Therefore, if the civil authorities have the right to bear arms, the people also must have the right to bear arms.

 

[pnewton]

You can strongly disagree all you want but your argument is with Jesus and not me. Peter used a sword and cut off the ear of his aggressor “to protect” Jesus, and Jesus rebuked him for it. I think it to be unjust and damaging to Truth to say that one is disagreeing with Jesus (unless you are hearing voices in your head). This passage is used as a prooftext, lifted out of context and applied to something that it does not apply to. Jesus rebuked Peter, not anyone at CAF. The specific rebuke is because he was voluntarily laying down his life that very night, in case you did not know.

My brother is a California Highway Patrolman and he strongly believes in gun control.

So he doesn’t carry a gun?

 

[shipwrkd]

My brother is a California Highway Patrolman and he strongly believes in gun control.

Every LEO that I know believes in firm gun control. They all use both hands

 

[Ridgerunner]

If that right is altered, how long before the right to practice our religion is altered or our freedom to speak? .

Our right to practice our religion is already under attack under the HHS mandate. If this administration will do that, there is nothing it won’t do.

 

[shipwrkd]

Our right to practice our religion is already under attack under the HHS mandate. If this administration will do that, there is nothing it won’t do.

There are those who condemn the NRA for fighting to keep gun rights. Is it that much different then the Church fighting for the rights we believe in as Catholics? Obama studied Constitutional law. Did he do that to protect it or find ways to work around it?

 

[PeterGStanley]

This article in Forbes seems to suggest you have a larger problem then you realize.

forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/

The only problem that exists is the bureaucracy of Government in the gun registry - the cancellation of it in no way changes our gun laws or the restrictions of no automatic firearms and heavy restrictions on hand guns and back ground checks to possess or when purchasing fire arms , the law will still be enforced and if you break the laws you will be arrested. Its called a Possession and Acquisition License.Also the gun registry does still exist in the Provence of Quebec which holds 55% of the population of Canada because they all still want it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are those who condemn the NRA for fighting to keep gun rights. Is it that much different then the Church fighting for the rights we believe in as Catholics? Obama studied Constitutional law. Did he do that to protect it or find ways to work around it?

There is all the difference in the world between a politician knowingly and intentionally requiring a religion to violate its religious tenets or face fines for failing to do it, and arguing about whether stricter gun laws would or would not have any effect on mass shootings.

We have no idea how well obama did in Constitutional Law because he won’t release his transcripts. It seems likely to me that Obama is not terribly impressed with the Constitution.

 

[habu16]

The Church has stated very clearly that nations should control and regulate the sale of arms to the common people and restrict their usage to competent authority whose right and duty it is to defend the nation to their authority has been entrusted (USCCB, Community and Crime: A Statement of the Committee on Social Development and World Peace, 1978. par. 79)

I haven’t read all 14 pages of this thread, so my apologies if this point has already been brought up…

I’m only referring to the US in my comment–the very reason the 2nd amendment exists is to allow for citizens to take up arms against the government if it becomes too oppressive/tyrannical. I can think of any number of good (and …not so good…) movies in which the various countries have devolved into corrupt, brutal, totalitarian police states. In that kind of scenario, if only the “competent authorities” have weapons, then who is to stop them if they turn bad? That’s the reason we have the 2nd amendment, and I wholeheartedly agree with that worldview.

 

[Ender]

I haven’t read all 14 pages of this thread, so my apologies if this point has already been brought up…

You might read posts 170 and 175 for a good analysis of proper authority; it addresses your concern. Regarding the citation from the USCCB document, I don’t doubt that you quoted them accurately but I dispute the claim they make. What they describe as having been stated clearly by the Church hasn’t been stated by her at all.

Ender