Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluebright said:
This is obviously going to come out in favour of Yes because this site is populated mostly by American’s in my most humble opinion.
Click to expand...
In spite of there being more guns in the US than there are people, only 36% of people in the US either own a gun or are aware that they live with someone who does. It is becoming a situation where those who do own a gun tend to own more than one, often far more than one.

I suppose it is getting that way with sewing machines, too, though. We are an affluent society and hobbyists have a tendency to go “all out” with buying specialized equipment. There is no reason gun owners would be different in that respect.
 
The quote is “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” I was career military so I guess that description fits me. I guess I gotta die of something.

Patrick
AMDG
 
Spyridon said:
I’d rather get shot in the head with a .22 than a 5.56 NATO.
Click to expand...
Syllogism said:
Both would kill you. Were you a chef in the military?
Click to expand...
There is about a 5% survival rate for victims of gunshot wounds to the head, with about 3% achieving at least a “good” quality of life afterward. I think the chances, though bad in either case, are a good deal better with a 0.22 than 5.56.
 
Seagull said:
Jesus - didn’t defend himself -

Those who pick up the sword - DIE by the sword -
Click to expand...
Those who live by the sword die by the sword, I think the saying goes?
That is a little different than picking one up, and Our Lord said it to Peter after he whacked off the ear of a slave (which, think about it, was someone who wasn’t likely to have been there by choice).
(a) Soldiers who came to John the Baptist weren’t told they had to quit being soldiers
(b) self-defense is allowed and defense of innocent life is praiseworthy
(c ) it is hardly unheard-of for thieves or bullies who take up a sword to drop it when confronted with one
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Jesus literally told the Apostles to go buy swords…
Click to expand...
When they took him literally, he did not take it particularly well: that is, when they pointed out they had a start by having had two swords among the lot of them, and he said, “Enough!” If he had meant he literally wanted anyone without a sword to buy one, two swords would not be enough for such a large group.
It is reasonable to think he was talking figuratively, then, rather than literally. It wouldn’t be the first time.
 
The Catholic Church allows self defense and Just War. We are not pacifist.
 
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.
Click to expand...

And about ten verses later–
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
Click to expand...
Then if you jump over to your Matthew–
52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Click to expand...
So, it’s interesting that Jesus tells his disciples to go out and buy a sword… and then a few hours later, tells them to put them away. 🙂 But it doesn’t change the fact that he gave them permission— but he corrected them on when they were supposed to make use of it. And preventing the Passion (and thereby interfering with the Redemption) was one of those situations where it wasn’t appropriate.

Knowing the difference between an appropriate and inappropriate situation to use firepower is important.
 
Last edited:
phoage said:
The quote is “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” I was career military so I guess that description fits me. I guess I gotta die of something.

Patrick

AMDG
Click to expand...
Since a career in the military is hardly a guarantee that a soldier will be called upon to kill anyone over the course of a career, I wouldn’t say the description automatically fits you.
 
That’s interesting - be soldiers for Christ - I have read somewhere.
And King David - and other Kings - did battle -
Old Testament is loaded ( no pun attended ) with violence.
 
Well, why don’t we sacrifice animals anymore?

Because we have a new sacrifice and a new covenant.
 
There is zero difference in an AR and several other rifles on the market other than appearance.

To ban one just because it says AR on the side seems a bit…odd.

I know you’re a gun advocate, which is why the significance makes no sense to me.
 
Spyridon said:
40.png
Syllogism:
why aren’t you for banning handguns?
Click to expand...
Handguns are not as deadly as assault style rifles.
Click to expand...
Really? Statistics would prove otherwise.
 
No, but ultimately even those of us in full support roles have the same ethos.

I’ve been an Air Force cop and now I’m a nurse in the same service. I carried deadly force (and worked a dog) while a cop with authorization to use both if necessary in accordance with the force continuum and as the situation merited. Now my team and I have the power to sideline the bomber or fighter pilot putting warheads on foreheads or the heavies (cargo) pilots delivering war materiel to the front.

One team, one fight…there’s really little difference in how direct the contact is. I consider myself no less a warfighter than my buddies who fly the fighters or who turn the wrenches on the same aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
Really? Statistics would prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
In general, an AR-15 is going to be more lethal than a Glock 9mm.

If I’m going into a war zone, I’ll take the AR over the 9mm anyday because it’s more lethal.

@Pup7 if you were going into a firefight in Afghanistan, would you rather be armed with an AR-15 or a .38 revolver?

Trying to claim that handguns are just as lethal as AR-15’s is ridiculous, and dishonest.

I mean, sure, from 5 feet away against 1 person maybe. But in a dynamic situation, with multiple targets, and at varying distances, you really can’t credibly claim handguns are equally as lethal as assault style rifles.
 
Last edited:
I’m armed with neither as I’m a noncombatant.

(Okay, that was a smart answer. I’ll own it. Sorry.)

Actually my weapon in the field is a sidearm - a .9mm Beretta. And I’m an expert shot. 😉 However, I’m only allowed to fire in self-defense or in defense of my patients.

And as we don’t have either of those weapons in the military, I can’t answer the question. An AR15 is not a military weapon. To be honest, the .38 has better ammo, won’t jam, and is easier to clean in the desert!

As I said, statistics disagree.

If you’re going to ban the AR15, you need to be for the banning of EVERY WEAPON with the same capability - not something that might look like something we have on active duty. We don’t waste our time with a .22.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top