Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence said:
And Tigg, don’t worry, we’ll always have guns to protect ourselves, especially those of us living in remote rural locations.
Click to expand...
Well, lock and load, Rence! 👍

Actually, I’m not a big fan of guns at all, but I will fight for my constitutional right to have one.
 
patricklappert said:
Interesting interpretation of the amendment James.
I have a problem with your grammar however. Verb/ subject agreement requires us to admit that what is well regulated is the militia, not the possession of the firearms.
Click to expand...
I quite agree, but what form that regulation takes is up for grabs. For instance, as I already pointed out, there are entire classes of “firearms” that are already illegal to privately own.
The regulation of the militia could, quite rightly involve, registering of firearms, mandatory classes for use and licensing (like a drivers license) that would need to be renewed every so often. Such things could easily be viewed as necessary regulation of the milia - registration lets the authorities know who they can call on to defend the community, and training/licensing could be seen as similar to the old time militia practicing on the village green.

As I said earlier, I don’t agree with such foolishness as making “handguns” illegal. But on the other hand I’ve seen measures that, at least to me, would easily fit under “regulating militia”, get hammered by people who wish only to spout the second half of the amendent and conveniently ignore the first half.
Though I was too young to actively participate, I am old enough to remember when gun registration and waiting periods etc were first being seriously proposed. The crying and hand wringing and shouts of “rights to bear arms” shouted donw many of those initial efforts. I even heard it from my dad and uncles and brothers…Then I looked up the ammendment…hhmmmmm…Maybe it wasn’t so clear cut as some wish it was.

All that said, I agree that the right to keep bear arms is essential. I’m glad that the ammendment contains both clauses.

Peace
James
 
Brendan said:
…and he enters a strawman argument of ‘revenge’, “a democracy, where there is respect for institutions (of law), the citizen relinquishes his right to revenge onto the state”.

Has any proponent of self defense advocated hunting the person down after the fact?? Or is Mr. Di Ruzza too unfamiliar with moral theology to note that self defense is not considered an act of revenge.

And to be honest, States are not supposed to engage in Revenge either, but simply act as agents for justice. Again the two are different things. God IS Justice, but God does not enact revenge.

So, in other words, this man is simply clueless on moral theology and we can freely discard his opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
A nice lesson on and rhetorical fallacies ending in an ad hominem attack.
 
Barish said:
A nice lesson on and rhetorical fallacies ending in an ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...
There is no ‘ad hominim’ attack. An ad homium attacks a characistic of the person that is irrelaven to the premise. For example, “Joe is a bad dresser, so he knows nothing of economics”

What I have done is attack the person’s authority.

Mr. Di Ruzza did claim that in a democracy, we are to give a supposed right to revenge to the State.

Where, in Catholic moral theology, does a right to revenge exist at all? Or that Catholic moral theology considers self defense to be a mode of revenge?

If you can show that Catholic theology there exists such a right, I will freely admit my error.

If a person is claiming expertice is the matter of moral theology, but makes such a clear mistake, what authority can we give to his claims.

This is no different than listening to a geologist discussing the nature of the Earth while making claims that it is flat. It demonstrates a faulty understanding of geology, so the speakers points become questionable at best.

Such argument are relavtive to the premise, namely the persons authority on the matter, so an attack on such is valid.
 
Brendan said:
There is no ‘ad hominim’ attack. An ad homium attacks a characistic of the person that is irrelaven to the premise. For example, “Joe is a bad dresser, so he knows nothing of economics”

What I have done is attack the person’s authority.

Mr. Di Ruzza did claim that in a democracy, we are to give a supposed right to revenge to the State.

Where, in Catholic moral theology, does a right to revenge exist at all? Or that Catholic moral theology considers self defense to be a mode of revenge?

If you can show that Catholic theology there exists such a right, I will freely admit my error.

If a person is claiming expertice is the matter of moral theology, but makes such a clear mistake, what authority can we give to his claims.

This is no different than listening to a geologist discussing the nature of the Earth while making claims that it is flat. It demonstrates a faulty understanding of geology, so the speakers points become questionable at best.

Such argument are relavtive to the premise, namely the persons authority on the matter, so an attack on such is valid.
Click to expand...
I did not disagree with your point, so the defense is misplaced. I did disagree with your rhetoric. “So, in other words, this man is simply clueless on moral theology and we can freely discard his opinion on the matter.” This may be a summary to you, but it is an ad hominem attack. HE is CLUELESS, therefore, WE can DISREGARD. He is not clueless. He is making a point that I do not entirely endorse and, with which, it seems that you also disagree.

Ah… arguing on the Internet, I miss the 90’s.
 
WetCatechumen said:
Just for clarification, this is not an infallible teaching of the church, but similar a consensus view of the bishops. So you NRA members don’t need to freak out, but please re-evaluate your position.
Click to expand...
You’re going to set off a firestorm, but so be it. I’m military, civilian, NRA, and a firm believer in defending my family, someone else, and myself if need be. If you want to wait for the police while someone is molesting your children or raping you, go ahead; I’ll be more than happy to either watch, if you really don’t want help, or put a bullet square into them.

I’ve never heard of the church’s position on gun ownership, but apparently its right up there with the church’s position on illegal aliens. The church is dead wrong. We can be Christian and think of WWJD, but it is not reality.
 
Barish said:
I did not disagree with your point, so the defense is misplaced. I did disagree with your rhetoric. “So, in other words, this man is simply clueless on moral theology and we can freely discard his opinion on the matter.” This may be a summary to you, but it is an ad hominem attack. HE is CLUELESS, therefore, WE can DISREGARD. He is not clueless. He is making a point that I do not entirely endorse and, with which, it seems that you also disagree.

Ah… arguing on the Internet, I miss the 90’s.
Click to expand...
Note the qualifier, that he is clueless ON MORAL THEOLOGY.

Since the article presents Mr. Di Ruzza opinion as be authoritative, (an appeal to authority), that is only effective in a logical discussion if the person is an valid authority, or is mutually accepted as an authority.

What I have demonstrated is that there are no valid grounds for mutually accepting him as an authority on Catholic Moral Theology as it relates to the doctrine of valid self defense.

If you would prefer I will retract the ‘clueless’ comment and state instead:

" Mr. Di Ruzza has demonstrated a lack of fundamental knowledge on Catholic Moral Theology related to self defense, even to the extent of making statements that are directly contradictory to Church teaching on the matter. As such, it would be ill advised to presume that he is an authority on the matter or correctly articulates authentic Church teaching on the matter"
 
searching04 said:
I’ve never heard of the church’s position on gun ownership, but apparently its right up there with the church’s position on illegal aliens. The church is dead wrong.
Click to expand...
It isn’t DEAD wrong; it has an opinion different from yours, and there is some validity in both its and your position.

Start calling the Church wrong on first this, and then that, and it becomes easy to find it wrong on more and more. Not the best way to view the Church IMO.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Start calling the Church wrong on first this, and then that, and it becomes easy to find it wrong on more and more.
Click to expand...
The Church isn’t wrong on this point because it is not the Church expressing opposition to the private ownership of firearms. The bishops, however, individually and via the USCCB, do say some silly things and create situations where it becomes easier and easier to ignore them even when they speak out on faith and morals. All the more reason for them to avoid commenting on topics that are neither.

Ender
 
Ender said:
The Church isn’t wrong on this point because it is not the Church expressing opposition to the private ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but the bishops simply called for ‘sensible’ firearms regulations.

We have that now. Criminals are denied the legal ability to purchase guns, while those who are responsible for the lives of their families can purchase firearms.

Perfectly sensible. 👍

Perhaps those who live in jurisdictions where parents cannot purchase such firearms can petition their governments, so that they too can excercise the ‘grave duty’ of defense when the need arises. :cool:
 
Brendan said:
Not only that, but the bishops simply called for ‘sensible’ firearms regulations.

We have that now. Criminals are denied the legal ability to purchase guns, while those who are responsible for the lives of their families can purchase firearms.

Perfectly sensible. 👍

Perhaps those who live in jurisdictions where parents cannot purchase such firearms can petition their governments, so that they too can excercise the ‘grave duty’ of defense when the need arises. :cool:
Click to expand...
Head over to Texas. We love our guns.
 
Brendan said:
Perhaps those who live in jurisdictions where parents cannot purchase such firearms can petition their governments, so that they too can excercise the ‘grave duty’ of defense when the need arises. :cool:
Click to expand...
Trust me, the political situation and public opinion on gun ownership in, for example England (possibly one very good example of countries with restrictive gun laws), is so massively different to America there is almost no chance lobbying leading to the law being changed to allow general civilian gun ownership, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue. There is about as much chance of concealed carry laws being passed here as there is of civilian gun ownership and the death penalty being outlawed in Texas.

Most English people, except in very rural areas (where farmers and hunters may have rifle licenses), have never even seen a real gun (i.e. not an airgun or BB gun), and there’s a near-compulsory 2.5-5 yr jail term for unlawful possession of hand guns.
 
The US still has parts that are too rural. Would you deny an isolated rancher in an area with large carnivores (wolves/coyotes/etc) a gun? At the same time does someone in a city really need a fully automatic weapon with a 33 round magazine?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
The US still has parts that are too rural. Would you deny an isolated rancher in an area with large carnivores (wolves/coyotes/etc) a gun? At the same time does someone in a city really need a fully automatic weapon with a 33 round magazine?
Click to expand...
To own a fully automatic weapon requires a federal Class III permit, they are both expensive and diffuicult to obtain. So I fail to see how this pertains to the question at hand.

But then again, Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, so perhaps you could ask them.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
The US still has parts that are too rural. Would you deny an isolated rancher in an area with large carnivores (wolves/coyotes/etc) a gun? ?
Click to expand...
Heck, I live in a Detroit suburb and we have coyotes around here. I’ve seen several in my backyard.
 
Brendan said:
To own a fully automatic weapon requires a federal Class III permit, they are both expensive and diffuicult to obtain. So I fail to see how this pertains to the question at hand.

But then again, Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, so perhaps you could ask them.
Click to expand...
:confused: really?
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
I’m no NRA member but I kinda do see the logic in having the need to defend yourself as efficiently as possible. I also don’t see a point in putting up laws that ban guns when criminals don’t care about what’s lawful or not. >:\
Click to expand...
 
Why than the Crusades against the “infidels?” the “War of Lepanto” in which the most famous and father of the Spanish speaking world, took arms to defend the Faith against the Ottoman Empire, the famous “Manco de Lepanto” the author of “Don Quixote de la Mancha.” I can bring about many other instances in which the Catholics took arms to defend the Faith?😃
 
Brendan said:
To own a fully automatic weapon requires a federal Class III permit, they are both expensive and diffuicult to obtain. So I fail to see how this pertains to the question at hand.

But then again, Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles to every adult male, so perhaps you could ask them.
Click to expand...
There are specific restrictions on those weapons in Switzerland. They are absolutely not for home protection, but are to be maintained by those who have had military training in the event of mobilization. The weapons are to be under lock and key except for when the citizen is required to qualify in the weapon’s use, and may be transported to the firing range only then. I don’t know why Americans seem to think that the Swiss have it so much better than we with regards to weapon possession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top