Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

[Holly3278]

I know next to nothing about firearms. However, if it is truly the position of the Church that firearm ownership or use among civilians should be reduced then that is my position as well. I don’t, however, believe that the Church would be for leaving civilians absolutely defenseless.

 

[Brendan]

I know next to nothing about firearms. However, if it is truly the position of the Church that firearm ownership or use among civilians should be reduced then that is my position as well. I don’t, however, believe that the Church would be for leaving civilians absolutely defenseless.

That really isn’t the position of the Church. The article that the OP presented left out a few key statements from the document it was reporting on.

the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms".

-Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace- “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994

 

[gene546]

The Church doesn’t oppose “gun control.” The Catholic Bishops of America do. The Second Amendment shall never be nullified by the Federal Government. The reasons are obvious. We don’t want a tyrant as president or a tyranny as a social REGIME in our Democratic country.

 

[Hastrman]

The Church doesn’t oppose “gun control.” The Catholic Bishops of America do. The Second Amendment shall never be nullified by the Federal Government. The reasons are obvious. We don’t want a tyrant as president or a tyranny as a social REGIME in our Democratic country.

The one thing I absolutely loathe about my countrymen, as an American, is they always talk about “tyranny” of the executive—and never about oligarchy of the legislature. There is no need to worry about the executive becoming corrupt and seeking absolute power; the legislature already is corrupt, and votes itself more power every day. The recent partisan upset can, at best, slow the progress of the ailment.

Private gun ownership really won’t help in resisting an overreaching government, anyway; small arms aren’t worth much against aerial bombardment. The reason gun control is favored by statists, apart from their inherent distrust of the people’s ability to order their own lives, is that they want the people to be completely dependent on the state for their protection.

The thing that really prevents the government from overreaching is, the military are patriotic, but their oath is to principles and not to persons. So, as happened in the French Revolution, if they were ordered to suppress the populace, they’d probably overthrow whoever gave them the order in the first place. Another crazy thing about Americans is, they seem to think a military coup would always be a bad thing!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So, as happened in the French Revolution, if they were ordered to suppress the populace, they’d probably overthrow whoever gave them the order in the first place. Another crazy thing about Americans is, they seem to think a military coup would always be a bad thing!

Not so sure about that. MacArthur’s soldiers put down the Bonus Marchers and State militias have put down strikers. I think that today’s soldiers, who are professionals, and not draftees who might have stronger feelings towards civilians, will not hesitate to suppress the populace, if ordered to do so. And, even if some units would not, there are other units or branches who would, as well as an Air Force that would certainly follow orders.

But, better that this is all conjecture and our opinions, and not ever put to the test.

 

[Hastrman]

Not so sure about that. MacArthur’s soldiers put down the Bonus Marchers and State militias have put down strikers. I think that today’s soldiers, who are professionals, and not draftees who might have stronger feelings towards civilians, will not hesitate to suppress the populace, if ordered to do so. And, even if some units would not, there are other units or branches who would, as well as an Air Force that would certainly follow orders.

But, better that this is all conjecture and our opinions, and not ever put to the test.

I think you’re overestimating the discipline of the Air Force (then again, all the military I know are Army or Marines, who seem to think the Air Force is the “party” branch). Actually historically conscripts have been more likely to fire on civilians, even in their own community; I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because professional soldiers are more committed to their military ethics; besides, America’s military ethics are “defend the Constitution” above all else.

Also, very wisely, all US military personnel have standing orders to refuse illegal orders.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think you’re overestimating the discipline of the Air Force (then again, all the military I know are Army or Marines, who seem to think the Air Force is the “party” branch).

As a former “flyboy,” I think I know them fairly well, comments about our being bus drivers or the “paramilitary branch” notwithstanding.

Also, very wisely, all US military personnel have standing orders to refuse illegal orders.

That’s always been the case. The fly in the ointment is deciding what an illegal order is. No one gets court-martialled for following orders; orders are always considered to be legal and valid.

Marine EMs, e.g., are very good at following orders and would hardly decide that the orders they received were invalid.

One puts his neck out very much by refusing to follow an order, particularly in a crisis situation.

 

[Warrenton]

Private gun ownership really won’t help in resisting an overreaching government, anyway; small arms aren’t worth much against aerial bombardment.

Hmm. Iraq put up a pretty good struggle with nothing but small arms and some bombs. Afghans only got small arms, too.

Aerial bombardment baically failed in SE Asia in the 70s.

I’ll agree, if you drop a nuke out of the plane, that’ll scare the daylights out of 'em, but no one since Harry has had the bottle for that trick.

 

[Hastrman]

Hmm. Iraq put up a pretty good struggle with nothing but small arms and some bombs. Afghans only got small arms, too.

Aerial bombardment baically failed in SE Asia in the 70s.

Actually, the insurgency in Iraq was mainly Iranian and Syrian, not native (other than a few militias); and they don’t last too long once a few Apaches come in. As for Afghanistan, that’s mainly the issue of trying to minimize collateral damage—obviously lessened when you’re already talking about suppressing your own populace by force.

As for SE Asia, actually, Nixon was starting to turn the war around precisely by ordering more bombing…so Watergate just happened to come out. Because, of course, the Democrats (and his Republican enemies) would never see the White House again if he managed to win Nam.

 

[Warrenton]

Actually, the insurgency in Iraq was mainly Iranian and Syrian, not native (other than a few militias); and they don’t last too long once a few Apaches come in. As for Afghanistan, that’s mainly the issue of trying to minimize collateral damage—obviously lessened when you’re already talking about suppressing your own populace by force.

As for SE Asia, actually, Nixon was starting to turn the war around precisely by ordering more bombing…so Watergate just happened to come out. Because, of course, the Democrats (and his Republican enemies) would never see the White House again if he managed to win Nam.

Seven plus years on, we’re still there. And they still got guns. QED.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As for SE Asia, actually, Nixon was starting to turn the war around precisely by ordering more bombing…so Watergate just happened to come out. Because, of course, the Democrats (and his Republican enemies) would never see the White House again if he managed to win Nam.

I don’t think anything would have turned that war around. Everyone was tired of it, both liberals and conservatives. The war had run its course with the American public IMO.

 

[Hastrman]

Seven plus years on, we’re still there. And they still got guns. QED.

Where, Iraq? Only as “there” as we still are in Germany or Japan.

As for Afghanistan, as I said, that’s because we haven’t been doing enough bombing. The Taliban had an easy time against the Soviets (back when the Taliban called themselves Mujihadin) because the Soviets didn’t use their Mil Mi-24 “Hind” gunship helicopters properly for that environment. That is not the case with our Apache pilots, who are probably the best-trained combat helicopter pilots in the world—and we have the advantage of being able to study the Soviets’ mistakes. If we weren’t constrained by our bizarre ROE into making mistakes of our own, this war would be turning out quite differently.

Besides the Soviets’ tactical errors, the Mi-24 is more akin to the Black Hawk than to the Apache; the Soviet equivalents of the Apache, the Mi-28 “Havoc” and Ka-50 “Hokum A”, came out too late to help with the Afghan war.

 

[Hastrman]

I don’t think anything would have turned that war around. Everyone was tired of it, both liberals and conservatives. The war had run its course with the American public IMO.

Yes, but what if Nixon had been able to show a few major victories after he ordered a resumption of bombing? Public opinion is fickle in both directions.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes, but what if Nixon had been able to show a few major victories after he ordered a resumption of bombing? Public opinion is fickle in both directions.

“What if, indeed.” If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The war is over some 38 years, and what we have now are the battle of the memoirs. What might have been means nothing now. I can’t imagine any American administration that would want to get into another war in the jungle - or any new war at all.

 

[wabrams]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While it is clear from this that the ordinary citizen does and must retain, the right to keep and to bear arms, it is equally true that the idea of having a “well regulated militia” gives the government the right to, regulate gun ownership within certain parameters. The argument then becomes one of what those parameters are.

That’s not what “well regulated” meant; when the Bill of Rights was written, regulated went the same as regular. I.e. citizens could be armed with the same weapons as the military or state sponsored militia.

 

[Hastrman]

That’s not what “well regulated” meant; when the Bill of Rights was written, regulated went the same as regular. I.e. citizens could be armed with the same weapons as the military or state sponsored militia.

I have not heard that argument before (frankly it intrigues me, but I’m a language nerd). I’d always just assumed the “well-regulated militia” part meant something like, “a populace having a passing familiarity with weapons, is a lot easier to train in time of war.”

Certainly the people who’ve kept that tradition alive are the ones most likely to go into the military now—in my state they’re all either cowboys (yes, literally), Indians (many of whom are also cowboys…or shepherds), or Mexicans.

 

[neophyte]

I have not heard that argument before (frankly it intrigues me, but I’m a language nerd). I’d always just assumed the “well-regulated militia” part meant something like, “a populace having a passing familiarity with weapons, is a lot easier to train in time of war.”…

It’s really amazing the conclusions you can arrive at if you don’t pay attention to the development of language. In the late 1700’s one would speak of having one’s pocket watch “regulated”, meaning having it fixed so that it kept proper time. So a well-regulated watch was one that functioned properly.

So in todays language one might write the Second Amendment as “A properly functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state, etc.”

It’s really important to know what the milita is. US law defines the militia as being comprised of every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 years who is not a member of the regular military. And it was understood that the men would come equipped with their own light weapons when reporting for duty when the militia was called up, and that those weapons would be substantially the same as those in military use. A proper understanding of the Amendment is that it recognises our right to own the kind of light weapons used by the military. Note that the right is not granted by the Amendment; it’s one of the unalienable rights which is given us by God and the Constitution recognises it’s pre-existence.

And don’t fall for the argument that the Amendment refers to the National Guard. The National Guard is organised under the power to raise armies, and so by definition is not the militia and never was.

 

[Ed_Normile]

The Catholic Church’s position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won’t find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It’s almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops’ conference and it’s mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

This is simply another situation that men in the church, however well intentioned, are just
simply wrong. One has only the need to look at crime rates for historical proofs of the right to bear arms, take england for example their crime rates especially violent home invasions have skyrocketed since their banning and confiscation of personal firearms, the same in Australia, they have seen vast increases in crime rates, violent home invasion, rapes and murders increase. Contrast that to the rate at which violent crimes have decreased in states here in America where they allow concealed carry of weapons. There will always be abuses either way, criminals with guns killing and people with legal guns killing. There are already laws in place that say you can not murder or rob but when you remove guns from the legal owners all that is left is the armed criminals. When a criminal has no doubt that a homeowner is unarmed there is not much to deter him from breaking in and taking whatever pleases him.

ed

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Di Ruzza said that in “a democracy, where there is respect for institutions (of law), the citizen relinquishes his right to revenge onto the state,” which, through its law enforcement and courts system, aims to mete out a fair and just punishment.

“There is a sort of natural right to defend the common interest and the common good, and in 1791 (when the United States passed the Second Amendment), my right to have a weapon served the common good because there wasn’t an army; the democratic institutions were young and a little fragile, and I could have been useful in a time of war as a soldier,” said Di Ruzza.

But once a nation has a functioning army, police force and court system, “do I still serve the common good with my gun or do I put it at even greater danger?” and promote a lawless kind of “street justice where if you steal my car, I shoot you,” he asked.

(emphasis added)

That’s a very wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment today, without question wrong. The right to possess firearms is not dependent on any particular use, as for military purposes. There is a right to possess for any traditional lawful use, and that includes hunting, home defense, target shooting, or blasting wrecked cars in the desert. The recent *Heller *and MacDonald cases are very clear on this.

 

[Brendan]

This is simply another situation that men in the church, however well intentioned, are just
simply wrong.

It’s actually simply poor journalism.

If you read the actual document in question, it recognizes that the right to use arms to defend oneself, and others that are under your care exists, is actually a duty. (see post #82)

Somehow, the journalist neglected to quote from that section of the document.

In addition, the person they quoted ( Mr Di Ruzza) exhibited a fundamental lack of knowledge on Catholic Moral Theology. He indicated that there is a ‘right to vengence’ that must be ceaded to the State. There exists no such right in Catholic Moral Theology, either personal, nor on the part of the State.

It’s simply bad reporting.