Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

[Rich_Olszewski]

and MacDonald cases are very clear on this.

You are speaking as though only the U.S. 2nd Amendment is relevant to gun possession. In much of the world, the right to possess firearms is legally more controlled, usually being extended only to shotguns and rifles. Outside the U.S. handguns are most often dependent on particular uses - only for use by the military and the police. There is no universal right to possess any weapon one fancies.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

You are speaking as though only the U.S. 2nd Amendment is relevant to gun possession. In much of the world, the right to possess firearms is legally more controlled, usually being extended only to shotguns and rifles. Outside the U.S. handguns are most often dependent on particular uses - only for use by the military and the police. There is no universal right to possess any weapon one fancies.

To be clear, I’m referring to US law only, and the author’s opinion is wrong.

Moreover, even the the US, there is no absolute right to possess firearms (no right guaranteed in the bill of rights is absolute).

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

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.

Don’t worry about it, that interpretation is wrong. The second amendment guarantees private ownership of firearms for any traditional lawful purpose.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

To be clear, I’m referring to US law only, and the author’s opinion is wrong.

Moreover, even the the US, there is no absolute right to possess firearms (no right guaranteed in the bill of rights is absolute).

LOL! Go tell that to the gun lobby! They’d allow a recoiless rifle in every garage, a SAM on every lawn if the government didn’t put the kibbosh on those!!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

LOL! Go tell that to the gun lobby! They’d allow a recoiless rifle in every garage, a SAM on every lawn if the government didn’t put the kibbosh on those!!

Oh, I am fully aware of what both sides of this issue want. I’m reasonably happy with the nuanced approach the law actually takes on the power of the government to regulate vs the vs the rights of gun owners. Having attack dogs on both sides means that compromise will fall around an acceptable median.

This is from someone who, unless there are machine gunners on active duty in Afghanistan reading this, probably shoots more than anyone on this forum.

 

[Aquinas98]

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 only “resoundingly clear” to those who not only ignore Evangelium Vitae, a Papal encyclical which by definition carries more weight than a statement by any conference of Bishops, but likely already believes in restrictive “gun control” laws.

As has been stated, this is an example of personal politics trying to masquerade as official Church teaching.

The Magisterium (which, by the way, does not include all statements put out by the USCCB) has not ever spoken definitively on gun control, and even if it does, will not likely suggest that handguns should not be possessed by law-abiding and responsible citizens. Self-defense is a right and the defense of others is not only a right, but is also a duty.

Also, handguns have legitimate uses aside from only self-defense. Hunting and marksmanship are sports that have not been declared immoral by the Church. The handgun itself is not (and cannot be) inherently evil - it’s what is done with it. If a law-abiding person uses one to defend his family from an unjust aggressor in a situation where lethal force is required, he is doing his duty to defend his family.

The issue here, and what IS “resoundingly clear” is that the Bishops’ Conference articulated an opinion (not anything requiring assent) that is well-intentioned, but poorly worded. It is certain that we should work toward a society where the perceived NECESSITY to own handguns for self-defense is eliminated. The reality is that such a society is unlikely to form prior to the Second Coming. As long as there ARE unjust aggressors, there will be the duty (even up to using lethal force, as per Evangelium Vitae) to defend innocents from those aggressors. As law enforcement agencies themselves have said, that’s NOT their duty. Their duty is to enforce the law. The duty of the military is to defend the nation from foreign aggressors, not domestic ones. As a result, the duty to protect one’s family (and in some cases one’s neighborhood, community, etc.) falls to the citizen himself. Those who are law-abiding and responsible should, therefore, have a right to bear arms in the carrying out of that duty, regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says or doesn’t say. The Constitution and the Supreme Court do not determine morality - think about Roe v. Wade, Plessy v. Ferguson, Jim Crow laws, etc. The infallible Magisterium and the correct interpretation of the natural law do.

 

[gene546]

I agreed with your position regarding the right to bear arms by the citizens. The Church would never oppose the natural right to defend your family and property. It would be as that to denied the “Doctrine of Just War.” This Catholic Doctrine was developed by St. Augustine in the 4th century AD. “A nation has the right to defend their freedom against an aggressor.” Then, it fallows that the family which it is the living cell of society, cannot be denied of this natural right. God bless