Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[melensdad]

Funny you to say that, because those that claim thier unrestricted right to thier guns sound just those that claim thier unrestricted right to abortion. When I hear people screaming for thier righs - I always think of the innocent that are the ones that ultimately pay for those rights.

Vern beat me to the answer, but if you clearly look at the 14th Amendment then it is obvious that it is being twisted to allow for abortion because it is depriving the embryo/fetus/baby the right to life.

When you look at the wording of the 2nd amendment and compare it to other amendments and the constitution then it clearly shows the right to bear arms is an individual right.

The problem is people tend to interpret bits and pieces of the Constitution as isolated parts without looking at the entire document and/or the context of the wording.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern beat me to the answer, but if you clearly look at the 14th Amendment then it is obvious that it is being twisted to allow for abortion because it is depriving the embryo/fetus/baby the right to life.

When you look at the wording of the 2nd amendment and compare it to other amendments and the constitution then it clearly shows the right to bear arms is an individual right.

The problem is people tend to interpret bits and pieces of the Constitution as isolated parts without looking at the entire document and/or the context of the wording.

The problem is, people are perfectly willing to see the Constitution twisted, distorted, misinterpreted, or outright violated when it comes to the parts they don’t like.

And then they’re shocked – shocked, I tell you! – when the parts they like get the same treatment.

If we want a just society, the first step is to play by the rules. Support the Constitution – all of the Constitution.

 

[melensdad]

The problem is, people are perfectly willing to see the Constitution twisted, distorted, misinterpreted, or outright violated when it comes to the parts they don’t like.

And then they’re shocked – shocked, I tell you! – when the parts they like get the same treatment.

If we want a just society, the first step is to play by the rules. Support the Constitution – all of the Constitution.

Vern it is no different than Catholics who believe they are real Catholics and also believe in abortion, mercy killing/assisted suicide, gay marriage and a host of other issues.

I was in Chicago today at a business meeting and a Catholic friend of mine was also in attendance. He was talking about supporting assisted suicide and mercy killing of elderly people who have alzheimer’s disease. Didn’t sound very Catholic to me!!!

How do we, as Catholics pick and choose the parts of the church/faith we want to believe in? The same applies to the Constitution. If we start to twist things to our own uses then we will find ourselves degrading own own faith.

 

[Dispector]

Vern beat me to the answer, but if you clearly look at the 14th Amendment then it is obvious that it is being twisted to allow for abortion because it is depriving the embryo/fetus/baby the right to life.

The problem with Pro-Choice individuals is that most do not consider an embryo/fetus/baby a “living” entity in the first place. So if they convince people that an embryo is not yet a human then the 14th Amendment is useless.

And in regards to the Catholic teaching of the topic I refer to the Catholic Catechism:

Catholic Catechism 2264: “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow”

You can obviously see that self defense is acceptable. And it is also observable that a deadly blow is acceptable if it is necessary to protect oneself. As such, weapons are acceptable when used in defense of oneself (or at least in a situation where deadly force is necessary for self preservation when threatened by a violent aggressor). Of course, the Catholic Catechism never mentions guns. Therefore, because it remains neutral, we must make the choice based on our own logic.

Secondly, we can see that the right to own guns was a fundamental statute for the approval of the Constitution (I’ presume most Americans know that the Constitution was not officially approved until the first 10 Amendments were voted on and approved by the voted representatives of the first 13 States).

I’m rambling. My basic point is that it is not immoral or unethical to own guns. Nor is it legal to restrict the right of people to own guns in order to defend oneself (or one’s family).

I do, however, believe that there should be reasonable gun control and tighter restrictions on gun purchases as to allow law-abiding citizens gun ownership while limiting access by dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals. Typically there are several warning signs before an act of violence occurs. We should be much more mindful and proactive about these warning signs!!

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[melensdad]

Of course, the Catholic Catechism never mentions guns.

Actually it mentions guns but refers to them as “arms.” If you keep reading down the Catechism another paragraphs it writes:2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
As a matter of fact this paragraph only seems to give rights to allow those who “legitimately hold authority” to have a gun, and then again only for the purpose of repelling "aggressors against the civil community." So the way I interpret this paragraph, it gives the government the right to issue guns to people it feels are appropriate (such as police officers).

Interpreted slightly differently, one would suggest that store owners ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their employees. Still a looser interpretation would hold that a parent would ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their family.

The first line of this paragraph reads: *"**Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others." * And this is the line that seems to support private gun ownership for self defense. Because there does seem to be evidence in other areas that parents/fathers are responsible for the lives of others since they are responsible for their families/children.

Much earlier on in the Catechism, when speaking to civil authority it writes:1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such.** In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.** Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27
**
1909** Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the *security *of society and its members. **It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
**As a basic human right is the right to live, and as self defense is actually considered a grave duty, it seems reasonable to intuit that we can use ‘arms’ to protect our lives and the lives of our families as well as to protect society. As guns are the most efficient ‘arms’ it seems reasonable to presume that guns are allowable.

It is also clear that we are free to choose our own government, but that government is not legitimate if it forces its will onto citizens.1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23
1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24
​

Reading the last paragraph is almost like reading an endorsement for the US system of government with its Constitution as a basis that prevents the “arbitrary will of men.”

 

[Dispector]

Actually it mentions guns but refers to them as “arms.”

Actually, “arms” is defined as a weapon in general. It is not synonymous with guns. But, of course, it can encompass guns as well.

As a matter of fact this paragraph only seems to give rights to allow those who “legitimately hold authority” to have a gun, and then again only for the purpose of repelling "aggressors against the civil community." So the way I interpret this paragraph, it gives the government the right to issue guns to people it feels are appropriate (such as police officers).

Interpreted slightly differently, one would suggest that store owners ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their employees. Still a looser interpretation would hold that a parent would ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their family.

The first line of this paragraph reads: *"**Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others." * And this is the line that seems to support private gun ownership for self defense. Because there does seem to be evidence in other areas that parents/fathers are responsible for the lives of others since they are responsible for their families/children.

Much earlier on in the Catechism, when speaking to civil authority it writes:1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such.** In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.** Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27
**
1909** Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the *security *of society and its members. **It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.
**As a basic human right is the right to live, and as self defense is actually considered a grave duty, it seems reasonable to intuit that we can use ‘arms’ to protect our lives and the lives of our families as well as to protect society. As guns are the most efficient ‘arms’ it seems reasonable to presume that guns are allowable.

It is also clear that we are free to choose our own government, but that government is not legitimate if it forces its will onto citizens.1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23
1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24
​

Reading the last paragraph is almost like reading an endorsement for the US system of government with its Constitution as a basis that prevents the “arbitrary will of men.”

But, the rest of it is spot on. Well done melensdad!.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern it is no different than Catholics who believe they are real Catholics and also believe in abortion, mercy killing/assisted suicide, gay marriage and a host of other issues.

Oh, I know that. But it is one thing to know something, and another thing to support it.

In the end, both the Constitution and Catholic morality must stand or fall on the willingness of the people to oppose wrong and to stand up for right.

I was in Chicago today at a business meeting and a Catholic friend of mine was also in attendance. He was talking about supporting assisted suicide and mercy killing of elderly people who have alzheimer’s disease. Didn’t sound very Catholic to me!!!

Isn’t it strange how so many are willing to put other people to death?

How do we, as Catholics pick and choose the parts of the church/faith we want to believe in? The same applies to the Constitution. If we start to twist things to our own uses then we will find ourselves degrading own own faith.

Absolutely. Both the Constitution and the morality of the Catholic Church stand as external, objective standards. Undermine them, and you have nothing left but fort main – the strongest rules.

 

[melensdad]

Oh, I know that. But it is one thing to know something, and another thing to support it.

We always know the right thing to do, the hard part is doing it!

 

[whatevergirl]

For me there’s a little line of scripture that sums it up - ‘those who live by the sword will die by the sword’. I just don’t see Jesus joining the pro-gun lobby with that attitude.

amen to this comment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

amen to this comment.

There’s also scripture that says:

35 He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
36 He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

(Luke, 22-35,36)

 

[melensdad]

"LilyM:

             For me there's a little line of scripture that sums it up - 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword'. I just don't see Jesus joining the pro-gun lobby with that attitude.

amen to this comment.

To imply I am going to kill or be violent, just because I own guns, is very similar to me saying that all women are ready to become prostitutes, because women obviously own all the equipment that it takes to do that.

I think it is very clear that those of us with firearms are not living by the sword. Rather we own guns as a hobby, for sport and for self defense. To own a gun for those reasons is not an action of a hostile person who is living a hostile life. Many of us participate in sporting activities like trap shooting, “sporting clays” or pistol competition. And the last time I checked, we have a grave duty to defend our lives/families and to me (I suffer from severe Rheumatoid Arthritis) I don’t have the option of ‘fighting’ off an attacker so a gun is clearly a viable solution.

Personally I find it very offensive to lump sport and defensive shooters/gun owners into the same category as those who ‘live by the sword’ because you imply that we are violent people. Basically just by association you imply that we are evil, we are violent, or we are simply wrong. I’m sorry but I refuse to be disrespected in that way and am willing to stand up for my rights.

My daughter is learning how to shoot now and LOVES it, she’s 12 and can’t get enough of it. We have a safe target range set up in the back yard and enjoy the family activity and fellowship we share outside in the sun. We can take a picnic lunch with us and spend some time in nature, we often go out there and find deer walking through the area (and no we don’t shoot them) we have hawks and even vultures overhead and occasionally see wild turkey strutting along the field margins. How is this ‘living by the sword’ . . . clearly it is not.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To “live by the sword” had a specific meaning in those days. It referred to outlaws and bandits. Such people did indeed live by the sword, and usually ended their lives by being hunted down.

Christ did not advise the Apostles to become outlaws and bandits. He advised them to be prepared for difficult times to come, and to be ready to defend themselves.

 

[AndyF]

melensdad:

I do know that since gun control was implemented in Canada, statistics show there is less patience by police to use alternative incapacitating methods against an offender. There was one case where a teenager was shot “unless he put down his knife”, and he didn’t. This is a new life lost and taxes wasted, as martial arts and use of other arms are taught to the officers. And of course there is also the question of why not other than fatal parts of the body as a target.?

There is also consideration of CC 2309, where nations have the privledge during aggression to use “evils and disorders” to the degree, but not exceeding, that of the opposition. The point being relative in individual conflicts is that the Church recognizes an entity’s right to defend himself to the degree of the best arm available to the opposition, which of course at the individual level is firearms. (Actually, even with firearms the police forces have a much larger arsenal range of types of weapons available to them.)

Logic also points to the advantage of policing forces having an advantage over their citizen charge in cases where the masses cannot defend themselves. This we cannot ignore and it is a real danger. Time and again we have seen power corrupting absolutely, and while the potential is there, any Catholic has that right to bare arms.

So my position is one of balance and tolerance.

AndyF

 

[melensdad]

To “live by the sword” had a specific meaning in those days. It referred to outlaws and bandits. Such people did indeed live by the sword, and usually ended their lives by being hunted down.

Christ did not advise the Apostles to become outlaws and bandits. He advised them to be prepared for difficult times to come, and to be ready to defend themselves.

Vern and that is exactly why I find it offensive for people to infer that I am somehow a bad person because I enjoy guns. Just because I have a gun does not make me any different than a woman who has a vagina. She can use it for good, or she can use it for carnal sins. The fact that she has it does not automatically mean she is a whore. The fact that I have guns does not make me a criminal, evil or even aggressive.

AndyF:

Logic also points to the advantage of policing forces having an advantage over their citizen charge in cases where the masses cannot defend themselves. This we cannot ignore and it is a real danger. Time and again we have seen power corrupting absolutely, and while the potential is there, any Catholic has that right to bare arms.

And in the situation in Darfur we very clearly see a despotic government murdering HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its own citizens.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Logic also points to the advantage of policing forces having an advantage over their citizen charge in cases where the masses cannot defend themselves. This we cannot ignore and it is a real danger. Time and again we have seen power corrupting absolutely, and while the potential is there, any Catholic has that right to bare arms.

So my position is one of balance and tolerance.

AndyF

Actually logic – the Framer’s logic – was that the citizenry should be able to overpower the police or army in time of need.

Again and again in the Federalist Papers and in the Debates the final argument against a possibe dictatorship arising from centralized Federal or state power was, “the people are confirmed in their right to bear arms.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern and that is exactly why I find it offensive for people to infer that I am somehow a bad person because I enjoy guns. Just because I have a gun does not make me any different than a woman who has a vagina. She can use it for good, or she can use it for carnal sins. The fact that she has it does not automatically mean she is a whore. The fact that I have guns does not make me a criminal, evil or even aggressive.

Amen.

Every responsible citizen ought to have things like insurance, a fire extinguisher, and a firearm.

And in the situation in Darfur we very clearly see a despotic government murdering HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of its own citizens.

And yet there are those in the UN (and sadly, some in America) who feel the people in Darfur should not have the means to defend themselves – because “they might hurt themselves.”:whacky:

 

[melensdad]

Actually logic – the Framer’s logic – was that the citizenry should be able to overpower the police or army in time of need.

Vern in our Declaration of Independence it clearly states it is our DUTY to overthrow our own government when it acts in a despotic manner and institute a new one . . .

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. **But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
**​

Amen.

Every responsible citizen ought to have things like insurance, a fire extinguisher, and a firearm.

I will disagree that everyone should have a firearm, I think it is a very personal choice, I’m totally fine with those folks who choose not to have them, but I suggest they have a good set of locks, a secure home, and other safeguards for commonly expected issues that may arise. As I live well out into the country, sheriff response time has taken longer than 45 minutes!!! I have to plan for emergencies differently than those folks who live next door or down the block from the police station.

And yet there are those in the UN (and sadly, some in America) who feel the people in Darfur should not have the means to defend themselves – because “they might hurt themselves.”:whacky:

I certainly don’t advocate war, and I still wonder why we are in Iraq. But in Darfur we should be, if for no other reason than to establish peace!

 

[Brendan]

Your whole argument appears to be driven by fear, fear of the government which you claim gives you the right to bear arms without restrictions.

I think I see part of the misunderstanding.

A Government does not ‘give’ the people any rights, but rather recognizes rights which already exist in the people.

Rights come from God, not Governments, and some governments are better at recognizing these rights than others.

And when the Rights are not recognized properly, then it’s time to change the Government.

 

[Brendan]

Your whole argument appears to be driven by fear, fear of the government which you claim gives you the right to bear arms without restrictions.

I think I see part of the misunderstanding.

A Government does not ‘give’ the people any rights, but rather recognizes rights which already exist in the people.

Rights come from God, not Governments, and some governments are better at recognizing these rights than others.

And when the Rights are not recognized properly, then it’s time to change the Government.

 

[Bennie_P]

I think I see part of the misunderstanding.

A Government does not ‘give’ the people any rights, but rather recognizes rights which already exist in the people.

Rights come from God, not Governments, and some governments are better at recognizing these rights than others…

Funny I didn’t, see where He signed the Declaration of Independance, nor was in atttendance at the ratification of the constitution, nor any of it’s amendments.
God gives us the gift of salvation and the commandments.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:36 - 39

And when the Rights are not recognized properly, then it’s time to change the Government.

Rights are something we demand, God gives freely what we need, we just have to accept the true gift He offers and follow His commandments, with the Grace He gives us to do so.

God doesn’t give us rights, He gives us love and eternal life through the Blood of of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Luke 6:28 - 32 Bless them that curse you and pray for them that calumniate you. And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other. And him that taketh away from thee thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every one that asketh thee: and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner. And if you love them that love you, what thanks are to you? For sinners also love those that love them.

Of course Jesus’s words may only be goody-two shoe sayings and not meant for us to live by?