Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Brendan]

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.

So, is it your belife, that ‘human rights’ are granted by the US Consitution.

For example, that slaves had no God given right to freedom prior to the adoption of the 14th Ammendment.

Is that your premise.

Even the Declaration of Independence notes that our Rights were endowed by Our Creator.

But I guess you disagree with that too.

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.

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

You seem to have a very distorted sense of what is granted under Natural Law (which originates from GOD, not a Constitution)

 

[Bennie_P]

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!

The Church has been sending aid to Darfur, but as a Nation it is time for us to step in to do something, this would be a logical place to send in our military and as you say establish peace and stop the genecide.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Church has been sending aid to Darfur, but as a Nation it is time for us to step in to do something, this would be a logical place to send in our military and as you say establish peace and stop the genecide.

Okay. You can be the pointman.

Want me to lend you a gun?

 

[melensdad]

BennieP:

I didn’t, see where He signed the Declaration of Independance. . .

The Catechism teaches there is legitimate defense. The Catechism talks of defense, both of SELF, and of your NATION but also FROM your NATION and it shows laws/rights come from eternal law.****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.
This paragraph seems to give rights to those who “legitimately hold authority” to have a gun, and only for the purpose of repelling "aggressors against the civil community." It gives the government the right to issue guns to people (police).

One would suggest that store owners ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their employees. It would hold that a parent would ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect the 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 is 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 clearly states 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.”

 

[Bennie_P]

So, is it your belife, that ‘human rights’ are granted by the US Consitution.

For example, that slaves had no God given right to freedom prior to the adoption of the 14th Ammendment.

Is that your premise.

Prior to the 14th ammendment did our nation have the God given right to enslave others? by your logic it would seem so.

Even the Declaration of Independence notes that our Rights were endowed by Our Creator.

But I guess you disagree with that too.

The Declaration of Indepanence was written by a man who took the bible and cut out all reference to the saving grace of God. He was Mason and took the Bilbe and made it the way he wanted it to be for example…

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible

So who was Jefferson’s creator? By whom was he inspired by to put those words “Rights endowed by our Creator”. It appears he thought man was his own creator.

You seem to have a very distorted sense of what is granted under Natural Law (which originates from GOD, not a Constitution)

Well by your reasoning also, we as a Nation rebelled against God when we rebelled against England which had the “God Given” authoriity over us? Which by the way England did away with slavery in 1833 - as compared to 1868 in the states, did God want us to keep slavery 35 years longer then in England? No I don’t think my ‘sense’ is distorted, for nothing happens except what God allows, but it doesn’t mean that everything that happens or what we do is what God would want us to do or choose.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Prior to the 14th ammendment did our nation have the God given right to enslave others? by your logic it would seem so.

The Declaration of Indepanence was written by a man who took the bible and cut out all reference to the saving grace of God. He was Mason and took the Bilbe and made it the way he wanted it to be for example…
So who was Jefferson’s creator? By whom was he inspired by to put those words “Rights endowed by our Creator”. It appears he thought man was his own creator.

Well by your reasoning also, we as a Nation rebelled against God when we rebelled against England which had the “God Given” authoriity over us? Which by the way England did away with slavery in 1833 - as compared to 1868 in the states, did God want us to keep slavery 35 years longer then in England? No I don’t think my ‘sense’ is distorted, for nothing happens except what God allows, but it doesn’t mean that everything that happens or what we do is what God would want us to do or choose.

I’m always amazed at how some people can blythely shunt aside other peoples’ civil rights – and squeal like stuck hogs when some right they value is also shunted aside.

 

[Bennie_P]

The Catechism teaches there is legitimate defense. The Catechism talks of defense, both of SELF, and of your NATION but also FROM your NATION and it shows laws/rights **come from eternal law.**CCC 2265

This paragraph seems to give rights to those who “legitimately hold authority” to have a gun, and only for the purpose of repelling "aggressors against the civil community." It gives the government the right to issue guns to people (police).
One would suggest that store owners ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect their employees. It would hold that a parent would ‘legitimately hold authority’ to protect the 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 is 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:CCC 1907

CCC 1909

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 clearly states we are free to choose our own government, **but that government is not legitimate if it forces its will onto citizens.**CCC 1902 CCC 1903 CCC 1904 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.”

You have presented this before and most of it I agree with, where we don’t see eye to eye at is simply one word or maybe two, The definition of “legitimate” and “reasonable”. Or what we will accept as “legitimate” and “reasonable”. and now that I think about it “morally acceptable”.

(I cut the actual words of CCC leaving the paragraph # s so I could keep your comments. Your post are so long - one of my faults also.)

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m always amazed at how some people can blythely shunt aside other peoples’ civil rights – and squeal like stuck hogs when some right they value is also shunted aside.

I claim no rights, I’m a child of God, who deserves nothing – But I have hope in my salvation through Christ Our Lord - what rights am I’m squealing for? I attempt to look out for others and serve others, much of the time I do a poor job at it, so I don’t understand your comment/

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have presented this before and most of it I agree with, where we don’t see eye to eye at is simply one word or maybe two, The definition of “legitimate” and “reasonable”. Or what we will accept as “legitimate” and “reasonable”. and now that I think about it “morally acceptable”.

“Reasonable” and “legitimate” and “morally acceptable” should all be backed by facts.

The facts are that “shall issue” laws are strongly associated with reduced violent crime.

 

[Bennie_P]

“Reasonable” and “legitimate” and “morally acceptable” should all be backed by facts.

The facts are that “shall issue” laws are strongly associated with reduced violent crime.

Right and I disagree with you on the facts you present.

 

[melensdad]

You have presented this before and most of it I agree with, where we don’t see eye to eye at is simply one word or maybe two, The definition of “legitimate” and “reasonable”. Or what we will accept as “legitimate” and “reasonable”. and now that I think about it “morally acceptable”.

Unfortunately with a complex topic posts are necessarily long and still are incomplete. The is reason to question the definitions of “legitimate” and “reasonable”, etc. But as you go through the Catechism the answers are pretty clear. That is why I gave references to several parts of the Catechism. Still I was limited by space and not able to provide full documentation. As you read your copy, you will find plenty of references to the authority and responsibility of the parents, government, etc. and it will show you that I have not taken these words out of context.
"BennieP in response to Brendan:

Well by your reasoning also, we as a Nation rebelled against God when we rebelled against England which had the “God Given” authoriity over us?

Again, please refer to the Catechism. In fact I have clearly shown you one passage that proves your logic to be false, in both CCC 1902 and 1907.
BennieP:

I claim no rights, I’m a child of God, who deserves nothing

God has given you human rights that are just and moral. For a government to attempt to take those away from you is immoral as shown in CCC 1903.

Right and I disagree with you on the facts you present.

Please show some credible evidence where shall issue laws have increased crime/violence? Even the Brady Campaign cannot do that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Right and I disagree with you on the facts you present.

Feel free to present any facts you have that show violent crime goes up when shall issue laws are passed, or that cities and states with “gun control” are less violent than those without it.

 

[Bennie_P]

**Here are some facts

**
Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence**

• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624
(39%) of those were murdered;
16,750 (57%) were suicides;
649 (2.2%) were accidents;
and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. In comparison,
33,651 Americans were
killed in the Korean War
and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.

• For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more than two non-fatal firearm injuries.
• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73
people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States.
• In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in
the United States.

May I ask you what is the diffirence between the US stats as compared to the other countries stats? Why such a wide gap?**

 

[melensdad]

Here are some facts

You may want to look at statistics WITHIN the United States. Comparing the US to foreign nations is fruitless because of social, cultural, economic and governmental differences.

Notice how your numbers use absolute numbers, it is especially interesting because they do NOT factor in crime per 100,000 people, rates per 100,000 people, murders per 100,000 people or any other of the scientifically accepted principles. When numbers like yours are quoted they are given for shock value and have no comparison of total population numbers. A nation with 280,000,000 citizens and a lot of guns would logically have more incidents than a nation with only 50,000,000 citizens.

Please provide some statistically significant studies.

One interesting point to your “facts” was that they omit the use of firearms when the person using the firearm in DEFENSE does not actually fire the weapon. In fact there have been university studies that show that firearms are used over 1,000,000 per year in defense without any bullet being fired and where the defender stops the attack by simply showing the weapons.

Those states that allow for concealed carry see crime/violent assaults decrease in before/after studies.

When several states enacted concealed carry laws it actually had an impact on the national crime rates to such a high degree that for a couple years the national numbers of crime/violence actually decreased

National trends show violence back on the upswing but the states recently enacting concealed carry laws tend to show lower rates of increase.

 

[Bennie_P]

You may want to look at statistics WITHIN the United States. Comparing the US to foreign nations is fruitless because of social, cultural, economic and governmental differences.

Those states that allow for concealed carry see crime/violent assaults decrease in before/after studies.

When several states enacted concealed carry laws it actually had an impact on the national crime rates to such a high degree that for a couple years the national numbers of crime/violence actually decreased

National trends show violence back on the upswing but the states recently enacting concealed carry laws tend to show lower rates of increase.

Where have I said I opposed the carrying of conceled weapons? By those properly trained and licensed with registered guns?

But still 29,569 people died in 2004 from guns?

What are we going to do about it? You know the stats show that we are not doing a good job preventing death by guns in our country, if those that enjoy thier gun ownership rights don’t start trying to figure out how to bring those deaths drastically down, either by compromising, accepting some inconvience, or comming up with laws that work themselves instead of drawing a line in the sand then the day will come when the 2nd amendment will become history. Though many think the 2nd amendment is a “God given right”, God allowed men to write that into the constitution and he can allow men to take it out. :yup:
Food for thought.

 

[melensdad]

Where have I said I opposed the carrying of conceled weapons? By those properly trained and licensed with registered guns?

You have not but you set up barriers that make it impossible for me to comply with your requirements. Most states do not even require “handgun registration” so by your criteria I am unqualified. Still, I have probably fired more handgun ammunition than many soldiers in our armed forces. I know I am a better shot than many police officers.

 

[Bennie_P]

You have not but you set up barriers that make it impossible for me to comply with your requirements. Most states do not even require “handgun registration” so by your criteria I am unqualified. Still, I have probably fired more handgun ammunition than many soldiers in our armed forces. I know I am a better shot than many police officers.

35 out of 50 states do, so I believe that is most states do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me point out some quirks in the statistics:

16,750 (57%) were suicides;

Guns don’t cause suicide. People have been committing suicide since the dawn of recorded history. And some no-guns-allowed countries have a higher suicide rate than the US.

Why are suicides included? As make-weight, of course – to make the figures larger and more shocking.

649 (2.2%) were accidents

Accidental deaths by firearms are so infrequent that they would not be a separate category in national statistics if it weren’t for politics – and the accident rate is falling.

11,624 (39%) of those were murdered;

That 11,624 is the critical figure – you can forget the rest. And it’s an honest figure – one thing we Americans can say is our government doesn’t play footsie with statistical data, something that can’t be said for many nations to whom we are compared.

Now, where are these crimes committed? By far the majority of them are committed in cities and states with “strict gun control.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I claim no rights, I’m a child of God, who deserves nothing – But I have hope in my salvation through Christ Our Lord - what rights am I’m squealing for? I attempt to look out for others and serve others, much of the time I do a poor job at it, so I don’t understand your comment/

So you’re cool with abortion and the death penalty, then, since there is no right to life?

You will accept as dogma anything the government-sanctioned religion demands, because there is no right to freedom of religion?

You would not complain if all the illegal immigrants were rounded up and executed?

You wouldn’t object to trials in camera, with no defense council?

 

[Bennie_P]

So you’re cool with abortion and the death penalty, then, since there is no right to life?

You will accept as dogma anything the government-sanctioned religion demands, because there is no right to freedom of religion?

You would not complain if all the illegal immigrants were rounded up and executed?

You wouldn’t object to trials in camera, with no defense council?

Your selective on what you read? Those are rights for others, that I will defend. Those are not rights I claim for myself, but I claim them for others. Your not understanding me, are you? Please quit trying to turn me into a liberal, I’m a Catholic, pro-life 100 %.
The Dogma I accept is the Dogma of the Church, it is you that keeps refering to the state bible, AKA the Constitution.
I’m a papist - I look to Christ through Rome…

Your using distraction, from the issue of the thread.