vitrol? twisting? accusations that you are mad? I’m not seeing examples of any of that being directed at you, so I’m wondering if you are makign that accusation to try to excuse the deliberate “hit and run” posting you have announced as your intent, and that is usually taken as intentionally disruptive (and therefore impolite) behavior.
No just your understanding of it is twisted.
I think that a man who had experience with a handgun from his youth and used it in a responsible manner in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church to protect himself and others is a good patron for our youth today. If only more parents took the time to introduce their children to firearms, the world would be a better place.
I don’t see how I am wrong …
Since your statement conflict with official church teaching and you are misleading people with them, that makes you doubly wrong!!
I don’t believe that is officially the case but I may be mistaken.
I think it would be a good idea. We have patron saints for many things and if it were not for his ability with a handgun which came from many years of experience with it, at least one woman would have been raped and who knows how many other villagers would have been terrorized in a similar or worse fashion.
Good for them.
You already asked this question and I have replied that I do not know.
Yes he did. He took the time BEFORE HAND to become a good shot with a firearm – not fearing that it was something evil but merely a tool which could be used EITHER for good or evil and because he was prepared, he was able to use it for much good.
That’s interesting to know because I picked one up at our parish fair about a month ago and even had my pastor bless it. He didn’t have any problem in doing so. Of course, he’s been know to carry a gun himself even when saying mass.
I haven’t made such claim since 2004 & 2005 when it was pointed out to me that he was not official recognized a saint for his markmanship and during those two years, I mentioned it only a handful of times – I went back to check via the ‘search’ feature. You make it sound like I have done it recently and do it regularly. How misleading!!!
“Living by the sword” means that, if you use your weapon for aggression, then aggression will be used against you. Self defense is quite another thing altogether, as is shooting for sport or hunting. I do not own a gun, but I fully support the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.
Sir Knight,
**
**I think that is blatently obvious my friend!
I don’t Sir Knight, but I do understand it!
Errr…No they don’t!
He is an American though right?
Please accept my appology. I do feel that utilising the picture of the medal combined with your attitude on the subject can only lead to one conclusion though. Tell me, why do you think the Vatican hasn’t recognised St. Gabriel as the patron of handguns? Do you think it could be because that wouldn’t be appropriate? Eh? Huh? Just possibly maybe???
How can you tell someone that they have a GRAVE duty to do something and then deny them the best means (in MOST cases) by which to perform that duty? A GRAVE duty has to be performed by the BEST means possible – otherwise it can not be considered a GRAVE duty.******The Church doesn’t teach against the regulation of arms, just the opposite. No matter how grave our duty to defend ouselves and others, doesn’t make your stand in opposition to any and all gun control official Church teaching, nor those that promote gun control as going against the teachings of the Church.
What amazes me is the way you guys hang onto this one word or pne paragraph in the Catechism like it excuses whatever you want. It like a Protestant arguing about salvation-- you have to take these passages as part of the overall faith-- the Catechism itself says it:
No, it’s not. The Son of God commanded us to buy a weapon if we did not have one even if we had to sell out outer garment in order to do it showing that being well armed is more important than being well clothed and/or giving to the poor. The Church teaches that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others.
You don’t? Are you saying that you are pro-gun?
How do they agree?
He is a Monsignor in the Roman Catholic Church. Many (in AND out of the parish) say that he is not far from being made a bishop.
Which is what?
I’m not about to second guess what our church leaders do and don’t do. However, what is clear is that St. Gabriel DID use a FIREARM to save others. His ability to shoot a running lizard came from many years of practise with a gun and the church did not hold this against him.
Now you are grasping at straws. It isn’t one word or one paragraph but three! Other principles of faith are made in just ONE paragraph and are expected to be believed by the faithful. Here we have three and you still argue against it.
… According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in the 1950’s, children routinely played cops and robbers, had toy guns, were given BB rifles and small caliber hunting rifles before puberty. Yet the homicide rate in the 1950’s was less than half of that in the 1990’s.
Your exegesis is incorrect. Check any bible with notes…But we’ve done that before haven’t we? You said that the Bishops and the Vatican had it wrong and you had it right if I remember correctly
Yeah but not by shooting people!
I completely agree with those positions. You completely agree with them by shooting people until they are dead or incapacitated I don’t.
No you’re being silly! You know I am not! :tsktsk:
I have never said that we don’t have a responsibility to protect the innocent. That’s what you want me to say, but I haven’t said it. I think a lot of what you say makes sense, but I don’t agree with guns and I don’t think it’s Catholic because they are a deadly weapon.
Sorry I’m all out of medals
The glorification of fire arm and the position that the Church supports the use of firearms-- which it CLEARLY doesn’t. Sorry, but it just doesn’t. That’s why the Vatican wont EVER accept Saint Gabriel as a patron saint of guns. It is incongruous with the faith!!!
OK he did shoot a gun at a lizard and it scared off some nasty people. I think he’s a great Saint and used his head to save others- nothing else! That’s twisty! Saint of guns-- honestly!! Good grief!!!
I’m not Sir Knight I agree with what it says in synthesis (qv) with the rest of my faith- a faith that teaches us to love, to do all things with charity, to forgive and to love God and my neighbour!
What was the population in the 1950’s compared to the 1990’s??? This is possible the weakest statistic I have ever seen presented as evidence for anything ever.
The best means could be to melt all the firearms in world down and make bells out them - but that is an opinion, and that is all your idea that the best means is for every one to be armed, an opinion, and that opinion is based on Church teaching
, not really:shrug:Ok, let us go back to only the production of guns that were available in 1955. Including the type of hunting rifles, shot guns and handguns that were available then and only allow the same per- capita citizen to gun ownership as in 1955, I could live with that, could you?
Amen, brother!! It is precisely the case, that the perversion of the Constitution is the source of all manner of problems. One of which, is that criminals need not fear the Armed Citizen, because our right to keep & bear arms has been eroded by gun control lawsthat leave us all liable to attack by those who have no ethics to hold them back.
How about if you go back there, to your 6 countries, & count up the actual number of violent & unlawful deaths. The total, my friend, not just the deaths by firearms. Count the deaths by stabbing, by blunt instrument, & by that darling of the gunless British: poison.Does Ohio have carry laws?
299 in six countries vs the state of Ohio with 340?
Now what is that you want me to admit?
Excuse me, but I cannot let this pass: What the
***devil ***does this have to do with the subject at hand??? Are you arguing that abortions are being performed by ***shooting ***unborn babies??? this makes absolutely ***no ***sense at all??? Unless you are prepared to argue that there is some bizarre connection between gun ownership & abortions, may I suggest that this piece of the discussion cease??
extreme bad taste!!!??? Pointing out the parts of an argument clearly based on circular reasoning and prejudice is neither vitrolic, accusatory, or twisting. Based on how this thread has already repeatedly pointed out the fallacies present in your opening statement, I was thinking you were being sarcastic when you first posted that, now I’m having trouble you expect to be taken seriously just regurgitating the talking points while pointedly ignoring the issues that have already been raised about those same statements. It is very telling that you have chosen to again ignore the already broached problems with the reasoning you tossed out initially.