Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[melensdad]

First may I apologise and ask your forgiveness for misunderstanding the point of the thread

No need for that. I simply wanted to point out the point of the thread.

My point is that the Catholic Church must endorce the legitimate use of arms by the State else their own Swiss Guards . . . But of civilian use, He said ‘those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword!’. The CC has no choice but to follow and prosecute His teachings.

I’m sorry but this is now getting to repetitive with the “Live by~Die by” argument. That argument has been debunked several times in this thread.

People who are criminals and use guns as offensive weapons are living by the sword.

My daughter, who owns a gun, is clearly not living by the sword.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/melensdad/Tractor Pictures/1-mel-target.jpg
I also own guns, I don’t parade around town packing heat and looking for bad guys. To even imply that someone like me “lives by the sword” is actually pretty insulting (but I realize that is not your intent).

However, when looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to imply that self-defense is “living by the sword” would be in direct contradiction with Church teaching. It is also in direct contradiction of the Pro-Life movement.

Here is exactly what the Catechism says. You will notice that it clearly links self defense and right to life.

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:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
​

Please notice that I am NOT making an argument that the CCC is saying grab a gun and blow someone away. I am simply showing that there is a LEGITIMATE use for self defense, it is clearly a Pro-Life position. HOW you choose to defend yourself is your choice.

Personally I hope I never have to defend myself or my family. To suggest that people who are PREPARED for the worst, but desire not to have to use their preparation are ‘living by the sword’ really is wrong and insulting.

 

[RobDH]

First, let me say that I respect the positions stated by everyone throughout this thread. That being said, and in light of all discussion in this thread (yes, I have read each and every post, and followed each and every link)…

I respectfully disagree with the opinion that the Church’s teaching on self-defense excludes the use of deadly force by any means, including firearms.

I respectfully disagree with the opinion that self-defense, including the use of deadly force by any means, including firearms, is against teachings in the Bible.

I respectfully disagree with the opinion that there is any need for new laws concerning firearms regulation.

In particular, I respectfully disagree that there is any need for an “across-the-board” registration of any and all firearms, and more specifically, handguns.

In keeping with the above…

I agree that there is may be some need for reform, and perhaps even a certain amount of “standardization”, in the area of firearms regulation, as long as such reform allows any lawfully qualified person to purchase a firearm in a reasonable amount of time. I make this statement with the assumption that all jurisdictions or states will comply with the congressionally authorized computerized “instant” check system—not all currently do comply. By a “reasonable amount of time”, I mean that a purchase may be made as soon as the “instant” check is completed and shows that the person in question is, indeed, lawfully qualified and therefore without the need for any set time period.

I agree that there is a need for “standardization” of laws governing the identification, qualification, training, and licensing in the issuance of concealed weapons carry permits, so that when one is properly identified, qualified, trained, and licensed in one jurisdiction or state, they are then properly identified, qualified, trained, and licensed in all jurisdictions or states.

I believe that this succinctly addresses the original question of this thread.

 

[Bennie_P]

“
We must reflect on two passages in particular for understanding. First, Luke 22:38, wherein Jesus remarks of the two swords “It is enough!”

I propose that His intention was multiple. First, that the blades would be sufficient to deter the natural threat of entering into a public garden in the midst of the night. And second, and more importantly to be prepared to defend oneself with truth.

This interptetation goes against anything and everything I’m yet to come across. May I see the source for this great theologeon with such brilliant bible **esegesis and clarity? Jesus intention was to make the disciples to understand that they didn’t understand - that the danger they need to prepare for was one that a sword could not take care of, but they must be prepared to die for the truth as he was preapared to die for our salvation. **

Jesus talking to Peter after he arose from the dead.
John 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. John 21:19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

Did Peter not follow the CCC as you and others have indicatied is the proper interpretation as presented in this thread and die in grave sin?
Or did Peter finally get the message?Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword*.* Matt 26:52

I

 

[Man]

This interptetation goes against anything and everything I’m yet to come across. May I see the source for this great theologeon with such brilliant bible **esegesis and clarity? Jesus intention was to make the disciples to understand that they didn’t understand - that the danger they need to prepare for was one that a sword could not take care of, but they must be prepared to die for the truth as he was preapared to die for our salvation. **

Jesus talking to Peter after he arose from the dead.
John 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. John 21:19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

Did Peter not follow the CCC as you and others have indicatied is the proper interpretation as presented in this thread and die in grave sin?
Or did Peter finaly get the message?Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword*.* Matt 26:52

Your answer is the title of the “deposit.”

 

[Bennie_P]

Your answer is the title of the “deposit.”

“deposit” ? Where is that found at?

 

[melensdad]

This interptetation goes against anything and everything I’m yet to come across.

I also am not convinced in that interpretation.

But nor does it mean you are interpreting things correctly.

There is a very clear difference between OFFENSE and DEFENSE and the Catechism is clear on that point. The Bible passage you cite clearly is referring to OFFENSIVE use of a sword by someone. To take up any arm offensively would be to go on the attack. That would certainly be wrong (perhaps except under the Just War clauses) but to defend your life is clearly required. When Jesus was giving instructions to Peter, He was not telling Peter not to defend himself, He was telling Peter not to use his weapon offensively.

 

[Bennie_P]

I also am not convinced in that interpretation.

But nor does it mean you are interpreting things correctly.

There is a very clear difference between OFFENSE and DEFENSE and the Catechism is clear on that point. The Bible passage you cite clearly is referring to OFFENSIVE use of a sword by someone. To take up any arm offensively would be to go on the attack. That would certainly be wrong (perhaps except under the Just War clauses) but to defend your life is clearly required. When Jesus was giving instructions to Peter, He was not telling Peter not to defend himself, He was telling Peter not to use his weapon offensively.

Once again I belive your splitting hairs here, let us revisit the CCC;

---

2262

** In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. **Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.**63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

---

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

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: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

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
**Though it may be a right, the gravity you keep pointing out, it seems to be only a justified statement, that it is a grave matter) if at the time you are being attack you are responsible for someone’s else’s safety the moment of the attack, such as being attacked with your family or other innocents being present or say you are a police officer, or other such authority responsible the publics safety. Nor do I objected to the idea of the responsibility one may have to defend yourself or others, but I do object to the intent you may be have by indicating it is grave sin not to defend yourself, which in para. 2262 indicates it a virtue and a commandment to turn the other check and not use a weapon. Furthermore, you inferring that the teaching concerning self-defence is a defence against gun-control as if it would be a grave matter or even sinful to regulate the ownerhip of firearms, when once again in para 2262 it clearly shows it to a virtual and Christlike to turn the other cheek. When Peter had drawn his sword in the garden his intent was defense, not offense. I coincide it may not be sinful to own guns(as long as you do not make them an idol, or intend to have them for criminal purposes), but it is definitely not sinful to call for thier regulation or restriction. I understand how you can see gun ownership in light of a pro-life position, but a position which calls for thier regulation cannot be vilified as as being an anti-pro-life position and proper respect should be given to those that promote gun-control, scripture and the CCC stands behind that position also.

 

[mkarzon]

Hmmm…

This is a topic near and dear to my heart.

I love the Catholic Church. I love guns, although not as much as the Church by any stretch of the imagination.

My position on guns stems primarily from one historical piece of information. I didn’t read this entire thread, so if other(s) have mentioned this, my apologies for being redundant:

In the 1930’s, Adolph Hitler issued a decree in Germany forbidding Jews from owning firearms. Look what happened next.

 

[melensdad]

In the 1930’s, Adolph Hitler issued a decree in Germany forbidding Jews from owning firearms. Look what happened next.

Well prior to that, in the Colony of Maryland in the 1700 it was declared illegal for Catholics to own firearms.

And in 2007*** (yes, this very year) ***the Brady Campaign filed a “friend of the court” brief in Washington DC to refute the handgun ban that was declared unconstitutional and they cited the Catholic Handgun Ban of the 1700’s in Maryland as proof that we have a valid history of banning weapons

Bennie P . . . respectfully, I believe you are the one who is splitting hairs with the way you cite the CCC. 2263, 2264 and 2265 all affirm the right to life and self defense. Those 3 sections are in the Sub-Chapter titled LEGITIMATE DEFENSE.

You also cited 2262, which is in the Sub-Chapter THE WITNESS OF SACRED HISTORY and both are within Section 1, RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. But the 2 sub-chapters are clearly aimed at very different things. The first sub-chapter concentrates on UNJUST AGGRESSION directed toward the innocent, the second sub-chapter concentrates on right and duty of SELF DEFENSE. If you’d keep reading past these two sub-chapters you’d get to the section on INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.

But if you would have looked up another paragraph, one above the one you quoted, you’d see:2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
Looked at within the context of the Sub-Chapters, it is very clear that 2259, 2260, 2261 and the paragraph you quoted, 2262 are directed at the murder of people who are innocent, righteous and just.

The paragraphs following are under the LEGITIMATE DEFENSE Sub-Chapter (paragraphs 2263, 2264, 2265 . . .) all refer to the innocent and just being allowed to defend themselves from criminal aggression.

Skipping ahead, into the section on INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE you’ll see this:2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of *indirectly *bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Clearly we not only have to defend ourselves, we also have to defend others.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Actually by thier vows priests, I believe, are not allowed to take up arms, for they represent Christ for us here on earth.

That would be incorrect. Our pastor regularily carries a gun even while saying mass. Says he has a DUTY to defend the congregation in the event that somebody comes in and tries to hard someone.

The local bishop is aware of this and doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Man]

That would be incorrect. Our pastor regularily carries a gun even while saying mass. Says he has a DUTY to defend the congregation in the event that somebody comes in and tries to hard someone.

The local bishop is aware of this and doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.

In this case, he feels that the prudent action is to carry a weapon for the defense of others. This would be especially true in the case of gatherings of people, even the faithful, when children are present.

From reason, one of the primary purposes of the priesthood is the defense of the family and the faithful. Many priests have no problem passing on into the next life, but are concerned for those who haven’t yet been formed properly.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This interptetation goes against anything and everything I’m yet to come across. May I see the source for this great theologeon with such brilliant bible **esegesis and clarity? Jesus intention was to make the disciples to understand that they didn’t understand - that the danger they need to prepare for was one that a sword could not take care of, but they must be prepared to die for the truth as he was preapared to die for our salvation. **

Jesus talking to Peter after he arose from the dead.
John 21:18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. John 21:19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

Did Peter not follow the CCC as you and others have indicatied is the proper interpretation as presented in this thread and die in grave sin?
Or did Peter finally get the message?Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword*.* Matt 26:52

I

The problem with your arguement is that the bible also tells us that Jesus EXPLAINED everything to the apostles when when they misunderstood or didn’t understand and that explaination is always provided in the scripture passage. No such explanation is offered in this passage indicating that the apostles understood correctly and Jesus was indeed instructing them to purchase actual swords.

 

[whatevergirl]

I will tell you that I am looking forward to buying a handgun and getting my concealed weapons permit on my twenty first birthday. Approximately 700,000 women are raped each year and 200,000 women avoid sexual abuse with the use of a gun. I would rather be one of the 200,000 than the 700,000. We have the right to self-defense. We are not supposed to be pacifists!!! Not everyone needs to carry a gun, but if more citizens did less crime would happen!!! 2,000,000 crimes are stopped each year in the US by the use of a gun. In surveys criminals say they are more afraid of armed citizens than the police. just some thoughts!!!

I will tell you two stories…of polar opposites to the whole should/should not have gun debate.

First…in Orlando, very recently, a woman came out of the mall, and while she was placing her shopping bags in her trunk, a man came from behind and forced her into the trunk, and grabbed her keys. Slamming the door shut, he jumped into the front seat, started the car…and drove off. The woman inside the trunk, straddled the back of the trunk, and when the car stopped…the man flung the trunk open, and the woman had a concealed weapon (licensed), had it positioned before the trunk opened, and shot the guy, dead. She got out of the car, to find herself in an orange grove.

Second story…man was driving on i-4 coming back from the Daytona 500 back in February. He swerved to get out of someone suddenly braking (nothing new) in front of him, and ended up on the shoulder of the road. He didn’t realize that a Ford Exlporer was barreling up behind him, and it had to swerve to miss him. Drove around him, and stopped, and then came out a man yelling obscentities at the guy. (both cars on the shoulder, stopped at this point) Two other guys get out of the Explorer, and the initial guy (the driver) says to one…‘get the gun.’ They shot the guy who ‘cut them off,’ (meanwhile they were driving to beat the traffic in a shoulder) leaving behind, his wife and three little kids.

Two situations where carrying guns can be seen as evil…other scenario, can be seen as saving the day. I dunno…I can just see the second story happening more and more, if people can legally carry concealed weapons.

 

[Man]

“deposit” ? Where is that found at?

I apologize for the answers length. A couple snips, you should get the point.

The deposit of tradition.

“Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man’s salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy.”

“To this identity of revealed truth corresponds the identity of faith. What the first Christians believed we still believe; what we believe today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of Revelation has remained the same, the same also, in substance, has remained the taking possession of the deposit by the living faith. Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith. Certain truths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in the Church either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, enveloped, as regards their precise detail, in a more general truth where faith did not discern them at the first glance. In the first case at a given time uncertainties may have existed, controversies have arisen, heresies cropped up. But the mind of the Church, the Catholic sense, has not hesitated as to what was essential, there has never been in the Christian world that darkening of the truth with which heretics have reproached it; these might have seen and they who had eyes to see did see. On these points disputes have never arisen among the faithful; there have sometimes been very sharp disputes, but they had to do with misunderstandings or bore only on details of expression.”

from newadvent.org

 

[Sir_Knight]

Once again I belive your splitting hairs here, let us revisit the CCC;

Though it may be a right, the gravity you keep pointing out, it seems to be only a justified statement, that it is a grave matter) if at the time you are being attack you are responsible for someone’s else’s safety the moment of the attack, such as being attacked with your family or other innocents being present or say you are a police officer, or other such authority responsible the publics safety.

The CCC also says that we are obligated to take greater care of our own life than that of another. Thus, if we have a grave duty to protect someone else’s life then we have an even GREATER duty to protect our own life.

Nor do I objected to the idea of the responsibility one may have to defend yourself or others, but I do object to the intent you may be have by indicating it is grave sin not to defend yourself,

Nobody is saying that it is a grave SIN not to defend oneself but that one has a great DUTY to do so. Whether failing to live up to a grave duty is a sin or not is another discussion.

which in para. 2262 indicates it a virtue and a commandment to turn the other check and not use a weapon.

2262 says NOTHING about not using a weapon to defend oneself. And if you read a little further into 2263, 2264, etc.; it tells us that we ARE to defend ourselves.

Furthermore, you inferring that the teaching concerning self-defence is a defence against gun-control as if it would be a grave matter or even sinful to regulate the ownerhip of firearms, when once again in para 2262 it clearly shows it to a virtual and Christlike to turn the other cheek.

And 2263 & 2264 says that we have FAILED to live up to our grave responsibility if we allow death or serious injury to come to us.

When Peter had drawn his sword in the garden his intent was defense, not offense. I coincide it may not be sinful to own guns(as long as you do not make them an idol, or intend to have them for criminal purposes), but it is definitely not sinful to call for thier regulation or restriction. I understand how you can see gun ownership in light of a pro-life position, but a position which calls for thier regulation cannot be vilified as as being an anti-pro-life position and proper respect should be given to those that promote gun-control, scripture and the CCC stands behind that position also.

let’s call it what it really is … “Victim disarmament”. The police can not, in an overwhelming majority of cases, can not be present BEFORE a crime takes place. Thus, leaving a victim to suffer the consequences – ALONE!

And I believe that is IS sinful to render potential crime victims powerless to protect themselves and make them solely dependent on the police who, in an overwhelming majority of cases, can not be present BEFORE a crime takes place.

 

[Man]

…

‘get the gun.’ They shot the guy who ‘cut them off,’ (meanwhile they were driving to beat the traffic in a shoulder) leaving behind, his wife and three little kids.

…

General consensus is that those who carry weapons should need to be trained in proper use and be licensed to do so.

When the right to arms was written, most people had weapons for hunting. Obviously they doubled as personal protection.

The problem is that increased armament leads to increased violence, nonetheless, situations arise in which a person is almost obligated to be armed.

The problem with being armed, and several states carry concealed laws reflect this, is that you accept a responsibility to use the weapon if it becomes necessary. Not as a first option, though, there are way that can tell if it would be considered a just homicide.

Most people don’t understand any of this anymore. Weapons are no longer a part of day to day life.

The problem is, that to disarm, it needs to be done in a general way. Most people accept that there is no getting away from hunting rifles. So, it seems everyone has a right to a hunting rifle if they meet certain unbiased criteria.

Rifles are superior weapons too. The handgun is inferior to a rifle in most ways, save, in particular for its conceal ability.

This being the case, and realizing that the churches position is that we are to seek a time when weapons are beaten into tools, it would, perhaps be most prudent for Catholics to stick with rifles, unless they have reason to use something else (carry concealed, sport handgun, etc).

:hypno: that is a ton of reasoning to get through this to Catholic application

 

[Bennie_P]

The problem with your arguement is that the bible also tells us that Jesus EXPLAINED everything to the apostles when when they misunderstood or didn’t understand and that explaination is always provided in the scripture passage. No such explanation is offered in this passage indicating that the apostles understood correctly and Jesus was indeed instructing them to purchase actual swords.

I disagree and many bible scholars will too,

From one of earlier post.

Luke 22:38** But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords**. (We will protect you against the armies of Rome with this two swords, :knight2:we don’t just have one but two:bounce
And he said to them: It is enough!doh2:you still don’t get it, :shrug:three years with me and you still don’t get it. :banghead: )
note* My comments added.

I have done a lot reading and research over this verse over that last week and every commentator I have read concerning this verse, indicates that Jesus was rebuking the disciples on this issue that they needed swords for what was about to come, the statement, ‘it is enough’, is like the way we say today “that is enough of this foolishness” and some refer to Deut. 3:26 for example
And the Lord was angry with me on your account and heard me not, but said to me:*** It is enough: speak no more to me of this matter. ***Deut. 3:26

From NAB, School and Church Edition, Fireside Bible Publishers.2005 2006 Edition
*22, 38 It is enough! the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility.

The New Oxford Annotated Bilbe w/ The Apocrypha RSV Oxford Press 1977
*22:36: The Sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one’s own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of v. 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, i.e. were not to be used at all.

The Orthodox Study Bible NT and Psalms. NKJV Nelson, St Athanasius Orthodox Academy. 1993
*22:36 In view of the coming death of Christ and the persecutions against the disciples, Jesus instructs them to be ready for anything. The sword suggest resistence against the evil one (Eph.6:17) And take unto you the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God).
*2238 It is enough does not signify approval (vv49 -51) the expression, according to most interpreters, is either ironic – two swords hardly suffice as a means of defense – or an abrupt censure by Jesus, meaning, “Enough of this!” (see Deut. 3:26)

 

[melensdad]

Bennie, I tend to agree with your interpretation of “That is Enough.”

However, I tend to disagree with pretty much everything else you write regarding self defense and how you interpret self defense and do not differentiate it from murder, which I believe you do very selectively and out of context. You seem to focus on parts of things rather than the whole, as is exemplified in your reading of the CCC and how you posted it previously.

 

[Bennie_P]

I apologize for the answers length. A couple snips, you should get the point.

Next time put a link to the page, it will would be easier to reference and read, but I still don’t get the point your trying get across in light of the discussion.

As to the deposit of faith I think people are splitting hairs all over the place trying to justify opposition to gun control - for as I posted earlier that I coincide it is not sinful to own guns, as long as you do not make them an idol, or intend to have them for criminal purposes, but also, it is definitely not sinful to call for thier regulation or restriction. I understand how you can see gun ownership in light of a pro-life position, but a position which calls for thier regulation cannot be vilified as as being an anti-pro-life position and proper respect should be given to those that promote gun-control, scripture and the CCC stands behind that position also.

I add, it is intellectually dishonest to say the Church opposes gun control, dispite its stand on self-defense. As much as it would be dishonest of me to say what form of gun control the Church approves of, or promotes.

 

[Bennie_P]

Bennie, I tend to agree with your interpretation of “That is Enough.”

However, I tend to disagree with pretty much everything else you write regarding self defense and how you interpret self defense and do not differentiate it from murder, which I believe you do very selectively and out of context. You seem to focus on parts of things rather than the whole, as is exemplified in your reading of the CCC and how you posted it previously.

That is how I think you see and do things also, not look at it in the whole, but only in selective context to win the discussion concerning the stand you make. As to self defense I took the extreme opposite of your position, in order to to bring you into a possible understanding of what I posted above. I just do not believe using the obligation of self-defense is a good defense to oppose gun-control.