Gun Control

[ddarko]

When it comes to “dishonesty” or “intellectual impediment”, you need not look any further than your own posts. When I pointed out that St. Gabriel Possenti’s use of a firearm to defend his village did not disqualify him from being made a saint, you twisted my comments around and argued that he was not made a saint for using a gun – when I never said that in the first place.

Aah the sadness. Some would even go to the lengths of twisting the sainthood to justify ones life style.

St. Possenti was indeed not made a saint for his gun skills. So unless the above poster has a point to make by “St. Possenti used a gun”, I do not see it. St. Peter denied Christ three times, does that mean we should do it?

St. Possenti changed his life and entered the Passionists. So just like we try to imitate St. Peter after the conversion, I advice the above poster to do the same with respect to St. Possenti.

The above posters arguments are equal to saying it must be moral to deny Christ three times too because st. Peter did it.

As for the bit about St. Cyril, I believe my reply was clearer as it can get. St. Cyril was addressing Jews specifically even if we take the passage to be literal. But even that literal interpretation is in doubt because of the anti-Semitic ideas in that sermon that the original poster failed to mention. One reads the church fathers in a way that agrees with rest Scripture. Documents that do not agree with Scripture simply have to be discarded as error due to private interpretations. Some people don’t seem to realize what qualifies as Tradition and what does not.

On the part about duty, I am starting to think I could argue whole day long and the person would not abandon his ways. When ones livelihood is on the line, things can seem hard to accept and I totally can understand it. I can only pray that one follows the truth eventually.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Documents that do not agree with Scripture simply have to be discarded as error due to private interpretations. Some people don’t seem to realize what qualifies as Tradition and what does not.

Jesus said that He was in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father and God turned His back on Saul when Saul refused to use the sword against an enemy. What does that tell you about your opinions that Jesus wants us to be pacifists?

 

[ddarko]

Jesus said that He was in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father and God turned His back on Saul when Saul refused to use the sword against an enemy. What does that tell you about your opinions that Jesus wants us to be pacifists?

My dear friends, pay attention to the bizarre line of argumentation by the above poster.

Saul was KING. What madness is it to compare the authority and DUTY of a king to every civilian of the United States?

Is there no end to which depths some would go to justify ones own lifestyle? Let us pray for them, so that they may change their hearts to embrace the truth.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Kings, soldiers, police officers, etc., can use guns to defend their lives but others can’t. Right. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

 

[ddarko]

Kings, soldiers, police officers, etc., can use guns to defend their lives but others can’t. Right. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Pope’s can speak infallibly ex-cathedra but other ordained or lay person cannot. Bishops can give the sacrament of confirmation while priests cannot. God created the world in a hierarchy whether one likes it or not. It pleases God for otherwise he would have condemned it.

Those who go after some misconceived view of equality are disordered.

So the above poster is indeed correct in his last part, “There are none so blind as those that refuse to see”

Let us pray that their minds be opened to understand God’s ways and be able to submit to them.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Care to explain how the scripture writers got that backwards since they tell us over and over again (Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:26-4:7, Cols 3:5-11, etc.) that we are all equal in the eyes of God? And what about CCC 1934?

 

[tommcguire]

No question fear motivates human beings, so the need to use violence to defend self and others. The real defense against evil is not guns or any other instrument used to harm or kill. St Paul says the defense against evil does require a sword, not a metal one, but “…take the helmet of salvation and the word of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

It would be better if the discuss was about how to spread the good news of salvation rather than finding ways to justify the dependence on violence as a way to deal with fear.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has NO place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. **Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

**I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to
take a butt whoopin’.

 

[chain]

The US was founded on the premise of Sovereign Citizenship. We fought for our Independence on the basis of God given inalienable rights. The first and foremost being life.

Who has a legitimate right to self defense - everyone. We do not believe the right is reserved by the king - because we believe we are sovereign. Not only that, for those who do not have the ability to defend themselves it is up to the rest of society to defend them.

We could take this off into tangents - but it is important to remember the differences between murder and kill. Between vengeance and justice. The desire for vengeance IS one of the darker sides of our fall from grace. To this weakness I can only pray I will never be put to the ultimate test.

 

[ddarko]

Care to explain how the scripture writers got that backwards since they tell us over and over again (Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:26-4:7, Cols 3:5-11, etc.) that we are all equal in the eyes of God? And what about CCC 1934?

My dear friends, this is the length some go to mislead.

We are all equal, yes, but not in the authority we are given and what we are called to do. None of the above passages say that everyone is given equal authority and the same gifts. This is even a blatantly obvious fact that either due to dishonesty or intellectual impediment, some people cannot seem to admit.

A woman is different from a man. Are they equal? yes, but are they called to do the SAME thing? NO!!!

A bishop and a lay person are both equal, BUT they are not called or have AUTHORITY to do the same thing.

Similarly, Kings, soldiers and law enforcement have their authority which is not shared by others.

Let us pray that the holy spirit will enlighten those like the above poster to UNDERSTAND Scripture properly instead of using it IMPROPERLY for self-justification.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The US was founded on the premise of Sovereign Citizenship. We fought for our Independence on the basis of God given inalienable rights. The first and foremost being life.

Who has a legitimate right to self defense - everyone. We do not believe the right is reserved by the king - because we believe we are sovereign. Not only that, for those who do not have the ability to defend themselves it is up to the rest of society to defend them.

We could take this off into tangents - but it is important to remember the differences between murder and kill. Between vengeance and justice. The desire for vengeance IS one of the darker sides of our fall from grace. To this weakness I can only pray I will never be put to the ultimate test.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense. This is a classic example of attacking a straw man position.

The issue is on gun possession. There is no one-to-one equality between gun possession and self-defense. Ones personal defense may be carried out by calling the police, running away from danger to a million different ways. Gun possession can be used to attack a person, can act as a mental cue for violence, commit suicide, hunt a deer to a whole range of possibilities. So they do not entail the same things and are therefore NOT logically equivalent.

So it should be obvious that Gun Possession and Self-defense are not equal things.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Gun Possession and Self-defense are not equal things? A 110-pound young mother with a gun can defend herself and her child from a 300-pound attacker. The gun places her on equal footing with her attacker. Take the gun out of the equation and she will be at her attacker’s mercy. As I said above, Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has NO place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

 

[Sir_Knight]

My dear friends, this is the length some go to mislead.

We are all equal, yes, but not in the authority we are given and what we are called to do. None of the above passages say that everyone is given equal authority and the same gifts. This is even a blatantly obvious fact that either due to dishonesty or intellectual impediment, some people cannot seem to admit.

A woman is different from a man. Are they equal? yes, but are they called to do the SAME thing? NO!!!

A bishop and a lay person are both equal, BUT they are not called or have AUTHORITY to do the same thing.

Similarly, Kings, soldiers and law enforcement have their authority which is not shared by others.

Let us pray that the holy spirit will enlighten those like the above poster to UNDERSTAND Scripture properly instead of using it IMPROPERLY for self-justification.

God Bless

You continue to accuse anyone who disagrees with you as misleading and/or dishonesty when YOU are the one who continues to twist the truth.

Are you saying that a person’s right to life and their ability to defend themselves is determined by the authority that they hold? That a bishop has greater right to life than a lay person? That kings and soldiers and law enforcement have a greater right to life than others?

Supporting references please.

 

[tommcguire]

Oh how we miss the lessons Jesus Christ taught. “Love one another as I have loved you”.

This love never ever requires violence of any kind, and it does include “love your enemy.” In an attempt to put into practice the love of God I am motivated to do many things. As a sinner, I am persuaded often to act in a sinful way, which is not in love.

How many of you have been confronted by a gun carrying person? I have. A young teenager walked up to me one day put a gun in my back and demanded my money. There was no chance for me to use a gun even if I had one. I calmly talked to the individual, gave him my money. I did report the incident to the police because I want to prevent him from doing the same to another. I wish I could say that his capture would lead to a way of helping him not act in like manner again. But the prison system is not built for rehabilitation.

Last week my neighbor had his car fire bombed at 5 AM. What good was his gun? He was a sleep, when he came out the car was on fire and the perpetrator gone. It would have been better for him to work on reconciliation with his enemy rather than depend on his gun as a way to protect his property.

As Catholics we are called to a new way of life-- a life of grace and love. Our mission is to proclaim the good news of salvation. God have mercy on us.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Oh how we miss the lessons Jesus Christ taught. “Love one another as I have loved you”.

This love never ever requires violence of any kind, and it does include “love your enemy.” In an attempt to put into practice the love of God I am motivated to do many things. As a sinner, I am persuaded often to act in a sinful way, which is not in love.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church has errored in it’s teachings when it tells us that we have a right and even a duty to self-defense? Because if Church has errored in OFFICIAL Teachings, then Jesus’s promises to us regarding the Church being free of error is untrue and if even one of Christ’s statements are untrue, then we have no assurance that other statements might also be untrue or which ones – placing all of Christ’s teachings and promises into doubt.

How many of you have been confronted by a gun carrying person? I have. A young teenager walked up to me one day put a gun in my back and demanded my money.

Same thing happened to my father. When we reported it to the police, their reply was to get a gun.

There was no chance for me to use a gun even if I had one.

Just because one has a gun does not mean that one has to use it or that one will even have the opportunity to use it but it gives a person an additional option which would not exist if the person did not have the gun.

I calmly talked to the individual, gave him my money. I did report the incident to the police because I want to prevent him from doing the same to another. I wish I could say that his capture would lead to a way of helping him not act in like manner again. But the prison system is not built for rehabilitation.

Last week my neighbor had his car fire bombed at 5 AM. What good was his gun? He was a sleep, when he came out the car was on fire and the perpetrator gone. It would have been better for him to work on reconciliation with his enemy rather than depend on his gun as a way to protect his property.

Deadly force is not to be used to protect property. Deadly force it to be used only in defense of self or another innocent individual.

As Catholics we are called to a new way of life-- a life of grace and love. Our mission is to proclaim the good news of salvation. God have mercy on us.

As Catholics, we are called upon to oppose evil and protect the innocent. If your wife is being raped and your daughter is being molested by someone bigger and stronger than you, how are you going to fulfill your Catholic DUTY to oppose that evil and successfully defend them?

 

[Sir_Knight]

They already have my friend in most countries. Just go across the border from the United States to see how many Canadians care about carrying guns for self defense.

They couldn’t care less and they live happier lives.

In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. (SOURCE: “Targeting Guns” by Gary Kleck published by Aldine Transaction in 1997 on page 360.)

In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). (SOURCE: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.)

If they are “happy” about living in a more violent society where they and their loved ones can be killed or seriously injuried, then there is something wrong with them.

Most of the violent crimes involved actually happen when someone has a gun.

God Bless

Your opinion is wrong and ill-informed. As the above facts show, reduced guns actually results in MORE violent crime – not less. My dear friends, this is the length some go to mislead.

 

[Tigg]

To the gun control advocates on this thread, here’s some hopeful news for you. Of course, I’m certain you believe the threat to sovereign nations is only of minimal concern as we join hands with the most anti-life organization on the face of the earth.

washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/the-un-gun-grabber/

 

[Ender]

My dear friends, this is yet another example of how misleading an interpretation some people will go to.

Well, now. Whenever one engages in debate he should expect his position to be challenged, and I do. What I don’t expect and won’t accept are challenges to my integrity like this. It is ironic that such uncharitable judgments are so frequently made by those who see themselves as exemplars of Christian virtue, apparently believing that people as good as themselves are exempt from the prohibition against rash judgment and the obligations of simple charity.

However, the above, by St. Cyril is just a personal interpretation. If the above poster had been so honest enough to quote the rest of the sermon, one would see the anti-Semitic ideas in the sermon.

“Honest” enough to quote the entire sermon? In those few cases where you cite things do you cite the entire document? As for the claim that St. Cyril was anti-Semitic, I see this as extending to him the same discourtesy you’ve visited on me.

So no my dear friends, when in doubt, always turn to Scripture, Tradition or Church. Not some sermon by an individual.

Good suggestion: point us to where the Church has said that private ownership of a sword (or gun), or their use in self defense, is prohibited.

The poster above, by his dishonesty in avoiding the problematic parts of the sermon which would have reduced any credibility of that sermon it-self, clearly shows what lengths some of our “Catholic” brethren would go to justify ones own ideas.

It would be easy, and is certainly tempting, to reply to this smear in kind, but that wouldn’t be the Christian thing to do so I will limit myself to the use of logic, despite the obvious fact that such an approach has no chance at all of succeeding with you. For example, it might in fact be true that St. Cyril was anti-Semitic (note to everyone else: don’t assume this), but that has no bearing at all on whether his interpretation of that passage in Luke is correct. It is easier to believe a Father of the Church might not be very nice than to believe someone could become a Father of the Church if he misunderstood Scripture.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The second paragraph above speaks of right to self defense. No one is arguing against it. Right to self defense can co-exist with banning of guns.

The logic of this point is underwhelming: you assert that one has the right to defend himself, but not the right to possess the means to do so.

But the above posters, perhaps due to dishonesty or actual intellectual impediment would like to believe that the two are synonymous. But it is not the case and does not follow.

The point is not that they are the same but that the right to have something is meaningless without the means to obtain it. If you grant someone the right to vote but deny him access to his poling place you have in every meaningful sense denied his voting right.

Let us be clear what the Church teaches. It taught and will continue to teach that one when attacked may defend one-self and is morally right in doing so. BUT, it does not say that one should go about assuming someone is going to attack and therefore get armed to the tooth.

BUT this distorts both what the Church teaches and what she doesn’t teach. She does teach that a person may be justified in using deadly force (2264: * Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow)*. She does not teach that dealing a lethal blow is limited to fisticuffs. Your entire position is based on the absence of a statement that unambiguously permits an individual to arm himself for his own protection. You are apparently undismayed by the absence of any statement that even implicitly forbids it.

You’ve really missed the entire point of the Church’s teaching on self defense which is not about the means used but the intent on the part of the defender.

• But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin* (Aquinas, ST II-II 41,1)

It is not about the objects with which we defend ourselves, it is about the intent behind our actions.

Ender

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, now. Whenever one engages in debate he should expect his position to be challenged, and I do. What I don’t expect and won’t accept are challenges to my integrity like this. It is ironic that such uncharitable judgments are so frequently made by those who see themselves as exemplars of Christian virtue, apparently believing that people as good as themselves are exempt from the prohibition against rash judgment and the obligations of simple charity.

+1.

I, also, have observed this from this post’er on numerous occasions. Glad to see that it plainly obvious to others as well.