Gun Control

[stanmaxkolbe]

What is ironic (and yes pro-choice people have spotted this out against the pro-life movement) is that we pro-life people are so wrapped up in the issue of killing a baby that when we start to argue that it is okay to “stop a threat” (such as this) we fail to realize that these individuals were once in the womb. Pretty much what your saying is that babies in the womb are so precious, but once they turn older their “worthless” unless of course they “follow everything that is right and moral”.

I know I’m just a dumb Polock but this post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yeah stop or take out a threat to my life; what should I have done if the guy ran me off the road and started to beat me—say, “Hey stop I’m Pro-Life, I’m a good person, praise Jesus, will you stop trying to kill me?

Yeah that works!

 

[bbarrick8383]

Actually now I think the discussion is a little different from our original.

Now the question is, you have no authority, but is there an essential need for you to own a gun?

I would say from a Christian perspective no. I would quote the passages I quoted to Stan up there about God’s providence and his protection. If we can’t carry a gun, we rely on God. We trust that he will provide.

So in that sense, I think doesn’t it make a case against keeping a gun?

Like I can understand your actions if it was absolutely vital to your survival (like you lived in an area where there is a war or some imminent known threat against your family). But otherwise, would it not be unreasonable?

You have to keep in mind, we can only make the exception when there is sufficient reason. Otherwise its a grave thing to take in to our hands the authority given by God to the state.

God Bless

I am the head of my household, that is all the authority I need to protect my family.

Just as with abortion, we all have a right to life. No criminal has the right to take that away from me or my family.

We shoot animals on a fairly regular basis that destroy our crops, or have become severely wounded.

We just had an incident last year where a drug induced man was trying to kick in an old ladies door who was home by herself. I’m sure she’s ready to go meet God and all that, but I’m sure she’d rather defend her right to live, and about the only way she was going to do that was to get her husbands shotgun.

Me and Stan both have taken an oath to defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

I don’t even know the guy, other than he served in the military, and I would feel right comfortable hanging out with him knowing he has a pistol strapped.

One could see a license granted by the state as authority given by the state.

BTW, if you are anti-gun and you have never had to shoot an animal that you really cared for in the back of the head. Then you don’t know how hard it is to put your sights on any living animal and pull the trigger, therefore you are uninformed on what you think you know about using a gun.

A normal person does not feel like he has greater power when he has a gun, he hopes he never has to use his gun. Regardless of what he’s shooting at, well…with the exception of coyotes when there are hundreds of them raiding your hard work late at night. That’s more of aggrivation feeling.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am the head of my household, that is all the authority I need to protect my family.

Just as with abortion, we all have a right to life. No criminal has the right to take that away from me or my family.

We shoot animals on a fairly regular basis that destroy our crops, or have become severely wounded.

We just had an incident last year where a drug induced man was trying to kick in an old ladies door who was home by herself. I’m sure she’s ready to go meet God and all that, but I’m sure she’d rather defend her right to live, and about the only way she was going to do that was to get her husbands shotgun.

Me and Stan both have taken an oath to defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

I don’t even know the guy, other than he served in the military, and I would feel right comfortable hanging out with him knowing he has a pistol strapped.

One could see a license granted by the state as authority given by the state.

BTW, if you are anti-gun and you have never had to shoot an animal that you really cared for in the back of the head. Then you don’t know how hard it is to put your sights on any living animal and pull the trigger, therefore you are uninformed on what you think you know about using a gun.

A normal person does not feel like he has greater power when he has a gun, he hopes he never has to use his gun. Regardless of what he’s shooting at, well…with the exception of coyotes when there are hundreds of them raiding your hard work late at night. That’s more of aggrivation feeling.

Amen

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

You, and others, have taken these quotes out of context just as I suspected.

The paragraphs from the CCC (2319 - 2321) you are quoting come from the In Brief section. They relate back to the body of the section titled Legitimate Defense. The grave duty to defend others (that you have mistakenly taken for yourselves) is one the CCC gives to civil authority, not to individuals.

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.

The next paragraph goes on to talk about the duties of the state.

We are allowed to defend ourselves and others against harm. There is nothing in the CCC that even hints at a grave duty to arm yourselves as private citizens.

WRONG! That’s your interpretation just like anti-gun people interpret the Second Amendment that only militia should be armed which is not what the founding fathers meant.

2321* The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. ****Legitimate defense is a grave duty for ***whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

I am responsible for the lives of my family and my life not the government—the government is responsible for the defense of the Country.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Once again, not to get in to a conversation but this was sooo tempting that I just had to answer

Your hypothetical situation is a classic case for emotional appeal. Basically an appeal to the side which usually is willing to abandon reason But under REASON, the appeal just collapses. Here is why:-

First off, if you read what I wrote, you will see that this was NOT a hypothetical situation but actually happened three years ago.

If I am being attacked by a guy with a hammer, it can’t take more than two or three people to take him down and restrain him. So yes, call 911 and help me restrain this guy. Not pump three bullets to his chest. What a waste of a life. The man could have been restrained, taken to counseling and would probably have gotten back together with his wife and be happily married if not for the idiot with the gun.

This reply illustrates perfectly how off-base your opinions are between what you think “should” happened and between what actually DID happen and does happen. Several people were standing around watching but doing nothing as this innocent woman got her face smashed with a hammer. If not for the man with the gun, he would have hit her again. Mostlikely, killing her. Then he would have went after his wife and killed her as well. Then he would have eventually been caught, charged with a double murder and mostlikely executed since the killings were done in cold blood. If not for the “idiot” with the gun, three lives would have been lost instead of one.

Let me ask you a similar question. That guy with the hammer, he could have owned a GUN and used to carrying it concealed. He comes in with it instead of the hammer. Before anyone could do anything, he would have shot at least one person fatally (probably his wife). Worse even more and maybe even the “Hero” with a gun. Would have been a bloody mess.

So you are saying that no matter what, good people should not arm themselves with guns? How exactly are they to successfully fulfill their duty to oppose evil?

So as far as I can see, having a gun doesn’t solve anything. BUT, making sure that the hammer guy didn’t have a gun, DOES stop a bloody mess.

In future, try to use your imagination while you come up with these scenarios to double check if THE GUN was the only solution will ya? Would save all that valuable time spent answering a meaningless example and emotional question

God Bless

In the future read the post more carefully to see that this was not some imagined scenario but an event that actually happened and that your “logical” solutions do not come anywhere close to what actually happens in real life.

 

[momor]

WRONG! That’s your interpretation just like anti-gun people interpret the Second Amendment that only militia should be armed which is not what the founding fathers meant.

2321* The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. ****Legitimate defense is a grave duty for ***whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

I am responsible for the lives of my family and my life not the government—the government is responsible for the defense of the Country.

Whatever, Stan. Go ahead and quote the summary again and ignore the specific reference I listed that CLEARLY talks about civil authorities, not individuals. You are good at ignoring what you don’t want to see.

BTW, I’m not anti-gun or anti-second amendment which I have already stated, nor am I a liberal. I believe in gun control and I reject the notion that you and Sir Knight hold that Catholics have any “grave duty” to arm themselves to protect themselves or others. I have a right to defend myself or others - but no duty to do so since I am not police or military.

Stop misquoting the CCC to justify your own personal views and misleading others who might not take the time to read the CCC for themselves.

 

[ddarko]

I am the head of my household, that is all the authority I need to protect my family.

Just as with abortion, we all have a right to life. No criminal has the right to take that away from me or my family.

We shoot animals on a fairly regular basis that destroy our crops, or have become severely wounded.

We just had an incident last year where a drug induced man was trying to kick in an old ladies door who was home by herself. I’m sure she’s ready to go meet God and all that, but I’m sure she’d rather defend her right to live, and about the only way she was going to do that was to get her husbands shotgun.

Me and Stan both have taken an oath to defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic.

I don’t even know the guy, other than he served in the military, and I would feel right comfortable hanging out with him knowing he has a pistol strapped.

One could see a license granted by the state as authority given by the state.

I am afraid you are once again misplacing things.

You have authority to protect your family during an attack. 100% correct.

Do you have Authority to carry a gun because you are the head of the house, NO. The church is pretty clear in its teachings. We can’t reconcile you personally having a gun with you loving everyone else as your brother and sister. Because your argumentation to keep a gun involved prior suspicion of those around you. That is Un-Christian as much being a Pacifist is Un-Christian.

You and Stan can take a lot of oaths. Engaged couples take oaths. They can’t however go and have sex right after. That is what you seem to misunderstand.

BTW, if you are anti-gun and you have never had to shoot an animal that you really cared for in the back of the head. Then you don’t know how hard it is to put your sights on any living animal and pull the trigger, therefore you are uninformed on what you think you know about using a gun.

A normal person does not feel like he has greater power when he has a gun, he hopes he never has to use his gun. Regardless of what he’s shooting at, well…with the exception of coyotes when there are hundreds of them raiding your hard work late at night. That’s more of aggrivation feeling.

I mentioned many times that I am ok with guns for hunting. They should be kept safely locked up in hunting reserves for hunting use.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

So you are saying that no matter what, good people should not arm themselves with guns? How exactly are they to successfully fulfill their duty to oppose evil?

I can think of a list of people in the Vatican called saints who NEVER carried a gun and opposed evil. I can think of the early church which never possessed a SWORD or ANY WEAPON and opposed the evil of the Roman Empire. I can think of ONE GREAT PERSON by the name of JESUS who didn’t OWN A GUN or a WEAPON but opposed evil.

I guess all these great persons were really making love to EVIL ?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

This reply illustrates perfectly how off-base your opinions are between what you think “should” happened and between what actually DID happen and does happen. **Several people were standing around watching but doing nothing **as this innocent woman got her face smashed with a hammer. If not for the man with the gun, he would have hit her again. Mostlikely, killing her. Then he would have went after his wife and killed her as well. Then he would have eventually been caught, charged with a double murder and mostlikely executed since the killings were done in cold blood. If not for the “idiot” with the gun, three lives would have been lost instead of one.

You still think that firing a gun and putting some bullets through the chest is better than teachings those by-standers the value of helping out in time of need?

The problem seems to be much cleanly solved by providing proper education to people on Christian values and the value of human life than giving them a gun.

Because do you, or do you not agree that if the hammer guy had a Gun, at **least **the Woman would now be dead because he would have shot her right away?

So once again, you might want to re-read what I said some posts back on providing counter examples to counter examples

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Actually I don’t

I’ve been telling Sir Knight this all along. The above passages I provided were meant to highlight that taking Jesus’s words about buying a sword are indeed taken out of context. In fact, Jesus was not in favor of carrying a weapon for fear of life.

That’s your opinion. The apostles who spent almost every waking moment with Jesus believed otherwise.

Actually the accepted Theological view (and the only one that can be reconciled with Tradition) is that Jesus actually meant to get ready spiritually. Because the Devil was about to let loose spiritual tests and turmoil among his followers as Jesus was taken in to be tortured. Even the Disciples misunderstood. That is why when Peter said ‘we got two swords’, Jesus went ‘ENOUGH!!’. So sort of like saying, ‘You idiots, what have you learnt all this time?’

There are a few problems with this conclusion. First off, scripture tells that while Jesus often spoke in figurative language and the Apostles often misunderstood Him, He ALWAYS explained things to them and we always see that explanation. No such explanation is present in this passage. Either scripture is wrong and Jesus didn’t always explain everything to them, or no further explanation was needed because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords.

I take the position that scripture is free of error and the reason why no further clarification is given is because it was not needed because they understood correctly. You take the position that they misunderstood and Jesus didn’t explain it – thus showing that scripture is wrong about Jesus explaining everything to them. Of course, if scripture contains this error, then it can contain other errors and there is no way to know how many or which other passages are in error. Any passage that you put your faith in, COULD be in error. Think about that the next time you’re clipping your toenails.

Secondly, Jesus was called the Great Teacher, why would He mix physical items with spiritual ones and seeing that His was misunderstood, why would He not clarify it? Not the actions that one would expect of a “great teacher”. To further compound the matter, Jesus was counting on them to spread His message to the ends of the earth. Seeing that they misunderstood and not to clarify it for them, would ensure that the wrong message would be taught by them.

If you have an important message to get out and the person that you tell it to, doesn’t understand it, are you not going to clarify it for them?

Finally, the gospels were written many years after the events took place. After the minds of the Apsotles were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they originally misunderstood what Jesus said, it would have only been logical for them to clarify this point when the passage was written to prevent others reading it from coming to the wrong conclusion that they themselves came to. None of that was done. Again, the only reason why none of this happened is because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actually swords.

And, as far as Jesus saying that it was enough – two swords among 13 able-bodied men would have been sufficient to protect against a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the backroads.

Yes, they do. And that is certainly fine.

Its like I said in the previous post to you. To carry a gun is allowed for authority.

And as I said to you, one can not tell some one that they have a GRAVE duty to do something and then deny them the best means by which to do it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Do you have Authority to carry a gun because you are the head of the house, NO. The church is pretty clear in its teachings. We can’t reconcile you personally having a gun with you loving everyone else as your brother and sister. Because your argumentation to keep a gun involved prior suspicion of those around you. That is Un-Christian as much being a Pacifist is Un-Christian.

It does not involve prior suspicion, it involves being prepared for the day ahead. If I see a coyote, I’ll shoot him. If I need it for self defense, it’s there with me as well.

You and Stan can take a lot of oaths. Engaged couples take oaths. They can’t however go and have sex right after. That is what you seem to misunderstand.

No, I’m not misunderstanding it. Your analogies are on two totally different levels, they don’t even relate.

I mentioned many times that I am ok with guns for hunting. They should be kept safely locked up in hunting reserves for hunting use.

God Bless

Then please, stay in Germany or move there, whatever. We have personal property rights here that should never be infringed upon. I take my gun when I want, and almost where I want. Not being a CCL holder I must keep it unloaded and in plain sight as long as it stays in my vehicle. It’s very common around here and as a matter of fact and we use to do it as kids in school. We didn’t see it as being any different than having a fishing pole which we also carried.

It is a fact that guns deter violent criminals from harming innocent people. It is also a fact that crimes and violence decrease in areas where innocent people are known to have guns to defend themselves. And it is also a fact that when laws are passed, restricting gun ownership, crime also increases. That’s not even here, but in Europe as well.

Not only that, but any country considering an invasion would be wise to consider that nearly half of the households in that country own a weapon to defend themselves as well.

 

[ddarko]

That’s your opinion. The apostles who spent almost every waking moment with Jesus believed otherwise.

Are you reading what I typed? Ok how about this. One challenge to you. Give me ONE example where the early church made a stance using at least one sword against the Roman persecutors. Just one example. If you can, then I concede my case

There are a few problems with this conclusion. First off, scripture tells that while Jesus often spoke in figurative language and the Apostles often misunderstood Him, He ALWAYS explained things to them and we always see that explanation. No such explanation is present in this passage. Either scripture is wrong and Jesus didn’t always explain everything to them, or no further explanation was needed because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords.

He didn’t always explain things. Case in point, till the death and resurrection, the Apostles had no clue what he was talking about dying and rising from the dead. They were just puzzled every-time.

So no, Jesus was not referring to actual swords for sure. I can say this with certainty because it contradicts number of other passages in the gospel as well as early Christian activity.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

It does not involve prior suspicion, it involves being prepared for the day ahead. If I see a coyote, I’ll shoot him. If I need it for self defense, it’s there with me as well.

Thats exactly prior suspicion. What does it mean to say ‘being prepared for the day ahead’ otherwise? You are suspecting that you are going to be needing your gun in the near future. Thats not very Christian considering you live with brothers and sisters in Christ.

No, I’m not misunderstanding it. Your analogies are on two totally different levels, they don’t even relate.

I am simply pointing out to you that simply slapping an oath on top of something is not enough. There has to be proper procedure and the parties who swore the Oath must be bounded by Authority. I don’t see any indication that you and Stan are part of a police force or anything. All I can understand is that you still want to be civilians. Thats not an oath.

Then please, stay in Germany or move there, whatever. We have personal property rights here that should never be infringed upon. I take my gun when I want, and almost where I want. Not being a CCL holder I must keep it unloaded and in plain sight as long as it stays in my vehicle. It’s very common around here and as a matter of fact and we use to do it as kids in school. We didn’t see it as being any different than having a fishing pole which we also carried.

Just because you used to do it, doesn’t make it right, am I right?

Case in point, take the Pagans who used to worship idols prior to Christianity. By your logic, they would be saying we’ve been doing this for years, there is nothing wrong with it.

So just as their logic is wrong, I am not sure yours is either.

It is a fact that guns deter violent criminals from harming innocent people. It is also a fact that crimes and violence decrease in areas where innocent people are known to have guns to defend themselves. And it is also a fact that when laws are passed, restricting gun ownership, crime also increases. That’s not even here, but in Europe as well.

Actually there are studies to both sides. Also, all these studies involve correlations. None can say for sure if there is a causal link between the two.

Not only that, but any country considering an invasion would be wise to consider that nearly half of the households in that country own a weapon to defend themselves as well.

Sure. Last time I checked, you are really not in ANY risk of invasion.

God Bless

 

[bbarrick8383]

Thats exactly prior suspicion. What does it mean to say ‘being prepared for the day ahead’ otherwise? You are suspecting that you are going to be needing your gun in the near future. Thats not very Christian considering you live with brothers and sisters in Christ.

That is not prior supsicion as prior suspicion involves paranoia. I am not paranoid that someone is going to attack me. That is not WHY I own guns, but a gun is a great tool to prevent that from happening. If I owned guns for the sole reason of paranoia then I would be assuming some sort of prior suspicion, but that is not the case.

I am simply pointing out to you that simply slapping an oath on top of something is not enough. There has to be proper procedure and the parties who swore the Oath must be bounded by Authority. I don’t see any indication that you and Stan are part of a police force or anything. All I can understand is that you still want to be civilians. Thats not an oath.

There is little difference between a civilian and a police officer other than the fact that they wear a badge and took an oath. As I said, out here there are no police. Scream all you want, the only thing that is going to protect you is a gun, or a neigbor with a gun. The police will arrive in time to sort out the mess.

Just because you used to do it, doesn’t make it right, am I right?

Doesn’t make it wrong either.

Case in point, take the Pagans who used to worship idols prior to Christianity. By your logic, they would be saying we’ve been doing this for years, there is nothing wrong with it.

Case in point, I use to drink water. I still do. Doesn’t make it wrong. We can go at this all day, your point/counter point arguments are, I hate to say it…pretty weak.

So just as their logic is wrong, I am not sure yours is either.

There was nothing wrong with it. All guns stayed locked up in the vehicles, right where they were supposed to be.

Actually there are studies to both sides. Also, all these studies involve correlations. None can say for sure if there is a causal link between the two.

Read the link and decide for yourself. While your at it, take a look at the footnotes and the web sites scrutiny for checking facts. Typically, I wouldn’t trust the word of a criminal, but when he’s behind bars and you ask the right questions he has nothign to lose or gain.

Sure. Last time I checked, you are really not in ANY risk of invasion.

God Bless

It’s because we have guns.

As a matter of fact, if I really really had to, I could probably get my hands on enough to arm a small squad with rifles and handguns and a .50 Cal BMG like this one:

barrett.net/firearms/model99

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I know I’m just a dumb Polock but this post makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yeah stop or take out a threat to my life; what should I have done if the guy ran me off the road and started to beat me—say, “Hey stop I’m Pro-Life, I’m a good person, praise Jesus, will you stop trying to kill me?

Yeah that works!

how could he beat you up if your in a car? And you don’t know his intentions…for all you know he was rushing to get to the hospital or had an emergency. Possibly he was a priest and was rushing to perform the sacrament of Extreme Unction. It’s possible.

Remember with love all barriers are broken. Like I stated before we all have are flaws and are gifts, we as Christians must continue to strive to be a source of healing in this broken world of ours. Christ is the model…can we conform to him? God Bless!

 

[hxcCatholic413]

That is not prior supsicion as prior suspicion involves paranoia. I am not paranoid that someone is going to attack me. That is not WHY I own guns, but a gun is a great tool to prevent that from happening. If I owned guns for the sole reason of paranoia then I would be assuming some sort of prior suspicion, but that is not the case.

example of prior suspicion ^^^^^^

There is little difference between a civilian and a police officer other than the fact that they wear a badge and took an oath. As I said, out here there are no police. Scream all you want, the only thing that is going to protect you is a gun, or a neigbor with a gun. The police will arrive in time to sort out the mess.

Is there little difference as well from a lay man and a priest? Single person or married person?

How much crime is there in rural Oklahoma anyways?? You make it sound like you live in Murder country USA

Case in point, I use to drink water. I still do. Doesn’t make it wrong. We can go at this all day, your point/counter point arguments are, I hate to say it…pretty weak.

Example: People used to have slaves
Can I say “doesn’t make it wrong” as well? People used hang African Americans uhh nah “doesn’t make it wrong”

As a matter of fact, if I really really had to, I could probably get my hands on enough to arm a small squad with rifles and handguns and a .50 Cal BMG like this one:

barrett.net/firearms/model99

No civilian should own a piece of steel/aluminum as vile as that one in the link^^ Isn’t that a police/military weapon anyways?

My weapon of choice is a rosary
TRUTH is: Guns are meant to kill

 

[bbarrick8383]

example of prior suspicion ^^^^^^

No. It’s no different than packing a phillips head and a flat head screwdriver in your tool box. Not because you have a prior suspicion that you might need them that day, but because you have no idea of what’s going to happen that day. It doesn’t even cross my mind when I wake in the morning that someone may attack me, if so, that would be prior suspicion.

Is there little difference as well from a lay man and a priest? Single person or married person?

There is a difference in their day to day jobs. But as far as carrying a weapon, the CCL holders I know are better trained than the cops I know. Not only in safety, but in shooting a weapon as well.

How much crime is there in rural Oklahoma anyways?? You make it sound like you live in Murder country USA

Not too much, our nearest town see’s more than it should being right off a major interstate. The cops never stop the crimes, just investigate them.

Example: People used to have slaves
Can I say “doesn’t make it wrong” as well? People used hang African Americans uhh nah “doesn’t make it wrong”

So carrying a gun is as evil as slavery was, how? As I pointed out, these type of analogies are ridiculous and have no place in this discussion.

No civilian should own a piece of steel/aluminum as vile as that one in the link^^ Isn’t that a police/military weapon anyways?

It’s practical application is usually a military sniper rifle, yes. Thanks to Cali, they couldn’t ban the ownership so they banned the ammo, which paved the way for a new ammo that will fire out of the same weapon (I believe), only further, faster and more accurate. It’s an amazing weapon to shoot, just extremely expensive to shoot as well.

So a dictatorship is Christian these days?

My weapon of choice is a rosary
TRUTH is: Guns are meant to kill

Pray for me while I shield you and shoot back.

 

[ddarko]

That is not prior supsicion as prior suspicion involves paranoia. I am not paranoid that someone is going to attack me. That is not WHY I own guns, but a gun is a great tool to prevent that from happening. If I owned guns for the sole reason of paranoia then I would be assuming some sort of prior suspicion, but that is not the case.

Sigh. Ok make this easy for me. You keep telling me like the Gun is something you use to cook.

What else other than for defense do you keep a gun in the house and carry it concealed? If its for defense, then I arrest my case. You are indeed paranoid.

There is little difference between a civilian and a police officer other than the fact that they wear a badge and took an oath. As I said, out here there are no police. Scream all you want, the only thing that is going to protect you is a gun, or a neigbor with a gun. The police will arrive in time to sort out the mess.

That shows a lack of understanding of what it really means to take a true oath. I suppose the only difference you see between you and your priest is that he has taken an oath?

Whether you like it or not, somethings are not allowed for everyone. That is the heart of Catholic practice.

Doesn’t make it wrong either.

Case in point, I use to drink water. I still do. Doesn’t make it wrong. We can go at this all day, your point/counter point arguments are, I hate to say it…pretty weak.

This is exactly the type of nonsense I was condemning before. You are the one who raise a counter example to my own counter example.

The case in point is that just because you used to do it, it doesn’t make it right. Thats the conclusion. For you to give me example of scenarios where it does make it right does not disprove my position.

I hate to say it, but you might have missed the point that you are the one who made the weak argument in this case.

There was nothing wrong with it. All guns stayed locked up in the vehicles, right where they were supposed to be.

If its locked up in a police vehicle then its fine. If we are talking about yours, then there is a problem.

Read the link and decide for yourself. While your at it, take a look at the footnotes and the web sites scrutiny for checking facts. Typically, I wouldn’t trust the word of a criminal, but when he’s behind bars and you ask the right questions he has nothign to lose or gain.

What link? In any case, I am not much for emotional appeal. So if its another one of those, I’d rather you not provide it.

It’s because we have guns.

As a matter of fact, if I really really had to, I could probably get my hands on enough to arm a small squad with rifles and handguns and a .50 Cal BMG like this one:

barrett.net/firearms/model99

Thats the narrowest world view I’ve heard. I can tell you a 100 countries where civilians DONT OWN ANY Guns and YET they are free from the threat of invasion.

Did it ever occur to you that the REASON why no one invades you is because your government has a good military?

That was a classic case of equating correlation with causation btw. As you can see, there can be other factors in play and there is no reason to think that there is a Causal relationship.

God Bless

 

[bbarrick8383]

Sigh. Ok make this easy for me. You keep telling me like the Gun is something you use to cook.

What else other than for defense do you keep a gun in the house and carry it concealed? If its for defense, then I arrest my case. You are indeed paranoid.

I’ve told you. I use it to shoot all sorts of varmints, from skunks and beavers to wild hogs and coyotes. When I’m not working and I’ve got a few minutes to mess around on the farm, I pull it out and target practice. It’s nice and relaxing.

That shows a lack of understanding of what it really means to take a true oath. I suppose the only difference you see between you and your priest is that he has taken an oath?

Whether you like it or not, somethings are not allowed for everyone. That is the heart of Catholic practice.

I guess that oath I took back in the military was fake. Besides, it’s not the oath that binds a man to his duties. If I’m not mistaken, non-priests can perform basic functions of a priest if there is no priest available.

The case in point is that just because you used to do it, it doesn’t make it right. Thats the conclusion. For you to give me example of scenarios where it does make it right does not disprove my position.

Does not prove it either. So it makes your argument pointless and weak. Just because you provide a totally irrelevant example to my point, does not make my point wrong.

If its locked up in a police vehicle then its fine. If we are talking about yours, then there is a problem.

Doesn’t sound very Christian to me. Since when did the Catholic Church ok dictatorships?

What link? In any case, I am not much for emotional appeal. So if its another one of those, I’d rather you not provide it.

No, no. I think if you do not totally ignore it, you will skim through it and look for some reason to brush it off without studying the footnotes or the cases it cites. I apologize, I forgot to post the link.

justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Thats the narrowest world view I’ve heard. I can tell you a 100 countries where civilians DONT OWN ANY Guns and YET they are free from the threat of invasion.

Did it ever occur to you that the REASON why no one invades you is because your government has a good military?

It’s called sarcasm. But to totally ignore the benefit of armed civilians in the case of an invasion is unwise.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Are you reading what I typed? Ok how about this. One challenge to you. Give me ONE example where the early church made a stance using at least one sword against the Roman persecutors. Just one example. If you can, then I concede my case

Nice try but your challenge is invalid. For the Church to have made such a stance would have been proof of treason against the Roman Empire – which is something they were trying to avoid for fear of further reprecussions. My original statement stands – The apostles, who spent almost every waking moment with Jesus, believed Jesus referred to actual swords. If they were mistaken, why would the great teacher not clarify it for them especially since they were going to be carrying on these teachings to the ends of the earth? Wouldn’t failure to clariy it ensure that it would be misunderstood by others? Is this something that the great teacher would have done.

He didn’t always explain things.

Are you telling me that Mark 4:33-34(NIV) is wrong?
With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained EVERYTHING.
Either you are wrong or the INFALLIBLE Word of God contains errors in it. Which is it?

Case in point, till the death and resurrection, the Apostles had no clue what he was talking about dying and rising from the dead. They were just puzzled every-time.

And during those times, the gospel writers explain it to the reader …
(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) – John 20:9 (NIV)
… No such clarification is offered in this passage.

So no, Jesus was not referring to actual swords for sure.

So yes, Jesus was referring to actual swords for sure.

I can say this with certainty because it contradicts number of other passages in the gospel as well as early Christian activity.

I can say this with complete certainty because Jesus taught that He was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father and it would contradict a number of other passages where God ordered people to use the sword against an enemy. In fact, God turned His back on Saul for failing to use the sword.