Gun Control

[Sir_Knight]

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

This is the same Jesus who said that He was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father – the God who commanded the Hebrews to use the sword on many occasions and who even turned His back on the first king of Israel for REFUSING to use the sword.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=812&pictureid=8606

And, as far as saints never using a gun, let me educate you about Gabriel Possenti, who was a Catholic seminarian whose marksmanship and proficiency with handguns single-handedly saved his school and the village of Isola, Italy from a band of 20 terrorists in 1860. The fact that he used a gun without any lawful authority, did not disqualify him from being officially canonized a saint by the Pope Benedict XV sixty years later in 1920. A great crowd of cardinals and bishops attended the canonization remembering & honoring the “the Savior of Isola”.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Are you saying that in saying “Enough” that Christ was telling the Apostles that they posessed sufficient arms to protect themselves?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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?

And when was this suppose to happen? After he killed the innocent woman or further disfigured her? The guy gave a verbal warning to drop the hammer. The other guy completely ignored that and began to swing again to hit her a second time.

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.

Nobody is saying that people should not be educated on Christian values or that the gun should be called upon first – but only as a last resourse.

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?

If a person is prepared to commit the sin of murder, do you really think that he is going to care about the sinfulness of how he does it?
“Uhh, let’s see, it is sinful to use a gun so I better use this hammer to kill her instead.”
That is one of the most illogical things that you have come up with to date.

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

Perhaps you should read up on how a discussion board operates … one person makes a comment. Another person either supports that comment or rebukes it. If rebuked, the original person offers a defense and so forth and so on.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Are you saying that in saying “Enough” that Christ was telling the Apostles that they posessed sufficient arms to protect themselves?

That is exactly what I said. He wasn’t arming them for war and telling them to be soldiers where everyone had to be armed with a sword. When I work the gun counter selling guns, not everyone needs to be armed but a few of us should be. The same with the Apostles. 13 able-bodied men with walking sticks and armed with two swords would have been able to protect themselves from a wild animal or a small band of robbers which were common on the backroads.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

. 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

Whatever; that’s your own interpretation and it’s clearly wrong.

I am not misquoting the CCC.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

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!

Were you there?

He and his three buddies flipping me off, calling me on to fight; no they wasn’t on their way to hospital. I don’t know too many priests flipping people off and cussing at them; they were three punks!

Maybe you drive a car with bullet proof glass I don’t; it’s very easy if you can’t get out of a situation to be beaten in you car.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Were you there?

He and his three buddies flipping me off, calling me on to fight; no they wasn’t on their way to hospital. I don’t know too many priests flipping people off and cussing at them; they were three punks!

Maybe you drive a car with bullet proof glass I don’t; it’s very easy if you can’t get out of a situation to be beaten in you car.

Dunno if you heard about the special forces guy down in Texas. A truck full of guys drove by his house and shot his puppy. He jumped in his truck, chased them down and called the cops on his way. Said that if it came to a shootout, he was going to finish it if the cops didnt arrive in time. They eventually caught the guys before he was able to, was a pretty wild chase.

There are some people you just don’t mess with, and some of those people are special force members.

 

[Newbie2]

That is exactly what I said. He wasn’t arming them for war and telling them to be soldiers where everyone had to be armed with a sword. When I work the gun counter selling guns, not everyone needs to be armed but a few of us should be. The same with the Apostles. 13 able-bodied men with walking sticks and armed with two swords would have been able to protect themselves from a wild animal or a small band of robbers which were common on the backroads.

Interesting interpretation; I’ve never read nor heard of this before. I don’t believe that any published biblical commentaries or scholars would agree with this interpretation, but would stand corrected if someone could provide a reference.

 

[Ender]

Interesting interpretation; I’ve never read nor heard of this before. I don’t believe that any published biblical commentaries or scholars would agree with this interpretation, but would stand corrected if someone could provide a reference.

Whether such an interpretation can be found does not change the fact that the Church has always taught that killing someone in self defense can be a moral act, so having the disciples purchase swords for self defense - whether or not that was the intent - would in no way violate a tenet of Church teaching.

As to whether this is the correct interpretation, we have this from Cyril of Alexandria (Sermon 145 on Lk 22:35-38):

"…then it was that He foretold the war about to burst upon the Jews, and which with unendurable violence spread like some river over all their land.* … But now, He says, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag in like manner." Tell me then, was this because on second thoughts a more serviceable plan was devised? Would it have been better on the former occasion also to have had bag and purse? Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every Jew: for they it rather was. whom Christ addressed. For He did not say that the holy apostles must get purse and bag, but that “whosoever has a purse, let him take it,” meaning thereby, that whosoever had property in the Jewish territories, should collect all that he had together, and flee, so that if he could any how save himself, he might do so. But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives. For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.*

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_13_sermons_135_145.htm

Ender

 

[Sir_Knight]

Interesting interpretation; I’ve never read nor heard of this before. I don’t believe that any published biblical commentaries or scholars would agree with this interpretation, but would stand corrected if someone could provide a reference.

Okay, let’s assume that Jesus was not talking about physical swords – then the entire passage makes even less sense. What does the “sword” represent? Some have said that it meant to be spiritually ready – if we are not spiritually ready, we are to sell our cloak and buy spiritually readiness?

Again, the only thing that fits is that Jesus was referring to actual swords.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Whether such an interpretation can be found does not change the fact that the Church has always taught that killing someone in self defense can be a moral act, so having the disciples purchase swords for self defense - whether or not that was the intent - would in no way violate a tenet of Church teaching.

As to whether this is the correct interpretation, we have this from Cyril of Alexandria (Sermon 145 on Lk 22:35-38):

"…then it was that He foretold the war about to burst upon the Jews, and which with unendurable violence spread like some river over all their land.* … But now, He says, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag in like manner." Tell me then, was this because on second thoughts a more serviceable plan was devised? Would it have been better on the former occasion also to have had bag and purse? Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every Jew: for they it rather was. whom Christ addressed. For He did not say that the holy apostles must get purse and bag, but that “whosoever has a purse, let him take it,” meaning thereby, that whosoever had property in the Jewish territories, should collect all that he had together, and flee, so that if he could any how save himself, he might do so. But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives.* For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_13_sermons_135_145.htm

Ender

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Dunno if you heard about the special forces guy down in Texas. A truck full of guys drove by his house and shot his puppy. He jumped in his truck, chased them down and called the cops on his way. Said that if it came to a shootout, he was going to finish it if the cops didnt arrive in time. They eventually caught the guys before he was able to, was a pretty wild chase.

There are some people you just don’t mess with, and some of those people are special force members.

No I didn’t hear about that one. The rest of this post is not for you because you know better; I just want to explain me.

This is me:

I’m the first one to tell you I will run from a fight I will avoid confrontation at all costs not unless there are innocent people involved I’ve never killed an American and pray to God I never will. If you shoot someone in the State of Texas you will be arrested a CHL does not give anyone a free ride to shoot people! It is up to a Grand Jury to decide if it is a justifiable shooting—I never want to be in that situation!

As for those three punks the reason the driver took off at a high rate of speed because he knew he was in the wrong I did nothing to provoke this. I wasn’t going chase them down that would have been starting a confrontation and that would have been wrong.

Now when he tried to sideswipe my truck and I had to brake and swerve to avoid getting hit by this idiot if he would have sideswiped my truck now that would have changed the situation and I would have press my emergency OnStar button tell them to call the man I’m following at a distance and let law enforcement handle it.

Now if the guy would have pulled the SUV in front of my truck and stopped me and the three punks got out of the SUV now I’m in fear of my life, I would have rolled down my windows and yelled a verbal warning, “Get back or I will use deadly force!” I will yell that as many times as I can—if they don’t listen I will bring out my weapon and aim at center mass if the person still does not stop I will open fire to stop the threat! If a person dies during that confrontation that’s not my problem they caused it.

Usually a person will stop at a verb warning or if they see a firearm. Like I said I will not be a victim.

I don’t know if any of you have been it a situation where someone is trying to kill you—trust me you don’t play around because if you do your dead!

What amazes me is that some posters here think that only police and military are the only ones that should carry weapons? That is nowhere stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or in the Constitution of the United States. These people are reading between lines.

Basically what some posters are saying if I see someone getting beaten with a baseball bat don’t stop and render aid because I’m not the police I should not carry a firearm I should just call 911 and wait ten minutes and watch this person get beat to death. Some of these people need to read the Gospel of St. John.

WWJD? Call 911 or get involved?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Suzanna Gratia Hupp

youtube.com/watch?v=EOciziBSK3k&feature=fvwrel

 

[Newbie2]

Whether such an interpretation can be found does not change the fact that the Church has always taught that killing someone in self defense can be a moral act, so having the disciples purchase swords for self defense - whether or not that was the intent - would in no way violate a tenet of Church teaching.

I agree.

As to whether this is the correct interpretation, we have this from Cyril of Alexandria (Sermon 145 on Lk 22:35-38):

"…then it was that He foretold the war about to burst upon the Jews, and which with unendurable violence spread like some river over all their land.* … But now, He says, he that has a purse, let him take it, and a bag in like manner." Tell me then, was this because on second thoughts a more serviceable plan was devised? Would it have been better on the former occasion also to have had bag and purse? Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every Jew: for they it rather was. whom Christ addressed. For He did not say that the holy apostles must get purse and bag, but that “whosoever has a purse, let him take it,” meaning thereby, that whosoever had property in the Jewish territories, should collect all that he had together, and flee, so that if he could any how save himself, he might do so. But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives.* For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_13_sermons_135_145.htm

Ender

That’s nice, but I question Sir Knight’s interpretation of the use of the word “enough”.

Okay, let’s assume that Jesus was not talking about physical swords – then the entire passage makes even less sense. What does the “sword” represent? Some have said that it meant to be spiritually ready – if we are not spiritually ready, we are to sell our cloak and buy spiritually readiness?

Again, the only thing that fits is that Jesus was referring to actual swords.

Perhaps. But again, I have yet to see a biblical scholar support your claim about the meaning of the word “enough” i.e. that it means “you disciples have a sufficient number of swords between you”.

If you personally believe that is the case, good for you. I’m questioning whether or not any biblical scholar would support that notion.

 

[Newbie2]

Sorry, too late to add this to one post:

From the UCCB website, Luke 22:38 and footnote:

38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

13 [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.

Just one example of how an authoritive scholar would disagree on Sir Knight’s interpretation. There are many others.

All I’m saying is that I don’t think Sir Knight has anything to back up his interpretation besides his own opinion about what “enough” means. Show me some scholarly work that says otherwise, if you can find it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s nice, but I question Sir Knight’s interpretation of the use of the word “enough”.

Perhaps. But again, I have yet to see a biblical scholar support your claim about the meaning of the word “enough” i.e. that it means “you disciples have a sufficient number of swords between you”.

If you personally believe that is the case, good for you. I’m questioning whether or not any biblical scholar would support that notion.

Sorry, too late to add this to one post:

From the UCCB website, Luke 22:38 and footnote:

38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

13 [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.

Just one example of how an authoritive scholar would disagree on Sir Knight’s interpretation. There are many others.

All I’m saying is that I don’t think Sir Knight has anything to back up his interpretation besides his own opinion about what “enough” means. Show me some scholarly work that says otherwise, if you can find it.

The UCCB footnote contradicts the bible and therefore can not be correct …

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. – Mark 4:33-34 (NIV).

… If Jesus was using “figurative language” and the Apostles misunderstood, why didn’t Jesus explain it to them as the above scripture passage said that He ALWAYS did?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Sorry, too late to add this to one post:

From the UCCB website, Luke 22:38 and footnote:

38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

13 [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.

Just one example of how an authoritive scholar would disagree on Sir Knight’s interpretation. There are many others.

All I’m saying is that I don’t think Sir Knight has anything to back up his interpretation besides his own opinion about what “enough” means. Show me some scholarly work that says otherwise, if you can find it.

The apostles were going into the midst of danger. The countryside was infested with robbers, murders and wild animals. Just as it is now in many places. The custom was to go armed in case of need. Our Lord told his followers of the dangers - of the necessity of being prepared to meet meet any dangers and protect themselves and each other.

Jesus made a “command” to procure a sword, an indication that grave physical dangers were a possibility; their manner of life would be changed from the known to the unknown. They would need provisions “appropriate to that kind of life.”

The preparations for life consisted of money, provisions, and arms; and Jesus foretold that way of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to all men where they were to go. They would soon leave the places where they had been living, and go into places of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity to take with them items such as money, provisions, and the means of defense.
This passage justifies:

1. That it is proper for people to provide for their own needs and wants, as well as for ministers and missionaries. Aa well as any others they meet.
2. That self-defense is lawful and often even necessary.

People surrounded with danger may “defend” their lives and the lives of others. It does not give us the right to go on the “offensive”. To be the bully.

Let him sell his garment - His “mantle” or his outer garment. The meaning is to have a man purchase a sword at any expense, even if he is obliged to sell his other posessions for it. The danger would be very great and pressing.

How much more is the dangers in our modern societies where we live in such close proximity to those that are not believers?

 

[Newbie2]

The UCCB footnote contradicts the bible and therefore can not be correct …

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. – Mark 4:33-34 (NIV).

… If Jesus was using “figurative language” and the Apostles misunderstood, why didn’t Jesus explain it to them as the above scripture passage said that He ALWAYS did?

OK, then. We should all believe your interpretation over the scholars who translated and interpreted the NAB. Riiiiiigggghhhht.

The apostles were going into the midst of danger. The countryside was infested with robbers, murders and wild animals. Just as it is now in many places. The custom was to go armed in case of need. Our Lord told his followers of the dangers - of the necessity of being prepared to meet meet any dangers and protect themselves and each other.

I’m not arguing against that.
Jesus made a “command” to procure a sword, an indication that grave physical dangers were a possibility; their manner of life would be changed from the known to the unknown. They would need provisions “appropriate to that kind of life.”

I’m not arguing against that.
The preparations for life consisted of money, provisions, and arms; and Jesus foretold that way of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to all men where they were to go. They would soon leave the places where they had been living, and go into places of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity to take with them items such as money, provisions, and the means of defense.
This passage justifies:

1. That it is proper for people to provide for their own needs and wants, as well as for ministers and missionaries. Aa well as any others they meet.

No argument from me here.
2. That self-defense is lawful and often even necessary.

No argument from me here either.
People surrounded with danger may “defend” their lives and the lives of others. It does not give us the right to go on the “offensive”. To be the bully.

Nor here.
Let him sell his garment - His “mantle” or his outer garment. The meaning is to have a man purchase a sword at any expense, even if he is obliged to sell his other posessions for it. The danger would be very great and pressing.

How much more is the dangers in our modern societies where we live in such close proximity to those that are not believers?

So how come the magisterium does not say we should all arm ourselves “at any expense” I wonder…

Look, I’m simply questioning Sir Knight’s interpretation of the word “enough”. I’m not arguing that we can and when appropriate defend ourselves with arms.

 

[Newbie2]

The UCCB footnote contradicts the bible and therefore can not be correct …

So you’re correct and the biblical scholars and the US bishops are wrong, is that what you’re claiming?

Just want to be clear.

If so, where exactly did you study scripture? I want to compare credentials.

 

[Ender]

So how come the magisterium does not say we should all arm ourselves “at any expense” I wonder…

Well, if Cyril of Alexandria is right it would be because we are not about to be overrun by the Romans.

Look, I’m simply questioning Sir Knight’s interpretation of the word “enough”. I’m not arguing that we can and when appropriate defend ourselves with arms.

If you admit this point then as far as the question raised by the OP is concerned, isn’t the debate over?

So you’re correct and the biblical scholars and the US bishops are wrong, is that what you’re claiming?

Ah, I wouldn’t necessarily hold anything that proceeds from the USCCB up to that standard. There is very little evidence that most bishops have any knowledge whatever about the contents of USCCB pronouncements.

Regarding the phrase “it is enough”, here is Cyril again:

And in foretelling these things, the Lord was speaking of what was about to happen to the country of the Jews. But the divine disciples did not understand the deep meaning of what was said, but supposed rather that He meant that swords were necessary, because of the attack about to be made upon Him by the disciple who betrayed Him, and by those who were assembled to seize Him. For this reason they say, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.” And what is the Saviour’s reply? “It is enough.” Observe how, so to say, He even ridicules their speech, well knowing that the disciples not having understood the force of what was said, thought that swords were required, because of the attack about to be made upon Himself. Fixing His look therefore upon those things which happened to the Jews because of their wicked conduct towards Him, the Saviour, as I said, ridicules their speech, and says, “It is enough:” yes, forsooth, two swords are enough to bear the brunt of the war about to come upon them, to meet which many thousand swords were of no avail.

Ender