Gun Control

[ddarko]

If every single Church document opposes the private ownership of guns it should surely be a simple thing to cite one. Can you provide any citation that supports your claim? Personal interpretations of Scripture do not qualify as Church documents.

Ender

Its not personal interpretation??? Please let me know, since when did “We are all made brothers and sisters in Christ through the blood he poured out in Calvary” become personal opinion?

Whether you like it or not, all of CHRISTIANITY is largely based off of that. Thats not personal opinion.

The fact that carrying a gun around suspecting that a ‘fellow brother in Christ’ is going to rape you or rob you is contradictory to that is a LOGICAL conclusion. NOT a personal one. The two simply aren’t compatible. Why does it sound like interpretation to you?

Example of what you are saying:

Me: State has been given authority by God to protect its citizens.

Person X: Lets get rid of all guns

Me: That obviously doesn’t sit well with the initial premise and that is not a personal interpretation.

So same thing here. It’s not a matter of personal interpretation. It just can’t be reconciled.

Now note, I am not sure if you are talking about exceptions I mentioned like War-zones and few others. In those cases, a civilian may carry a gun because it is now based on actual events. There is no suspicion involved, just an act of defense.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

FYI, I think you need to separate your two arguments here. One is the problem with logic we have seen over and over, which I agree with you on, and the other is your opinion, which I don’t agree with. You are losing others on the logic argument (assuming they are capable of intellectual honesty of course ) because they simply focus on disagreeing with your opinion. Just my take on it.

Do you disagree that Civilians can’t carry guns? I agree that there are times a Civilian can carry a gun as in when the threat is actual like in a war zone or maybe even perhaps in cases like if you live in a remote area and a killer is known to be on the loose. Is that why you disagree? Because I agree with you

BUT, I don’t think its a matter of opinion to say that one may not carry a gun based on a contingent event if one is a civilian. No?

God Bless

 

[momor]

Do you disagree that Civilians can’t carry guns? I agree that there are times a Civilian can carry a gun as in when the threat is actual like in a war zone or maybe even perhaps in cases like if you live in a remote area and a killer is known to be on the loose. Is that why you disagree? Because I agree with you

BUT, I don’t think its a matter of opinion to say that one may not carry a gun based on a contingent event if one is a civilian. No?

God Bless

No, I believe in the right to bear arms and I think each law abiding person has the moral right to decide for themselves. I think there are valid justifications for concealed weapons but I don’t think most people have a need even though they have a right.

I categorically disagree with those who say the Church says civilians have a grave duty to arm themselves. It disturbs me to see people who comb through the Bible, take verses out of context and twist their meaning to support their position. Especially when they obstinately refuse the truth about what they are doing.

I think gun control laws are legitimate. I think every gun owner should be licensed and every gun registered. Background checks should be done to exclude felons, those with restraining orders, mental illness, etc. I think waiting periods are good and help prevent crimes of passion and suicides. I disagree with private gun sales/swaps that bypass background checks, licensing, and registration. If we require every car to be duly registered and every driver to be licensed then I see no reason to not to do it with guns. I don’t agree with private ownership of assault weapons and certain kinds of ammunition. I believe in serious prison time for gun offenses. As I said previously, good gun control laws provide barriers to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them without creating barriers for those who have a right to have them. We will never keep criminals from having access to guns anymore than laws against murder keep people from murdering others. That’s no reason to abandon gun control laws.

I think some people are paranoid gun nuts and take it too far, especially the anti-gov’t types who see conspiracies eveywhere they look. I also think some people carry a gun around secretly hoping and fantasizing they will come upon a situation in which they can blow a bad guy away, perhaps even putting themselves in uneccessarily dangerous situations for just that reason.

 

[itrytofight]

No, I believe in the right to bear arms and I think each law abiding person has the moral right to decide for themselves. I think there are valid justifications for concealed weapons but I don’t think most people have a need even though they have a right.

I categorically disagree with those who say the Church says civilians have a grave duty to arm themselves. It disturbs me to see people who comb through the Bible, take verses out of context and twist their meaning to support their position. Especially when they obstinately refuse the truth about what they are doing.

I think gun control laws are legitimate. I think every gun owner should be licensed and every gun registered. Background checks should be done to exclude felons, those with restraining orders, mental illness, etc. I think waiting periods are good and help prevent crimes of passion and suicides. I disagree with private gun sales/swaps that bypass background checks, licensing, and registration. If we require every car to be duly registered and every driver to be licensed then I see no reason to not to do it with guns. I don’t agree with private ownership of assault weapons and certain kinds of ammunition. I believe in serious prison time for gun offenses. As I said previously, good gun control laws provide barriers to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them without creating barriers for those who have a right to have them. We will never keep criminals from having access to guns anymore than laws against murder keep people from murdering others. That’s no reason to abandon gun control laws.

I think some people are paranoid gun nuts and take it too far, especially the anti-gov’t types who see conspiracies eveywhere they look. I also think some people carry a gun around secretly hoping and fantasizing they will come upon a situation in which they can blow a bad guy away, perhaps even putting themselves in uneccessarily dangerous situations for just that reason.

This type of gun control is the one I agree with.

However, what do you mean when you say there should be no private ownership of assualt weapons? Do you mean actual assualt weapons used by military or do you include rifles that only look like assualt rifles (there are hunting rifles that model after the AR-15 and some that look like M14 but only work semi-automatically and not automatic or burst).

Also, what calibers should be restricted? Obviously calibers like the .50 cal ( some types can be used in anti-material sniping, like radar dishes, engine blocks on vehicles, even thermal sites on tanks! ) should be severely restricted, but there are calibers used by the military that match those used in hunting deer or moose.

 

[momor]

This type of gun control is the one I agree with.

However, what do you mean when you say there should be no private ownership of assualt weapons? Do you mean actual assualt weapons used by military or do you include rifles that only look like assualt rifles (there are hunting rifles that model after the AR-15 and some that look like M14 but only work semi-automatically and not automatic or burst).

Also, what calibers should be restricted? Obviously calibers like the .50 cal ( some types can be used in anti-material sniping, like radar dishes, engine blocks on vehicles, even thermal sites on tanks! ) should be severely restricted, but there are calibers used by the military that match those used in hunting deer or moose.

I’m not qualified to give an opinion on the specifics you ask. I’m talking about automatic weapons like uzi’s and ammunition designed to pierce bullet proof vests.

 

[MaxTH]

First, the USCCB and not the slightest competence to issue any definitive statement on the matter. They are none of them Constitutional scholars, and as they are loathe to demonstrate time and again, most of them cannot manage even upholding official Church teaching on an issue such as giving communion to long term public supporters and enablers of the abortion industry and the slaughter of tens of millions of children.
(Let us not forget that a few month ago almost half voted to make the person president of the conference who admitted he knew he was ordaining a man who had sodomized other boys as a seminarian. This person would then as a priest go on to rape dozens of other boys).

Also one must not forget that the Founding Fathers did not want a large standing army and in fact it was the people that were to be the defenders of the Republic.

To be consistent the bishops would have to issue a statement saying that they would have been in full support of the British troops sent to confiscate all the arms of the citizens in Concord on April 18, 1775.

The Apostles were to be the first princes of the Church and of course our Lord knew that, so whatever they had or did not have is simply not relevant.

One can find many studies that demonstrate an increase in crime, including rape, burglary, and home invasion, when private ownership of firearms is banned. Thus the common good suffers.

And to pull out all the stops, it has been reported that between 30-50% of priests in America suffer from homosexual orientation disorder. That could very well mean that 30-50% of bishops do as well, perhaps even more. In Europe, at least in the west, it seems it may be higher. Homosexuals do not relate to men as men, nor to women as men, nor to the Church as men, nor to each other as men. They relate to the world as homosexuals, which, among the other things one can classify about the disorder, is predominately effeminate. This is my theory as to why so many of them have adopted the political positions of the majority of women. The president of Planned Parenthood said before the Obama election that if women stopped voting the democrats would never win another election. Statistically that looks to be true. So from the nanny state, to gun control, the bishops by and large take an effeminate stand on the issues because their intrinsic orientation to the world is effeminate. Of course it is also true that a good many of the bishops are simply weak, socially awkward, men who simply want people to like them.

I am of course aware that the Church is our Mother and the Bride of Christ and thus will tend to the effeminate, but that does not, I believe, refute my theory.

 

[MaxTH]

I’m not qualified to give an opinion on the specifics you ask. I’m talking about automatic weapons like uzi’s and ammunition designed to pierce bullet proof vests.

An Uzi may, or may not, be fully automatic, just like any other firearm, including pistols and shotguns.

 

[MaxTH]

This type of gun control is the one I agree with.

However, what do you mean when you say there should be no private ownership of assualt weapons? Do you mean actual assualt weapons used by military or do you include rifles that only look like assualt rifles (there are hunting rifles that model after the AR-15 and some that look like M14 but only work semi-automatically and not automatic or burst).

Also, what calibers should be restricted? Obviously calibers like the .50 cal ( some types can be used in anti-material sniping, like radar dishes, engine blocks on vehicles, even thermal sites on tanks! ) should be severely restricted, but there are calibers used by the military that match those used in hunting deer or moose.

Pretty much any game size rifle caliber will (including ARs and M-14s) slice through an engine block, take out thermal sites on tanks and can do damage to radar dishes, and some will do it better than the .50 cal round. In any case, I have not ever heard of even a single case of a robbery or burglary committed with someone wielding a .50 rifle anywhere in the world, ever.

If the people had disarmed their governments 100 years ago, that would have saved what, 200-300 millions lives? And now the same bishops who knowingly and in fact deliberately put child molesters in new positions where they could rape more children, believe it is their duty to advocate the disarming of the fathers of those children along with everyone else?

 

[ddarko]

Pretty much any game size rifle caliber will (including ARs and M-14s) slice through an engine block, take out thermal sites on tanks and can do damage to radar dishes, and some will do it better than the .50 cal round. In any case, I have not ever heard of even a single case of a robbery or burglary committed with someone wielding a .50 rifle anywhere in the world, ever.

If the people had disarmed their governments 100 years ago, that would have saved what, 200-300 millions lives? And now the same bishops who knowingly and in fact deliberately put child molesters in new positions where they could rape more children, believe it is their duty to advocate the disarming of the fathers of those children along with everyone else?

What exactly is your plan? Shoot the bishop in the head with .50 cal round for molesting a child?

I think you see it yourself. ‘If we took the guns off of authority, we would have saved 200 -300 million lives’ you say. And we are talking about Authority that swear solemn oaths and have actual duties to their citizens as a whole to protect them. Think of how dangerous it is to give guns to just individuals who are under no authority, no solemn oath, NOTHING? If authority can’t keep it straight, what makes you so sure individuals are better off?

You seem to be realizing the problem with guns but you don’t seem to want to take the conclusion.

God Bless

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Explaining why civilians shouldn’t have guns to you is equivalent to explaining the existence of God to Richard Dawkins…just my take on it God Bless!

:hypno:

 

[MaxTH]

What exactly is your plan? Shoot the bishop in the head with .50 cal round for molesting a child?

Well if one were to take the Lord at his word when he warned against destroying the innocence of children, many of them should spend the remainder of their lives in prison.

I think you see it yourself. ‘If we took the guns off of authority, we would have saved 200 -300 million lives’ you say. And we are talking about Authority that swear solemn oaths and have actual duties to their citizens as a whole to protect them. Think of how dangerous it is to give guns to just individuals who are under no authority, no solemn oath, NOTHING? If authority can’t keep it straight, what makes you so sure individuals are better off?

Sorry, are you saying you can actually imagine a world in which privately armed citizens could all by themselves slaughter 200-300 million people in a span of 70 or so years?

And since their “solemn oaths” have resulted in the death of 200-300 million born human beings, almost all of them their own citizens, and perhaps half a billion unborn human beings, why does it matter so much to you when it clearly does not to them?

 

[ddarko]

Well if one were to take the Lord at his word when he warned against destroying the innocence of children, many of them should spend the remainder of their lives in prison.

Quiet the interesting view. But not what I asked. I specifically asked about how you planned on using your .50 cal to defend your kid from the molesting bishop.

Sorry, are you saying you can actually imagine a world in which privately armed citizens could all by themselves slaughter 200-300 million people in a span of 70 or so years?

And since their “solemn oaths” have resulted in the death of 200-300 million born human beings, almost all of them their own citizens, and perhaps half a billion unborn human beings, why does it matter so much to you when it clearly does not to them?

I think you missed what I was getting at. My point is that authority which follows regulations and monitoring by hierarchy WHICH in turn are elected by people as the best possible people who can control them can end up using guns to slaughter 200 - 300 million people.

What makes you so sure that an unregulated, civilians are not going to do the same or even worse?

God Bless

 

[MaxTH]

Quiet the interesting view. But not what I asked. I specifically asked about how you planned on using your .50 cal to defend your kid from the molesting bishop.

Yes, well, not owning, and never claiming to own, a .50, I rather thought your comment was tongue-in-cheek. However I do not think I would not be opposed to a state referendum authorizing capital punishment for child rapists.

I think you missed what I was getting at. My point is that authority which follows regulations and monitoring by hierarchy WHICH in turn are elected by people as the best possible people who can control them can end up using guns to slaughter 200 - 300 million people.

“Never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.”
Martin Luther King

I would also point out that your wording above does not communicate a clear and concise statement or thought. Could you perhaps restate what you intended?

What makes you so sure that an unregulated, civilians are not going to do the same or even worse?

God Bless

Because it is simply impossible to imagine. How could private citizens firebomb Dresden, or Tokyo? Or nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or gas 12 million men women and children? Or create a deliberate famine that may have murdered 15 million? Or march half the population of an entire nation into the countryside to be murdered? Or engage in single battles where the death toll is over a million?

To quote playwright David Mamet:
“I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.”

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Yes, well, not owning, and never claiming to own, a .50, I rather thought your comment was tongue-in-cheek. However I do not think I would not be opposed to a state referendum authorizing capital punishment for child rapists.

“Never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.”
Martin Luther King

I would also point out that your wording above does not communicate a clear and concise statement or thought. Could you perhaps restate what you intended?

Because it is simply impossible to imagine. How could private citizens firebomb Dresden, or Tokyo? Or nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or gas 12 million men women and children? Or create a deliberate famine that may have murdered 15 million? Or march half the population of an entire nation into the countryside to be murdered? Or engage in single battles where the death toll is over a million?

To quote playwright David Mamet:
“I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.”

HOOAH!

Welcome to CAF

 

[ddarko]

Because it is simply impossible to imagine. How could private citizens firebomb Dresden, or Tokyo? Or nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or gas 12 million men women and children? Or create a deliberate famine that may have murdered 15 million? Or march half the population of an entire nation into the countryside to be murdered? Or engage in single battles where the death toll is over a million?

To quote playwright David Mamet:
“I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.”

I think you understood me perfectly.

And I think you might be a bit more confused than I thought. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with guns Um, do you know what happened there? Since when did Gun control become an argument on nuclear disarmament ?

So I think you might have missed the point. What I’ve been saying here is take situations like Rwanda. Do you know what armed people did over there? These weren’t trained pros. Just people who had guns. Do you know what the great American colonists did with the Red Indians? Therefore, we have ample evidence of what happens when the civilians become armed to the teeth. In fact, most terrorist organizations are given birth to with civilians who hold a gun.

So my friend, if you want to make big claims, be ready to back it up with proper evidence. Don’t give me Nuclear Bomb usage examples as a comparison to Guns. Obviously, no one has the means to afford a nuclear bomb. Otherwise I am sure some people would actually want a missile silo in their backyard for ‘self defense’ too.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

HOOAH!

Welcome to CAF

Birds of a feather flock together

God Bless

P.S. you might wanna actually read the arguments. He makes a compelling case (definitely involuntarily but still…) to REDUCE GUNS AMONG ALL PEOPLE INCLUDING AUTHORITY… HOOAH

 

[ddarko]

I would also point out that your wording above does not communicate a clear and concise statement or thought. Could you perhaps restate what you intended?

I think you got it, but here it is:-

Authority who are suppossed to be good people (which is why you elected them) choose to do reckless things with guns and kill 200 - 300 million (your estimates, not mine).

So if these good people can’t get it right (btw, most of them get elected by an overwhelming majority of people who thought they could GET IT RIGHT), what makes you think that someone who self proclaims himself as a good person or has a few recommendations is not going to go rogue once he gets a gun?

As far as I can see, the conclusion of your argument is, “LESS PEOPLE WITH GUNS THE BETTER”. I know its going to anger your buddy Stan but the argument you provided connecting 300 million deaths and authority who had guns, is pretty much an argument against holding guns.

Good stuff and thank you for your support

God Bless

 

[hxcCatholic413]

You are free to hold whatever position you choose. I find the arguments supporting that position unconvincing, and, since I am free to hold whatever position I choose, we have little to debate at this point. There is, however, no justification in claiming that either position is morally superior to the other or that the Church supports one and condemns the other. Such claims would be factually incorrect.

Ender

(Bolded) If you believe that then it would be easy for a pro-choice individual to fully support abortion in our society…

 

[tommcguire]

Let us get beyond the arguments for and against gun control; arguments are not going to change minds. I will fight for gun control and others will fight to prevent gun control. I assume we will all act as faithful Catholics.

My hope is for a way to get beyond the violence that wounded the little girl in Inkster Michigan. She did not own a gun, could not own a gun.

INKSTER, Mich. – Inkster police told Local 4 a 4-year-old girl was shot early Friday morning. It happened on Carlisle Street in Inkster just after midnight. The child was in a car seat in the back of a van driven by her mother and her male passenger when someone opened fire and shot the van. The girl’s head was grazed by a bullet. She is being treated at Children’s Hospital and is in stable condition.
The male passenger in the van ran from the scene, and the van has been impounded by Inkster police. Police are looking for the gunman.

How can we prevent little girls and boys from being shot?
Can we place our trust in God? What is our prayer? Does Psalm 54 suggest a way other than guns to protect our life and the life of our children?

Psalm 54
*1 Save me, O God, by your name;
vindicate me by your might.
2 Hear my prayer, O God;
listen to the words of my mouth.

3 Arrogant foes are attacking me;
ruthless people are trying to kill me
people without regard for God.

4 Surely God is my help;
the Lord is the one who sustains me.

5 Let evil recoil on those who slander me;
in your faithfulness destroy them.

6 I will sacrifice a freewill offering to you;
I will praise your name, LORD, for it is good.
7 You have delivered me from all my troubles,
and my eyes have looked in triumph on my foes. *

 

[MaxTH]

I think you understood me perfectly.

Well, no actually. If you were trying to cram as much incoherence as possible into what you wrote, then congrats, you win the gold.

And I think you might be a bit more confused than I thought. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with guns Um, do you know what happened there? Since when did Gun control become an argument on nuclear disarmament ?

We were talking about the government being disarmed vs, the people and you full well know that. Disarming the government does not mean taking away their spitwads, although apparently for you it does.

So I think you might have missed the point.

If you are assuming you made one, think better on it.

What I’ve been saying here is take situations like Rwanda. Do you know what armed people did over there? These weren’t trained pros. Just people who had guns. Do you know what the great American colonists did with the Red Indians?

“Red Indians”? Sorry, is english not your native tongue or are you simply racist?
And Rwanda was simply another case of government instituted genocide. If the people had guns, then half a million would not have been hacked to death.

Therefore, we have ample evidence of what happens when the civilians become armed to the teeth.

What we have here is ample evidence that you are quite unfamiliar with the definition of the terms “ample”, “evidence”, and “civilians”. Also, the colloquial “armed to the teeth” seems to be giving you headaches as well.

In fact, most terrorist organizations are given birth to with civilians who hold a gun.

If english is not your mother tongue then you may have a gift for languages, however if it is, you are in dire need of a good lawyer to sue whatever educational institution has so abused you.

Best regards.