Gun Control

[ddarko]

The Church has.
The Church has.
The Church has.

This is why I didn’t ask for a Scripture reference but asked you to cite a Church document. If the Church condemns something she will say so. If she hasn’t condemned something there is no valid reason to think you can condemn it in her place. The Church has never condemned the private ownership of firearms so it is not correct to claim that the elimination of private ownership is a moral imperative; we may decide the issue for ourselves.
My bias is toward the truth and the truth is that you have never cited a single Church document to support your position. Your argument is based entirely on your personal interpretation of Scripture.
I agree … so what does the Church have to say about the private ownership of guns? … crickets
The Church has a long history of opposing the use of force by the clergy … but she has restricted her opposition to using force to the clergy only; she has never opposed the use of force per se either in the military, in public office, or in self defense. As for advocating the use of guns, I haven’t really advocated that or anything else; I have been arguing that the Church has no position on the issue.

Ender

Ok this is even worse idea. So in your view, until the church pronounces something as WRONG its OK. Because the followers in the church cant put 2 and 2 together, right?

So please enlighten me, take cloning. If the people who researched it, decided to produce a human clone for organ donations, and the church hadn’t condemned it back then, was it OK?

Or, when someone came up with the idea of eugenics. If the church hadn’t outright condemned it, does it make it OK?

I believe NO. The conclusion follows logically from the basic axioms of Christianity that those things are WRONG. The church CAN make an official pronouncement but its not required.

This is also an erroneous view that is propagated by many who support contraception. They spend hours debating if the encyclicals have any AUTHORITY. What they fail to see is that contraception is WRONG according to the conclusion of basic Christian teachings.

So I am afraid you are arguing from a false standard of RIGHT and WRONG. i.e. IF the Church hasn’t explicitly said anything, its neither GOOD or BAD.

It might also help for you to read up on Confirmation Bias maybe through the link on post #374.

God Bless

 

[Darkbloom]

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.

I think this is a fantastic example of the reason of many right-leaning Catholics. I know it reflects my thoughts to a large degree.

 

[Darkbloom]

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 have way too much faith in authority (especially secular authority) and not enough in the individual. Power corrupts, and the vary basis of power is violence. A nation-state is, by definition, that institution that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

When you combine exclusive right to violence with failed human nature it is easy to see why freedom is a historical anomaly.

That is the brilliance of the American system. The apparatus of government was designed to harness individual ambition towards the good of the Republic, split and subdivide power so no one person can overwhelm the system and set up a counterbalance in the form of an armed populace which could serve as another check on tyranny.

You keep mentioning “civilians”, by which I assume you mean private individuals not in the military or police force. Such folks fall into one of two classes: 1) subjects, who are unarmed, and 2) citizens, who are armed. I know which I’d rather be.

And here’s a hypothetical to ponder. You’re shocked that Authority could be so evil in the first half of the last century, and you’re sure that an armed populace would have been worse. But the U.S. not only escaped the despotism of the Europeans, but had an armed populace too boot. Could it be that the U.S. escaped that fate simply because we DID have armed men and women? I seriously doubt FDR would have had any compunction with making the government even bigger and more intrusive if he could.

 

[MaxTH]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004842.htm

The Church as said time and again, that those who suffer from habitual sexual attraction for other men and boys cannot be ordained. However the reality is that the Church has in fact ordained tens of thousands of them.

"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view – adopted by the Boy Scouts – is that sodomites cause sodomy.

It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests – more than 90 percent – are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic “Where’s Waldo” reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the “teen-ager,” the “former student,” the “victim” and the “accuser.”
Ann Coulter

And that the hierarchy of the Church is rank with homosexuals is known for certain, however the extent of the problem is really anyone’s guess. Hence stories such as this:

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02z_003_Sodomy-Arnold.html

The point of all of this is that, as previously stated, homosexuals do not relate to the world as men. A friend of mine wrote his thesis on homosexual reparative therapy and one thing he said struck me. He said that it may be that one reason homosexuals are so promiscuous is that somewhere inside they know they are not men. They know that something is missing and that the hundreds and yes even thousands of partners is an attempt to make up for that somehow.

This I think also might explain their fascist like attempt to rid society of any notion of gender, of male and female. Hence firearms, being masculine, must be done away with.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Sorry? Better examples of what exactly?

What I meant is that your witty examples didn’t make me LOL (laugh out loud)

 

[hxcCatholic413]

This is incorrect for the simple reason that the Church has no position on gun control but has explicitly and consistently condemned abortion. I get to make up my own mind on prudential matters and am bound by Church teaching only on moral ones. The question as to whether or not limiting private gun ownership is beneficial or harmful to society is not a moral concern. It is a question of fact to be determined by social scientists, not theologians. The answer lies in poring over criminal justice statistics, not the writings of the Early Fathers.

Ender

Guns are instruments of killing; therefore it is a moral matter…anyone who disagrees on what guns do are well…

 

[bbarrick8383]

Sir Knight, your use of logic is baffling.

You can’t stop there. Read on so that at least you might get a lesson in logic.

I bowed out of the biblical part of this discussion, because it’s not my area of expertise and I’d probably get my tail kicked.

But you are the last person who should be talking about lessons in logic.

Example

You said we as civilians can not carry guns because, in your opinion, by virtue of leaving the house armed we were automatically suspicious of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is completely hypocritical though, because by taking guns away from ordinary citizens you are then yourself guilty of suspicions of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here is my logic, I pack a tool box full of tools in my truck. Amongst those tools is a flat head screw driver. That screw driver is not there because I am suspicious of a loose screw somewhere. The same with a gun.

The same logic with my knife, because currently I do not carry a gun, I carry a very large knife. As a matter of fact, if someone pulled a knife on me they better be pretty close because my knife is probably not only bigger but in a heartbeat it comes apart as two knives.

I don’t strap my knife to me every morning because I’m suspicious of my brothers and sisters in Christ, I do it because I never know when I’m going to need it. I’d rather have it and never need it than need it and never have it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Guns are instruments of killing; therefore it is a moral matter…anyone who disagrees on what guns do are well…

You are right, I’ve killed several things with my guns, am I evil for that?

Guns are an instrument of enjoyment as well, I love shooting bowling pins and targets.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I think this is a fantastic example of the reason of many right-leaning Catholics. I know it reflects my thoughts to a large degree.

fantastic example??? That had to be one of the most judgmental posts I’ve read on CAF …I can’t believe I missed it

 

[MaxTH]

fantastic example??? That had to be one of the most judgmental posts I’ve read on CAF …I can’t believe I missed it

In what way “judgmental”?

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I bowed out of the biblical part of this discussion, because it’s not my area of expertise and I’d probably get my tail kicked.

But you are the last person who should be talking about lessons in logic.

Example

**You said we as civilians can not carry guns because, in your opinion, by virtue of leaving the house armed we were automatically suspicious of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is completely hypocritical though, because by taking guns away from ordinary citizens you are then yourself guilty of suspicions of your brothers and sisters in Christ.
**

Are you serious??? ^^^^

Here is my logic, I pack a tool box full of tools in my truck. Amongst those tools is a flat head screw driver. That screw driver is not there because I am suspicious of a loose screw somewhere. The same with a gun.

**Guns are meant to kill…investigate the roots of their creation **

The same logic with my knife, because currently I do not carry a gun, I carry a very large knife. As a matter of fact, if someone pulled a knife on me they better be pretty close because my knife is probably not only bigger but in a heartbeat it comes apart as two knives.

I don’t strap my knife to me every morning because I’m suspicious of my brothers and sisters in Christ, I do it because I never know when I’m going to need it. I’d rather have it and never need it than need it and never have it.

"Hey I see a target flying in the air" SHOOT IT!!! Be honest you carry a gun because your afraid someone is going to attack you

 

[hxcCatholic413]

In what way “judgmental”?

I was commenting about MaxTH’s post that you found as a “fantastic example” Priests are “effeminate and vote like women” if you agree with that then you are beyond judgmental

 

[bbarrick8383]

Now that was funny ^^^^^^

Yes, like I said, I’ve had to kill stuff with my gun. I also enjoy the heck out of shooting clay targets, bowling pins and other targets.

Your point is?

How many people have died over money?

Should only people who have taken special oaths be allowed to carry money?

They are both amoral objects, it’s not what they do that is evil it’s what they are used to do.

BTW, at close range a knife can do much worse to a human than a gun can. I know someone whose taken a bullet to the heart and is currently alive and well. You might know him too.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I don’t carry a gun very often as I do not have a CCL. But when I am going shooting my gun is right there with me in my truck, unloaded and in plain sight.

I carry a knife everywhere I go though, a rather large knife. I’ve run into too many situations where I was carrying a smaller knife that could barely handle the job.

 

[MaxTH]

I was commenting about MaxTH’s post that you found as a “fantastic example” Priests are “effeminate and vote like women” if you agree with that then you are beyond judgmental

Reading is fundamental, but no less so comprehension. You apparently are not even able to identify the person to whom you are responding.

And, yes, a good many of the priests I know complain about the very large percentage of homosexual/effeminate priests and bishops. That is simply a fact that I myself have also sadly experienced. In the 90s Theological College in DC was known as Theological Closet, and St. Mary’s in Baltimore was known as The Pink Palace. The priests I know who were at TC in the 90s have said it was perhaps 80-90% homosexual, and that includes the staff.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Reading is fundamental, but no less so comprehension. You apparently are not even able to identify the person to whom you are responding.

And, yes, a good many of the priests I know complain about the very large percentage of homosexual/effeminate priests and bishops. That is simply a fact that I myself have also sadly experienced. In the 90s Theological College in DC was known as Theological Closet, and St. Mary’s in Baltimore was known as The Pink Palace. The priests I know who were at TC in the 90s have said it was perhaps 80-90% homosexual, and that includes the staff.

Mark 12:31 “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” God Bless!

 

[MaxTH]

Mark 12:31 “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” God Bless!

True, but “Homosexuals shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

 

[ddarko]

I bowed out of the biblical part of this discussion, because it’s not my area of expertise and I’d probably get my tail kicked.

But you are the last person who should be talking about lessons in logic.

Example

You said we as civilians can not carry guns because, in your opinion, by virtue of leaving the house armed we were automatically suspicious of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is completely hypocritical though, because by taking guns away from ordinary citizens you are then yourself guilty of suspicions of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I am sorry, but what exactly is the logical error again?

Also, there is nothing hypocritical here. I am simply pointing out why good Catholics would not need guns. It is not hypocritical to say that just as much as its not hypocritical to say that we must love everyone as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here is my logic, I pack a tool box full of tools in my truck. Amongst those tools is a flat head screw driver. That screw driver is not there because I am suspicious of a loose screw somewhere. The same with a gun.

The same logic with my knife, because currently I do not carry a gun, I carry a very large knife. As a matter of fact, if someone pulled a knife on me they better be pretty close because my knife is probably not only bigger but in a heartbeat it comes apart as two knives.

I don’t strap my knife to me every morning because I’m suspicious of my brothers and sisters in Christ,** I do it because I never know when I’m going to need it**. I’d rather have it and never need it than need it and never have it.

I honestly don’t understand who you are tying to fool. You tell me that you are not suspicious of your brother and sister going at you. BUT, you also state that you want a knife or a gun because you don’t know when you will need it. So YOU ARE postulating that you WILL NEED IT.

Like it appears that you are contradicting yourself here.

But let me say why I think one can carry around a pocket knife. It might well be for other helpful things. My grandfather carried around a knife which he used to sharpen the pencil, shave etc.

BUT, it is also possible that you will carry around a knife with the wrong intention. As in for self defense mind set or as a criminal for using it as leverage. Those are WRONG.

In the case of a gun, as many have stated (including yourself), they CLEARLY want it for nothing other than fear of needing it in the streets. That is to suspect your brothers and sisters in Christ.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight, your use of logic is baffling.

You can’t stop there. Read on so that at least you might get a lesson in logic.

The point of that argument is FOR YOU TO INTERPRET Jesus’s words the WAY YOU DO is ILLOGICAL. You are simply providing counter examples to counter examples.

So there is NO ERROR in SCRIPTURE. Just ERRONEOUS interpretation by some people to further their own agendas.

Now since you’ve made it extremely clear that you do not understand proper argumentation and logic behind it, I am afraid I am incapable of arguing with you. I can only convince you using Reason and I don’t know any other methodology. Someone else might be capable of using other methods and I hope you will meet such a person. But I think its clear that me and you should not engage in any debate because we have different standards at arriving at the truth.

God Bless

Just answer the simple question. Is Mark 4:33-34 correct or isn’t it? Did Jesus explain everything to His Apostles or didn’t He? It the same answer. Which one is it?

 

[ddarko]

Just answer the simple question. Is Mark 4:33-34 correct or isn’t it? Did Jesus explain everything to His Apostles or didn’t He? It the same answer. Which one is it?

The passage is correctly translated YES! But your interpretation is ERRONEOUS.

Thats as far as I can talk to you Sir Knight. I know not logic as you do. So we won’t get anywhere.

Oh and might help if you checked out the info on Confirmation Bias I provided.

God Bless