Gun Control

[Ender]

Does the Church allow killing in self defense?
Even ddarko recognizes the answer here is: Yes.

• Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. (Aquinas ST, II-II 64,7)

Does the Church specify that weapons may not be used in self defense?
No, rather she appears to view weapons as normal and useful.
- Horns and claws, which are the weapons of some animals, and toughness of hide and quantity of hair or feathers, which are the clothing of animals, are signs of an abundance of the earthly element; which does not agree with the equability and softness of the human temperament. Therefore such things do not suit the nature of man. Instead of these, he has reason and hands whereby he can make himself arms and clothes, and other necessaries of life, of infinite variety. (Ibid I, 91, 3 ad 2)

… Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body. (Ibid III, 79,6)

Does the Church put guns in a special category of weapons that are taboo?
There is zero evidence of this, which is unsurprising as the morality of the act is determined by the intent, not the means (with special exceptions).

• • Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention* (Ibid, II-II 64,7)

Therefore killing with ones hands can be an immoral act and killing with a gun a moral one since, in this case, the means are irrelevant. There is no evidence that the Church has ever had a position that would make ownership of a private firearm, or its use in self defense, immoral.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

There is no evidence that the Church has ever had a position that would make ownership of a private firearm, or its use in self defense, immoral.

Ender

You see the above part that I took from your reply above? That is what I am pointing out as wrong. The correct thing to say is the following:-

There is no evidence that the Church has ever had an EXPLICIT position on private firearm, or its use in self defense.

Because you see, when you study church teaching, it becomes apparent that private gun ownership is not a Christian thing. We just have to look at tradition.

No where in the Acts of the Apostles do we hear of anyone using ANY weapon for self defense whether it be lay person or not. There is an ample amount of martyrdom and praying for ones attackers as they die but no instances where any Christian went Gung-ho on the attacker.

So the church has always been against civilians arming themselves UNLESS it is an extraneous circumstance where no law enforcement exists or it is a time of war. In the United States, many do NOT fall in to this category. Now if you are from some rural area of U.S., isolated and have no fast access to law enforcement, THEN you are very much right in possessing a gun. It is justified.

Just the possibility of having a gun because you may get attacked is not valid reasons for Gun ownership. There are other alternatives for most of us who live in populated areas. Giving guns to everybody might in-fact add to the crime in such cases. Therefore, gun ownership is only justified when there is no other recourse.

That is all I am pointing out. This is why I kept saying you two are making this a one-one issue as if Guns = Self defense. Now I understand that its not even clear to you that this is what you are saying but please just think about what I wrote above. Otherwise we can have this discussion all day because its very easy to fall in to the logical error of equating guns with self defense.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

So the church has always been against civilians arming themselves UNLESS it is an extraneous circumstance where no law enforcement exists or it is a time of war.

You’ve made the claim, now support it. Where does the Church say anything like this?

Just the possibility of having a gun because you may get attacked is not valid reasons for Gun ownership.

I know what your position is; what I’m asking is for you to cite where the Church has ever said or even implied this.

we can have this discussion all day because its very easy to fall in to the logical error of equating guns with self defense.

Guns are simply a specific example of using a weapon in self defense and I have seen nothing whatever where the Church expresses opposition to such use. If she doesn’t oppose the use of weapons in self defense (and Aquinas clearly supports their use for that purpose) then there is no justification in inferring that she opposes any particular weapon.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

You’ve made the claim, now support it. Where does the Church say anything like this?
I know what your position is; what I’m asking is for you to cite where the Church has ever said or even implied this.
Guns are simply a specific example of using a weapon in self defense and I have seen nothing whatever where the Church expresses opposition to such use. If she doesn’t oppose the use of weapons in self defense (and Aquinas clearly supports their use for that purpose) then there is no justification in inferring that she opposes any particular weapon.

Ender

Actually I told you what supports that position. Take the early Christian community in Acts of the Apostles. Name one single person that advocated or carried out an act of self-defense and I will agree with you.

Also, most of the CCC quotes deal with giving permission to State and law enforcement to possess guns.

The Catholic Bishops and Vatican has on multiple times spoken about having gun control and I am sure you know the quotes. You just like to brush them aside as disagreeing with Church teaching. So you are sort of caught on a catch 22 situation.

If I may advice how to resolve it, start with Authority i.e. Scripture. The Acts of the Apostles is how the Christian community is suppossed to be like to the end of time. Do you see any examples of self-defense using any weapon there?

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Actually I told you what supports that position. Take the early Christian community in Acts of the Apostles. Name one single person that advocated or carried out an act of self-defense and I will agree with you.

You’ve told me nothing at all except how you personally understand Scripture. You have provided nothing the Church has ever said to support your position and you simply ignore the citations I provide that support my position.

Also, most of the CCC quotes deal with giving permission to State and law enforcement to possess guns.

Citations please. Where does the Church support your position on private gun ownership?

The Catholic Bishops and Vatican has on multiple times spoken about having gun control and I am sure you know the quotes.

I doubt the existence of any Church document that speaks out in favor of gun control.

You just like to brush them aside as disagreeing with Church teaching.

The opinions expressed by individual bishops do not constitute Church teaching but, even if they did, I challenge you to cite anything that specifically says individuals do not have a moral right to own a firearm.

If I may advice how to resolve it, start with Authority i.e. Scripture.

I don’t grant myself the authority to interpret Scripture so I start with Church documents. This is why I can support my position with what the Church has said on the subject and you have nothing but your own opinions. Why would you think anyone should find that compelling?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

You’ve told me nothing at all except how you personally understand Scripture. You have provided nothing the Church has ever said to support your position and you simply ignore the citations I provide that support my position.

???

Ok answer the following:-

Do you agree that the Church and its community are to live and imitate the community as described in the Acts of the Apostles?

If your answer is YES, then please cite what I asked from that community i.e. examples of valiant self defense.

I think the truth is hitting home to you for I see a repetition starting to occur in you “please provide citations” even when things have been cited from Scripture.

Citations please. Where does the Church support your position on private gun ownership?
I doubt the existence of any Church document that speaks out in favor of gun control.
The opinions expressed by individual bishops do not constitute Church teaching but, even if they did, I challenge you to cite anything that specifically says individuals do not have a moral right to own a firearm.

Sure forget about the Bishops, the Popes or anyone else. Lets concentrate on Scripture.

I don’t grant myself the authority to interpret Scripture so I start with Church documents. This is why I can support my position with what the Church has said on the subject and you have nothing but your own opinions. Why would you think anyone should find that compelling?

I speak from Scripture. And my views do not discredit any of the quotations or citations you have provided. My view simply shows how they fit in to a complete whole of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Your views on the other hand are contradicting lots of other teachings because, I am sorry to say this, but you are misinterpreting the interpretations. But, you are not the only one. Lots of Catholics misinterpret teachings on the Catechism about Personal Conscience for an example. We are fallible after all.

So when in doubt, move to Scripture and Reason.

That is where we are at now. So don’t be afraid. This is not about Private interpretation. This is seeing what is happening in the early Christian community as described in Acts of the Apostles. Any Church authority will tell you, that is how the church even knows it has any authority i.e. by the community as described in the Acts of the Apostles.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

I think the truth is hitting home to you for I see a repetition starting to occur in you “please provide citations” even when things have been cited from Scripture.

I haven’t asked for interpretations of Scripture; I have specifically asked for citations from Church documents … of which so far you have produced exactly none.

Sure forget about the Bishops, the Popes or anyone else. Lets concentrate on Scripture.

No. I don’t care how you interpret Scripture; I care how the Church interprets it and if you cannot cite a Church document that supports your position then as far as I am concerned you have no position.

I speak from Scripture. And my views do not discredit any of the quotations or citations you have provided. My view simply shows how they fit in to a complete whole of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If your view fits with what the Church teaches then show us … cite Church teaching.

Your views on the other hand are contradicting lots of other teachings because, I am sorry to say this, but you are misinterpreting the interpretations.

Here’s how this has gone so far: you cite Scripture and tell us what (you think) it means. I cite the Church and you either reject the citations as misinterpretations or simply ignore them, but nothing can hide the fact that you have yet to provide a single Church quotation to support your position.

This is not about Private interpretation.

No? Then show us what the Church teaches, because if you can’t do that then all you have is your personal opinion.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

I haven’t asked for interpretations of Scripture; I have specifically asked for citations from Church documents … of which so far you have produced exactly none.
No. I don’t care how you interpret Scripture; I care how the Church interprets it and if you cannot cite a Church document that supports your position then as far as I am concerned you have no position.
If your view fits with what the Church teaches then show us … cite Church teaching.
Here’s how this has gone so far: you cite Scripture and tell us what (you think) it means. I cite the Church and you either reject the citations as misinterpretations or simply ignore them, but nothing can hide the fact that you have yet to provide a single Church quotation to support your position.
No? Then show us what the Church teaches, because if you can’t do that then all you have is your personal opinion.

Ender

Ok, what exactly qualifies as church teaching and what does not?

As far as I am aware, Scripture is part of Church teachings. And as far as I am aware, the whole Church and its community is based on imitating the early Church community as described in Acts of the Apostles. Everything down to the church hierarchy comes from there (of course other passages can be used for extra support but everything is first taken from there).

So I am really not sure what you are asking? Do you want a writing by someone that “In the acts of the Apostles, there has indeed been no valiant acts of self defense or carrying of weapons”? Because this is something you can find out yourself by reading acts of the apostles.

Or do you want a writing that explains why the Church is based on and should imitate the early Christian Community as described in the Acts of the Apostles?

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

The back and forth on the topic is about the letter of the law. Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law. That law is a law of love. . Everyone can agree, I think, that Catholics are far from living out the law of love as Jesus taught. Much of what the Church teaches is a way to help weak human beings to get through life and move toward living the law of love. The quotes about defense are about such weakness. No sin, if you defend self or nation with violence meeting certain restrictions. But killing is not described in any of the quotes as a virtue.

When we look at the prayer of the Church, which is the expression of what Catholics believe. Where do we see any prayer that encourages violence? In my memory of prayer there is much focus on healing, forgiveness, mercy, and hope that humans avoid violence.

 

[Ender]

Ok, what exactly qualifies as church teaching and what does not?

Citations of encyclicals or other papal documents, or from catechisms, quotations from the Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church qualify; references to Scripture passages accompanied by your interpretations of what they mean do not.

So I am really not sure what you are asking? Do you want a writing by someone that “In the acts of the Apostles, there has indeed been no valiant acts of self defense or carrying of weapons”?

I am asking for you to cite any Church document (see above) that speaks to the issue of self defense and states that owning a weapon for such a purpose is immoral or frowned upon. I want you to find something the Church has said that supports your position - as I have found citations that support mine.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Citations of encyclicals or other papal documents, or from catechisms, quotations from the Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church qualify; references to Scripture passages accompanied by your interpretations of what they mean do not.

I admire your shying away from Scripture due to fear of error but this has nothing to do with interpretation unfortunately. So let me show you how the conclusion follows

1. The Church community must imitate the early Church described in the Acts of the Apostles — Church Teaching. The only part dealing with interpretation is this one and I am sure you know enough quotes yourself in Encyclicals to explanation of Dogma like Papal Primacy where this is mentioned.
2. We see no valiant acts of self defense or carrying of weapons for self defense in the Acts of the Apostles but a whole lot of laying down ones lives while praying for the forgiveness of the attacker — Observation
3. Therefore, carrying of weapons for self defense is not something normative in a Christian community.

To elaborate on (2) → You might argue that (2) is an interpretation. But one must make a distinction between interpretation and observation. The observation is certainly fallible IF you can prove that in the Acts of the Apostles, people carried weapons and engaged in self-defense. But as you seem to be aware, it is not possible.

Now the problem of arguing about the fallibility of observation is that it undermines the Church it-self. The church, cites the Acts of Apostles when answering questions about hierarchy and authority of the Church. But if we go by the mere POSSIBILITY that the church is making a fallible observation, then the church is undermined. So POSSIBILITY that the observation is in error is not sufficient. You have to show why that observation is in error i.e. show an example where the observation does not hold in the Acts of Apostles.

To elaborate on (3) → Note I used the word “Normative”. This might not be the right word. But what I mean to say is that no weapons in the Christian community applies to general life.

a) As the church teaches, during a time of War, the state has the right to equip its community with weapons. Similarly, those in the community have the right to say no to fight and contribute in other ways. But that is an extraneous circumstance and War is to be avoided if at all possible (Just War Doctrine).

b) Similarly, someone living in a rural area with known threats from wild animals etc. may want to possess a weapon and is justified in doing so.

Both a) and b) above however are the exception. Not the norm of a Christian Community.

I am asking for you to cite any Church document (see above) that speaks to the issue of self defense and states that owning a weapon for such a purpose is immoral or frowned upon. I want you to find something the Church has said that supports your position - as I have found citations that support mine.

I am going to have to stick with Scripture on this one.

Note, I am not using Scripture here in the interpretive sense which would rightly be questionable if I did. But I am using it merely as an observation on an already accepted Church teaching i.e. we must imitate and base our Church community on that of the early Christian Community described in the Acts of the Apostles.

God Bless

 

[Tigg]

Because you see, when you study church teaching, it becomes apparent that private gun ownership is not a Christian thing. We just have to look at tradition.

It is obvious that you are trying to support your own individual preference and stance by non-existent “teachings.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Maybe it will help you to stop relying on others and start reading and learning about your own religion a bit)

I speak from Scripture.

So when in doubt, move to Scripture and Reason.

I am going to have to stick with Scripture on this one.

Spoken like a true Protestant. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong whether they be priest, bishop or even pope …

(I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to history, but even those high up as Bishops and Pope’s have done some nasty and immoral things. So the fact that you got private advice from your Monsignor really doesn’t mean much.

You are correct in saying that none of us (including YOU) are assured of having an infallible understanding of scripture EXCEPT for the OFFICIAL Church and the official teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals (which the Church can NOT error on) is document for us in the CCC which clearly states that we have a right and even a duty to self defense. No where does it place any restriction on that self defense with the exception that excess force is not to be used. This is not the same thing as barring weapons.

If a little old lady was trying to attack me, I would NOT be justified in using a gun to stop her because I am bigger & stronger than she is. That would be excessive force. On the other hand, if a little old lady came at me with a butcher knife, then I would be justified in using a firearm to defend myself because she could slash my hands if I tried to grab her and then stab me and kill me. So in that case, using a gun would be completely justified. Now, if she had a butcher knife but was in a wheelchair and I could out maneuver her and get away, then I would NOT be justified in using a gun. If, however, I was bed-ridden and couldn’t get up and she was coming at me with a knife, even if she was in a wheelchair, then I would be justified in using the gun.

It is not the weapon but the situation that one finds oneself that determines whether the use of a gun would be excessive force or not. The mere use of a firearm does not automatically imply that it is excessive but I digress …

The point is that no official church teaching prohibits the use of a firearm to defend oneself. In fact, Vatican documents specifically state that one CAN use a firearm to defend oneself and others. These have been presented to you. This represents OFFICIAL Church teaching on this matter. Unless you can provide Vatican documentation which support your position, then YOU are the one who is INCORRECTLY interrupting the scriptures and leading people astray.

 

[starshiptrooper]

1. The Church community must imitate the early Church described in the Acts of the Apostles — Church Teaching. The only part dealing with interpretation is this one and I am sure you know enough quotes yourself in Encyclicals to explanation of Dogma like Papal Primacy where this is mentioned.

The Church community is not supposed to imitate the early Church in every outward action. For instance, women no longer have to cover their heads in Church. Also, we don’t share everything in common like the first Christians did. I don’t see the Popes condemning private property or telling women to cover their heads in Church.

1. We see no valiant acts of self defense or carrying of weapons for self defense in the Acts of the Apostles but a whole lot of laying down ones lives while praying for the forgiveness of the attacker — Observation

You don’t see many references to Christians using transportation either.

1. Therefore, carrying of weapons for self defense is not something normative in a Christian community.

Using the same line of reasoning, I conclude that using methods of transportation instead of walking is not something normative in a Christian community.

 

[tommcguire]

Ok, enough of the back and forth proving positions. What are we going to do about the number of people killed by guns? Since 1999, 150,000 Americans have been killed by guns." That sounds like a war on ourselves. None of the chatter about guns here in this thread seems at all concerned about how to save people killed by guns.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Ok, enough of the back and forth proving positions. What are we going to do about the number of people killed by guns? Since 1999, 150,000 Americans have been killed by guns." That sounds like a war on ourselves. None of the chatter about guns here in this thread seems at all concerned about how to save people killed by guns.

I refer you to John R. Lott’s book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control ". Mr. Lott was originally anti-gun and started out to prove how dangerous guns were to our society and how they should be banned. However, the more research he did, the more he learned that the real-life facts showed that the more guns were readily available and not restricted, the LESS crime there was in reality. Mr. Lott personally analyzed data from all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994 and discovered that communities with the strictest gun laws also had the highest violent crime rate over communities with more loose gun laws. Additionally, when communities loosen gun laws, their violent crime rate went DOWN while communities that tightened gun laws saw their violent crime rate go up. Analyzing over 3,000 counties, he did not find one single exception to these observation causing him to recognize that more quns equates to less crime resulting him in changing his original opinion in this matter.

If you doubt his findings, I challenge you to pick up a copy of his book and disprove the facts that he presents as he lists all of his sources. His book may still be available for purchase, or, I’m sure that you can find it in most libraries. If you can’t disprove his facts, then why, as Christians, would we want to restrict gun ownership when doing so results in a more violent society?

 

[tommcguire]

I live in a community with lots of guns. There is no control on who owns or does not own a gun. Children die from guns all too often. That is my evidence for wanting more gun control.

I believe the Gospel, which is not based on statistics, encourages virtue. Courage is one of those virtues that is much needed. The following article sites the kind of courage that the Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages. I believe this kind of courage will make a difference in the war we are fighting with each other.

Clancey Sigal in an Alter Net article, “In a War-Loving Society, Peace Activism Takes a Lot of Guts and Bravery”, asked some questions worth reflecting on. What does Memorial Day memorialize? Decoration Day began to honor the more than 600,000 dead Confederate and Union soldiers.

He goes on to ask: “Isn’t it time to also honor those who have ‘fallen” in a different battle –against the slaughtering wars?”

He goes on to say: “Over time, my attitude to conscientious objectors and deserters has shifted. Once, I held them in contempt. But the Vietnam war, when I came into contact with war resisters, changed me. I saw then, and see now, that often it takes a different kind of moral and, yes, even physical courage to resist a call to serve your country in a war you believe is a crime, when all your family, friends, teachers and the vast American majority support joining up. When I was called to my war, I went with shining eyes and revenge in my heart and couldn’t wait to get my hands on a .30-calibre machine-gun to wipe out those Nazi bastards.”

He asks: “But what kind of guts does it take for war objectors, whether they’re Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites or secular, who simply don’t want to kill?”
And concludes: “On this Memorial Day, it might be a time to think about the outcasts who refuse to take life.”

May God have mercy on us all. May all who die doing what their conscience says is good and moral live eternally in the bosom of our loving God.
I also pray for more courageous people to choose not to use guns to take life.

 

[ddarko]

Spoken like a true Protestant.

Kind of ironic don’t you think? You seem to have a phobia of Scripture. I don’t.

I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong whether they be priest, bishop or even pope … You are correct in saying that none of us (including YOU) are assured of having an infallible understanding of scripture EXCEPT for the OFFICIAL Church and the official teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals (which the Church can NOT error on) is document for us in the CCC which clearly states that we have a right and even a duty to self defense. No where does it place any restriction on that self defense with the exception that excess force is not to be used. This is not the same thing as barring weapons.

The CCC acknowledges self defense but not guns. Stop equating the two. You are seriously in a position where everyone has already agreed is not the same. If you want to stick to this erroneous position, best of luck!

If a little old lady was trying to attack me, I would NOT be justified in using a gun to stop her because I am bigger & stronger than she is. That would be excessive force. On the other hand, if a little old lady came at me with a butcher knife, then I would be justified in using a firearm to defend myself because she could slash my hands if I tried to grab her and then stab me and kill me. So in that case, using a gun would be completely justified. Now, if she had a butcher knife but was in a wheelchair and I could out maneuver her and get away, then I would NOT be justified in using a gun. If, however, I was bed-ridden and couldn’t get up and she was coming at me with a knife, even if she was in a wheelchair, then I would be justified in using the gun.

???

There is a difference between self-defense AND Guns for all. Stop equating the two. I even acknowledged if you read my last post that some individuals in today’s society are infact justifiable in possessing a Gun. But this does not apply to every one. They are the exception.

Being bed ridden is not justification for owning a gun. You can rely on those you love. But if you are in a very sad situation with no one you can trust by your side, well sure, own a gun.

It is not the weapon but the situation that one finds oneself that determines whether the use of a gun would be excessive force or not. The mere use of a firearm does not automatically imply that it is excessive but I digress …

??? What are you talking about? Are you replying to the same topic? There is a difference between self defense and gun ownership. What you are doing here is giving us examples of situations where death of the attacker is justifiable. This in no way proves that all civilians should be allowed guns.

The point is that no official church teaching prohibits the use of a firearm to defend oneself. In fact, Vatican documents specifically state that one CAN use a firearm to defend oneself and others. These have been presented to you. This represents OFFICIAL Church teaching on this matter. Unless you can provide Vatican documentation which support your position, then YOU are the one who is INCORRECTLY interrupting the scriptures and leading people astray.

No. Absolutely nothing you have presented agrees with all civilians being armed. There are many documents, including the Catechism, which emphasize the state and those in authority being armed.

You my friend don’t know how to read scripture. I recall you said that you teach RCIA. Please let me know which parish so that I may write a letter to the Bishop, together with some of your handiwork on this thread alone when it comes to Scripture. I will be doing converting Catholics a favor.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The Church community is not supposed to imitate the early Church in every outward action. For instance, women no longer have to cover their heads in Church. Also, we don’t share everything in common like the first Christians did. I don’t see the Popes condemning private property or telling women to cover their heads in Church.You don’t see many references to Christians using transportation either.Using the same line of reasoning, I conclude that using methods of transportation instead of walking is not something normative in a Christian community.

Ok I think you are again showing a lack of understanding of Church teaching.

When one says that we have to imitate the early Christian community, it does not mean we can’t do anything new. What it means is that when we consider doing something new, we have to see if it is compatible with how things took place in the early Christian community. That is always a must.

If you are denying this, your Catholic Faith and the Church is no more. It would just be an unnecessary invention. Protestants are right and you might as well convert.

The whole church hierarchy, parishes etc are all based on Acts of the Apostles. The problem with arming people with guns is that this stands in direct contradiction to what we see in Acts of the Apostles.

So the argument is not that we shouldn’t own guns because Apostles didn’t own guns. They obviously had no way of even knowing what a gun is. The argument is that owning a gun seems contradictory to the self-sacrificing life style the early church community lived as described in the acts of the Apostles.

And as I said, during a time of war, there are exceptions and the state is justified in arming a weapon. This does not stand in any way contradictory to Acts of the Apostles. Read my post again to Ender to get a better understanding.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Kind of ironic don’t you think? You seem to have a phobia of Scripture. I don’t.

I acknowledge that only the Church can infallibly interpert scripture’s teachings. You seem to think that you know better. A Protestant approach.

The CCC acknowledges self defense but not guns. Stop equating the two. You are seriously in a position where everyone has already agreed is not the same. If you want to stick to this erroneous position, best of luck!

Stop being hypocritical. The Church can not teach that we have a right and even a duty to do something and then restrict our ability to perform that duty. Additionally, NOWHERE does the CCC forbid the use of weapons for self defense. In absence of such, the two go hand in hand.

???

There is a difference between self-defense AND Guns for all. Stop equating the two. I even acknowledged if you read my last post that some individuals in today’s society are infact justifiable in possessing a Gun. But this does not apply to every one. They are the exception.

No, they are not. The CCC applies to all and not to exceptions.

Being bed ridden is not justification for owning a gun. You can rely on those you love. But if you are in a very sad situation with no one you can trust by your side, well sure, own a gun.

??? What are you talking about? Are you replying to the same topic? There is a difference between self defense and gun ownership. What you are doing here is giving us examples of situations where death of the attacker is justifiable. This in no way proves that all civilians should be allowed guns.

The CCC applies to ALL. All have a right to self defense. A gun is a means to accomplish that self defense and since the CCC does not place any restrictions that weapons can not be used for self defense … you have nothing to base your conclusion on

No. Absolutely nothing you have presented agrees with all civilians being armed. There are many documents, including the Catechism, which emphasize the state and those in authority being armed.

The CCC applies to all and you have presented no Vatican document showing that all should not all own guns.

You my friend don’t know how to read scripture.

I know how to read scripture much better than you. Jesus clearly instructed His followers to purchase a sword if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloak to do so. The Apostles, who spent three years eating, sleeping, living and learning from Jesus understood Jesus to mean real swords. The scripture clearly says that whenever the Apostles misunderstood something, Jesus always explained it to them and we always see that explanation. No further explanation for this particular passage is EVER offered. Either the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was talking about real swords (therefore, no further explanation would be needed) or this would mark the one part in all the gospels where a misunderstood concept was not further explained. Finally, if the Apostles misunderstood this teaching, when their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit and recalling that they themselves misunderstood this teaching, why wouldn’t they explain this teaching to prevent others from misunderstanding it the way that they did?

If I was given directions on how to get somewhere and I missed a hidden turn, when giving those directions to others that I cared about, I would more carefully explain that turn to ensure that others don’t make the same mistake that I made. If the Apostles misunderstood, they would have clarified this teaching to prevent others from misunderstanding it. They didn’t. Why? Because they didn’t misunderstand. Jesus was instructing His followers to arms themselves with weapons.

I recall you said that you teach RCIA. Please let me know which parish so that I may write a letter to the Bishop, together with some of your handiwork on this thread alone when it comes to Scripture. I will be doing converting Catholics a favor.

More fabrication on your part. Where have I ever said that I taught RCIA? Link please?