Gun Free Zones are Recipe for Disaster

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
max37 said:
Over 600 years of firearms in the west and our chatechism is still talking about a “lethal blow”? Sounds like hand to hand self defense.

Where does our chatechism get to the subject of guns?
Click to expand...
Sir, I assure you: Guns are capable of dealing lethal blows, just like most things.
 
max37 said:
I’ve noticed they can.

Again, where does our chatechism get to the subject of guns?
Click to expand...
The catechism is not a treatise on modern technology. It very clearly states both the right and the duty to defend life with lethal force. If the catechism did mention guns you would be using the same argument a hundred years from now when I’m arguing for the right to keep and bear lightsabers.
 
ohiocatholic07 said:
condoms don’t cheat on their spouse; people do.

condoms aren’t promiscuous; people are

low estrogen birth control pills don’t cause abortions; people who swallow them do
Click to expand...
Yeah, uh, that’s kind of true. Condoms are sometimes used by backpackers to keep matches protected from moisture, and they’re being used by our soldiers in Iraq to keep sand out of the barrels of their rifles during dust storms. The Church allows women to use birth control pills if done so for the purpose of regulating one’s menstrual cycle.

I’m not one to say they’re in a state of sin for possessing either the condoms or the guns, so what are you trying to imply?
 
ohiocatholic07 said:
My guess is that none of the good Catholic colleges allow their students to possess firearms on campus.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about now but when I went to high school, and it was a Catholic high school, we regularily had students walking the hallways with LOADED rifles – the school had a rifle team … and none of the teachers had a problem with it. Also, nobody EVER got shot – either by accident or on purpose.

Before guns were allowed and nobody ever got shot or killed. Now guns are not allowed and killings & shootings are constantly happening. Makes you think.
 
40.png
Me:
I find myself in disagreement with both the Rosie O’Donnell and Ted Nugent camps on the issue of guns.
Click to expand...
I’m against preparing for war too much/and I’m against preparing for war too little.

There is great danger in both.
 
Tarwater said:
The catechism is not a treatise on modern technology. It very clearly states both the right and the duty to defend life with lethal force
Click to expand...
And yet, the “modern technology of killing” is what brought both of our last 2 popes to question the doctrine of “Just War”

I prefer their mode of thinking to yours. (although the laight saber thing was almost funny;) )
 
max37 said:
And yet, the “modern technology of killing” is what brought both of our last 2 popes to question the doctrine of “Just War”

I prefer their mode of thinking to yours. (although the laight saber thing was almost funny;) )
Click to expand...
Glad to hear that you prefer their way of thinking because JP2 officially spoke out IN FAVOR of the private possession of firearms.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Glad to hear that you prefer their way of thinking because JP2 officially spoke out IN FAVOR of the private possession of firearms.
Click to expand...
I think I know the speech you’re referring to and I think it would have to be twisted to fit your argument. especially when put into the context.

And when you have used bold on the word officially are you trying to say he spoke infallably? Because that certainly would have been worldwide news, and certainly would have stirred up over a billion muslims, don’t you think?

The speech your referring to had to do with the immoral and illegal trafficking of small arms around the world.
 
max37 said:
And yet, the “modern technology of killing” is what brought both of our last 2 popes to question the doctrine of “Just War”
Click to expand...
I’m not interested in talking about the doctrine of Just War in this context. My interest in this discussion is the unalienable right to protect oneself and those in one’s care, which is explicitly stated in the catechism whether you will accept it or not. 600 years ago, that meant that even the lowest class of man has a right to own a spear or a bow for his defense. Today, it means we have a right to own and utilize firearms to the same purpose. You’d have to be looking at that passage with a pretty heavy bias to think it means we’re only allowed to defend ourselves with our hands. Tell me, which hand-to-hand fighting style do the Swiss Guard use to protect our Holy Father since they’re obviously not allowed to carry firearms?

When lightsabers are outlawed, only Sith will have lightsabers.
 
max37 said:
And yet, the “modern technology of killing” is what brought both of our last 2 popes to question the doctrine of “Just War”
Click to expand...
I’m sure lots of Popes “question” the Just War doctrine, but the fact remains that it is part of the Deposit of Faith and is unalterable. 😉
 
Tarwater said:
Tell me, which hand-to-hand fighting style do the Swiss Guard use to protect our Holy Father since they’re obviously not allowed to carry firearms?
Click to expand...
So you tell me Swiss Guards are not allowed to carry guns, and sir knight tells us JP2 “spoke out in favor of firearms.” What’s up with that?
 
max37 said:
So you tell me Swiss Guards are not allowed to carry guns, and sir knight tells us JP2 “spoke out in favor of firearms.” What’s up with that?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. The Swiss Guard carry 9mm Sig Sauer handguns if I’m not mistaken. The question I was getting at is why it’s acceptable to protect the Pope with guns if we laymen are only allowed to use our fists.
 
max37 said:
The speech your referring to had to do with the immoral and illegal trafficking of small arms around the world.
Click to expand...
max37 said:
I think I know the speech you’re referring to and I think it would have to be twisted to fit your argument. especially when put into the context.
Click to expand...
There is NO twisting. The Pope clearly said that “the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists” and can even be “a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.” …
In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community.
Click to expand...
… Vatican Web site.
max37 said:
And when you have used bold on the word officially are you trying to say he spoke infallably? Because that certainly would have been worldwide news, and certainly would have stirred up over a billion muslims, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
It’s on the Vatican’s website and it was in a statement issued to the UN. So, I would say that makes it pretty official. And while he MAY not have spoke infallably, what he wrote in the CCC is considered to be infallable (it says so in the intro that the CCC is the norm by which Catholics are to live their lives by) and the CCC states …
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
Click to expand...
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
Click to expand...
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
Click to expand...
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Click to expand...
… If I have a GRAVE duty to do something, then I am to use the best means available to me to fulfill that duty. In most cases (not all but most), the best means of self defense will be with a gun. If you limit what I may use, then the duty can not be considered to be “grave”.
 
Not only is it unlcear who exactly made that enitre statment, since no one signed it and it is misleadingly titled:
INTERVENTION OF THE HEAD OF THE HOLY SEE DELEGATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS
Click to expand...
the head of "the holy see delegation to the international etc etc, could be anyone. If it was the pope, it would be signed by the pope The “delegation” had a head honcho and that is who this statement is from.

**BUT even more importantly: the oft-quoted phrase was taken from a source 7 years older than the rest of the document and not said by the pope but from a “council”: **
(Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).
Click to expand...
So you can cherry pick here or there, and you can really hope some of these words came from the pope (since all the gun guys incorrectly label it as the pope on their websites) but you’re dreaming.
**
BTW - thanks for pointing this one out. None of us ever have to fall this one again!**
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top