LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Does that work for all moral decisions, or only the moral decisions one makes about guns? I can imagine similar arguments that goes like this:
prayerrider-like argument from 1850:
prayerrider-like argument from 1973:
- Status
prayerrider-like argument from 1850:
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it fails to works for anything that is objectively morally evil. For things that are dependent on the factors I mentioned above must allow for individual choice. That said, there is also the consideration of the common good in deciding what is, and is not allowable for a private individual to own. This is where the gun debate takes place, not in disarmament.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Would Jesus own a gun? Would Jesus use a gun?
A
AlruwhAlquds
Guest
You have to protect your family, you have a right to self defense and to protect you/your family. Men are to be protectors and providers and etc. It’s natural. I would do what you need to do! BUT follow the law as you are expected to do as a Catholic/Christian, be responsible.
Responsible women and/or mothers can do the same to protect their kids.
Responsible women and/or mothers can do the same to protect their kids.
Last edited:
A
AlruwhAlquds
Guest
We have an inherent right to protect ourselves. Men are to be protectors and providers, to lay their lives down for their wives and family. Responsible people have saved lives from those who illegally obtain guns, in movie theaters and restaurants.
Jesus would not be against what the Bible says below:
Exodus 22:23 - If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.
This means if you shoot an intruder into your home, it is not a sin! If the intent was to protect your family from an intruder – it is not a sin!
Luke 11:21 - When a strong man fully armed guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed.
He directed his disciples to arm themselves. The guns back then were swords. Today we use guns. Asking if Jesus would use a gun is not a valid point. But He did give us a brain and He did tell us to arm ourselves for self defense.
This was covered in detail in our RCIA this year. Be smart and be responsible in this day and age. This was supported by the 4 priests in our parish.
Jesus would not be against what the Bible says below:
Exodus 22:23 - If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account.
This means if you shoot an intruder into your home, it is not a sin! If the intent was to protect your family from an intruder – it is not a sin!
Luke 11:21 - When a strong man fully armed guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed.
He directed his disciples to arm themselves. The guns back then were swords. Today we use guns. Asking if Jesus would use a gun is not a valid point. But He did give us a brain and He did tell us to arm ourselves for self defense.
This was covered in detail in our RCIA this year. Be smart and be responsible in this day and age. This was supported by the 4 priests in our parish.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not really. All it means is that it was no crime under the Mosaic Law some 4000 years ago to kill someone just for entering your home to steal. Whether it was a sin or not depends on other things. You do know, I assume, that we are not under the Mosaic Law.
There were not guns when Jesus was around. This type of question does nothing but hold a mirror up to oneself, then putting the person of Jesus up as the authority. Jesus did not speak to this issue. The Church has. Legitimate self-defense is moral, as is pacifism.
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I don’t think Jesus carried a weapon, he didn’t need to so why would he. Peter probably carried a weapon and I imagine some of the other Apostles carried a weapon as well. It was probably common at the time, as with most times throughout history.
I’m guessing that Peter would have carried a pistol if it was possible for him to do so.
I’m guessing that Peter would have carried a pistol if it was possible for him to do so.
G
graciew
Guest
Y
Jesus and the Our Father
Nothing to do with Jesus fueling in his disciples the purchase of swords…
Luke comes from speaking about prayer.
Jesus and the Our Father
Nothing to do with Jesus fueling in his disciples the purchase of swords…
Last edited:
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Legitimate self-defense is a right. I do not disagree.
But our gun laws do not match that vision.
Mental health should be considered when applying for a gun license.
A gun license should require training and testing, just like a driver’s license.
Why do you need more than a few guns? Why do you need rapid fire and extended ammunition mods?
I can go on and on.
Legitimate gun control is the moral and ethical position, not unfettered gun ownership.
But our gun laws do not match that vision.
Mental health should be considered when applying for a gun license.
A gun license should require training and testing, just like a driver’s license.
Why do you need more than a few guns? Why do you need rapid fire and extended ammunition mods?
I can go on and on.
Legitimate gun control is the moral and ethical position, not unfettered gun ownership.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This right of self defense has been misrepresented in the gun debate. The right of self-defense is a moral statement about what one may do morally when threatened. It is not a statement about what one must be allowed to do to prepare for such a threat, such as keeping a gun. There is no inherent right to own a gun in Christian morality. There is a right to use a gun if you have one when you are threatened.
I have heard the argument that goes like this: “Well, if I don’t have a gun, how can I exercise my inherent right to self-defense?” My answer to this argument is “perhaps you can’t” No matter what weapons one has - a knife, a handgun, a rifle, an AK-47 - one can always imagine a scenario in which that weapon is not sufficient protection against the threat. The inherent right to self defense does not grant the right to always succeed in combating a threat.
That said, in the US there is a right to keep and bear arms. But that is a legal right, not a right recognized by the Church, nor indeed by very many other nations. So the right to carry a gun is not quite a universal inherent right.
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
A few things, mental health is already considered. A person who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" is already barred from purchasing or receiving a firearm under federal law.
Secondly, a drivers license is only applicable to the active use of the object on public property. There is no legal requirement for a drivers license, or even any training, to use a vehicle on private property Likewise there are no licensing or training requirements to own\purchase a vehicle. The licensing and training requires are requirements are simply those to actively operate it on public property.
In that case, such similar training and licensing is already in place in most jurisdictions, namely in concealed carry permits and hunting licenses.
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
Being omnipotent, He would have no need. Rather, He simply intends for the evil doer to die, and they do. Example being Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, and Ananias and Sapphira in the New.
P
prayerrider
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
D
Dracarys
Guest
Okay, that is your decision, but I hope you understand the Catholic church supports your right to defend yourself.
D
Dracarys
Guest
This is where you loose me. I am not a “common good” kind of guy. I believe that all of us working for our own interests will make a better world. The communists subscribe to the “work for the people” idea. No, I am not calling you communist.
D
Dracarys
Guest
There is more occurring here than a right to arm oneself. The man as head of the household has an obligation to take care of his wife and family. If they are hungry he must make money to feed them. If they have no shelter he must procure housing. If his family is attacked in the house, on the street, or anywhere else he must defend their lives. I have seen other posters here say they would die rather than defend themselves. So then I ask if they would you let their wife, kids, or other innocents die. Usually my question is conveniently ignored or they make some vague comment that they would defend their family. Whenever I hear this I know full well that most of these posters would be incompetent in any form of defense. They don’t own guns, they are afraid of guns, they are against possessing guns, and they certainly have no knowledge of how to tactically use a gun. They are essentially defenseless and useless men when it comes to wariorship.
In the real world attacks come hard and fast. You can’t pray your way out it, talk your way out of it, or plead your way out of it. The five Ps are: prior preparation prevents poor performance. You don’t have to be obsessed with defense, but all men should be prepared for it. You don’t need a gun till you do.
B
Brendan
Guest
True, but one may use reason to evaluate the threats that one is likely to encounter. And then the Virtue of Prudence would drive the preparation. While you are quite correct that any scenario could be envisioned, some are certainly more likely than others.
If one is mitigating against home invasion, certain arms are more useful than others, even from person to person. The more common solution is a shotgun, but some, especially women or the eldery might not handle the recoil, or a handgun, or an light cabiler, semi auto, like the AR-15, is a good solution.
That now becomes a matter of what is a reasonable response to the threat. Good indicators are how the police themselves would be armed in such a case. And thus the public, who are more likely to be the victims, and thus who have the immediate right of defense, should reasonably be armed.
In addition, rights cannot be abrogated in the negative, in denying the reasonable ability to exercise that right. Would a freedom of religion exist if the government prohibited any churches that it disagreed with, that Catholics are free go to \use a church on Sunday, but could not actually build or operate churches.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
(@Brendan: It is breath of fresh air to see a reasoned response to my posts. I recommend that @Dracarys study your style and learn from it.)
continued…
I can’t argue with that.
This assumes that one has already made the prudential judgement that armed mitigation is worth the risk of having the weapon on hand, and that the mitigation could not be handled in a more intrinsically safe way, such as with lights, alarms, barriers, a dog, etc.
That I will dispute. The situation the police find themselves in is not the same as the situation of a private citizen. The police are exposed to (or rather they expose themselves to) threats of violence much more often than a private citizen. So it stands to reason that the cost/benefit calculation of being well-armed comes down very hard on the side of being well-armed. And even the police vary their armament according to the nature of their assignment. When the police are preparing to confront a growing riot they arm themselves differently than if they are walking a beat in a friendly neighborhood. London bobbies famously often carry no firearms. But when the London anti-terrorism squad is on duty, they are very highly armed.
continued…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Continuing:
I just checked that statistic, and I don’t think it is true. In one year there were 14,800 gun homicides out of a population of 320 million or so. That comes to 4.6 people per 100,000. That is the likelihood of dying as a victim of homicide by gun. Now for the police. There are an estimated 750,000 sworn officers. Of these, 53 died in the line of duty by gunfire from the bad guys. That comes to a rate of 7.1 police officers per 100,000 officers. 7.1 is greater than 4.6. So it looks the the general public is not more likely than the police to be victims of gunfire from the bad guys. But moving on…
Everyone has the immediate right of self-defense, but I don’t see how it follows that they should be armed.
That is true, but who gets to decide what “reasonable ability” is? I would argue that in a society where decisions made of this nature impact not only the one making the decision, but also his neighbors, legitimate authority acting in the common good has the duty to set limits on what is reasonable. That is why, for instance, we are not allowed to carry a gun onto a commercial flight, but we are allowed to patrol our ranch with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle.
Even freedom of religion is not absolute. If someone invents a “church” whose doctrine is to organize and promote an armed rebellion against the state, that “church” will not be free to practice their faith. So a “reasonableness” criterion is assumed in the statement of the right.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I understand the sentiment, but the idea of the common good is Catholic teaching, and most here are Catholics. Think of it this way. Defense of one’s country is good. Defense on one’s community is good. Since one is done in common through the military, one is done in common through police, there is some sense of the common good to all but the anarchists. Other areas might include fire-fighting, road construction, drainage infrastructure, city parks, and finishing with welfare programs, education, etc. Most of us (that aren’t complete socialists) draw that line somewhere, and somewhere different than others.
- Status