Gun Ownership, legality and morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter JanSobieskiIII
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JanSobieskiIII

Guest

From a catholic answers article

"Conclusion

We thus arrive at the following takeaways:
  1. Church teaching supports the right of individual self-defense, including the use of lethal force when necessary. It does not expressly address the means by which this may be carried out, but it is a reasonable inference that if a gun is the best way you have to defend yourself, you may use it.
  2. The Church’s magisterium has not made any pronouncements regarding ordinary people possessing firearms for self-defense purposes, though the general ethos both at the Holy See and among the U.S. bishops seems to favor handgun restriction.
3) Therefore, this is an area in which, in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s words, there may be “a legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics."

Let’s have a legitimate discussion without resorting to name calling, as best as I’ve been able to find, there is no Church teaching on gun control that is necessary for Catholics to believe, so let’s start with the agreement that this is an area where we can disagree and no one is a better or worse Catholic than the other person.

First, lets talk about what rights are.

Natural rights are rights that all Men have just by virtue of being alive, this contrasts with Legal rights which must stem from a governmental authority.

Self-defense is a natural right according to St. Thomas Aquinas, however one must not use more force than is necessary to prevent ones own or someone else’s death or serious bodily harm from an aggressor.

The concept of natural rights is the basis of the US constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment of the constitution states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The key phrase is “right of the people” not right of the State, to keep and bear arms. This amendment relays a clear basis for the private ownership of firearms in the US. This of course has had many legal battles fought and the rulings state that this is not an unlimited right, but that private ownership of firearms cannot be banned.
 
Last edited:
Continued:

From the Heller decision

"

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Code: 
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. **Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”** finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
From these court rulings we can ascertain that there is a legal right in the US as long as the 2nd Amendment remains in place.

Furthermore, the precedent of arms “In common use” by the militia, absolutely covers the semi-automatic variations of military style firearms that have become the most popular sporting rifles in the United States.

In my next post I will start discussing stats on ownership and use in crime.
 
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

According to FBI stats, in the year 2014 (the last year available) total murders by firearms in the US was 8,124, or .025% of the total population in the US. Of that 8,124 murders, 248 were committed by rifles (data does not breakdown between “assault” weapons vs bolt actions or others) that breaks down to .0007% of the total US population.

This is not meant to trivialize these deaths, but it does serve to put them in perspective.
 
Gun violence in the US is not nearly as huge of a problem as the media tries to lead us to believe, although any senseless loss of human life is tragic. The question at hand remains, are we going to give up a longstanding tradition of American gun ownership, the means to which we can exercise our Natural Right to self defense, because we allow evil men to cow us into submission? Or do we stand defiant and with a stiff spine and find better solutions?

This is a country of 320 million people. There’s an estimated 300 million firearms in circulation and we have porous southern border where drugs come across with near impunity. Legal restrictions on firearms will not stop those who wish to commit evil from acquiring weapons, it will only deprive good citizens from obtaining adequate defense against those who would then be better armed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top