Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[graciew]

But I am. And I have the right to defend myself in my environment. And I have the right (the Church teaches) even to use arms to do so.

Yes…and this was part of the discussion, the Cathecism States you can use them.
But nowhere that as a Catholic you can claim the right to own them. As a citizen maybe,as Catholic,per se,no.
And for the record, I own guns,so please do not ask me to twist like a pretzel to say it again because what I wrote several times is simple.
And any average person understands that Police and Military are kind of a different issue.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . . .

And for the record, I own guns,so please do not ask me to twist like a pretzel to say it again because what I wrote several times is simple.

Irrelevant if you own fire arms or not regarding this discussion.

.

graciew . . .

Yes…and this was part of the discussion, the Cathecism States you can use them.
But nowhere that as a Catholic you can claim the right to own them.

It also states NOWHERE that “nations” can own them.
Yet you claimed that.

(And by the way, I agree with you.
Nations CAN own arms.
It can be reasonably assumed, given the context, if they are legitimate to use for nations, they are legitimate to own for nations.
And by extension this not only applies to “nations” but ALL–not merely “some” who are “responsible for the lives of others”.–See CCC 2265*)

.

CCC 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.

(Emphasis mine)

*A criminal would have freely decided to throw away this right.
But prescinding from her criminal status, she COULD otherwise own arms legitimately.

 

[graciew]

Listen…I am not disputing parents’ authority, but if you go back to CCC1897 and subsequent,you may read what they mean by legitimate authorities in the Cathecism and how it is dealt with .

And now to add to the topic of the thread,maybe on a side note,now our visa requests need to include our social.media. My visa hasn t expired but probably next time when renewing.

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . . .

Listen…I am not disputing parents’ authority, but if you go back to CCC1897 and subsequent,you may read what they mean by legitimate authorities in the Cathecism and how it is dealt with .

I went to CCC 1897 and saw nothing that denies persons or individuals a rightful sphere in the order of authority.

CCC 1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”

By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons OR institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

Emphasis mine.

I AFFIRM the authority of Government in the proper sphere.

(But you seem to be DENYING the authority of an individual in the proper sphere.)

And WHY ignore CCC 1883?

CCC 1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity , according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

Or even CCC 1904? . . .

CCC 1904 It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.

You have to take the WHOLE package in the order of authority.

It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds

This is the PRINCIPLE our founding fathers in my country (the U.S.A.) sought to preserve in this area. Which is part of the reason WHY they insisted upon an armed citizenry being an option of those citizens (and NOT the state).

 

[Cathoholic]

Excerpt from CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be . . . a grave duty
for one who is responsible for the lives of others .
. . . . those who legitimately hold authority ALSO have
the RIGHT TO USE ARMS to repel aggressors
. . . . entrusted to their responsibility.

All CCC 2265 for added context.

CCC 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.

 

[Cathoholic]

I still want to know how people came to the conclusion of . . .
. . . the legitimacy of “use” . . . .
. . . . yet concomitantly assert the illegitimacy of “ownership”.

Especially in light of that being taught NOWHERE by the Church.

And most especially when “selective application” is being attempted to be employed in this thesis.

(In this case, Governments can own guns, but citizens cannot.)

 

[JonNC]

I still want to know how people came to the conclusion of . . .
. . . the legitimacy of “use” . . . .
. . . . yet concomitantly assert the illegitimacy of “ownership”.

Especially in light of that being taught NOWHERE by the Church.

And most especially when “selective application” is being attempted to be employed in this thesis.

(In this case, Governments can own guns, but citizens cannot.)

More so than this. The premise is not only governments can own guns, but citizens cannot, but that governments can be trusted with guns, but citizens cannot.
The history of the last century so overwhelmingly refutes that premise, it seems almost nonsensical to make it.
And this isn’t a straw man argument. Just look at the argument against citizen ownership of AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles. They even call them “military style” or “assault rifles”, neither of which is true, but the implication is only government should have them.

 

[Cathoholic]

The premise is not only governments can own guns, but citizens cannot, but that governments can be trusted with guns, but citizens cannot.
The history of the last century so overwhelmingly refutes that premise, it seems almost nonsensical to make it.

Amen to this JonNC.

And now not only “Governments”, but this politician from New York is – for all practical purposes – attempting to legitimize social media GIANTS while at the same time further DELEGITIMIZING good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

I might not go as far as saying this is “satanic doctrine” attempting to be foisted upon New Yorkers (and by extension others), but I will say with impunity,
this politician’s social doctrine is " not Heavenly" either.

I think it is a by-product of a very confused politician. Confused as regards to the proper social order.

And also as you suggested Jon, if you take an honest look at misuse of arms by Governments, for this imbalance of power to be promoted by some people is naive at best (“nonsensical”).

And of course if we were to use the “collective guilt” model we have seen here in this thread, and apply it to Governments, that would likewise WRONGLY disarm ALL Governments (based on that principle) too.

The only ones left with arms with such a motif?

The same ones who are microcosmically left with guns in say for example, “Gun-Free Zones”.

Bad guys.

And then the victims cry out suddenly for a Good-Guy with a gun to suddenly have-to be in a position to risk their own lives now to protect the self-imposed defenseless victim. (For this reason and others, this is a self-destructive view [that gun-grabbers hold against themselves]).

 

[Cathoholic]

JonNC . . . .

They even call them “military style” or “assault rifles”, neither of which is true, but the implication is only government should have them.

That is absolutely correct JonNC.

If our military leaders began sending our soldiers in battle with mere semi-automatic weapons (instead of the switch for a three shot full-auto burst or in other cases fully auto), I would be the first to call for the retiring of the Secretary of Defense, or General, or whoever made such a dangerous decision with our military.

“Military style” or “assault rifles”? Hardly.

 

[graciew]

More so than this. The premise is not only governments can own guns, but citizens cannot, but that governments can be trusted with guns, but citizens cannot.

Who said " cannot"?
The issue in dispute is if the Cathecism says that we as catholics can claim the right to ownership of guns as a right? If our legitimate authorities, have clauses,etc etc about the ownership of guns,we should respect that.
One cannot go and claim a right to ownership as Catholic. In that sense,imagine I was a temporary resident in the US,so…I could have claimed my right " because the Cathecism says so" ,and I am a " person",but it doesn t…I have to respect your laws in US.I couldn’t own one. And that is fine. Is it is clearer this way?
As for me,arm yourselves to the teeth ( well…it is a saying… .and do as you please,but we are referring to legitimate authorities as the Cathecism explains in the cited article,subsequent and respect to our laws and legitimate authorities.
We weren talking of anything American,but the Cathecism.
And with all respect,I am out for the moment. I do not know how else to say it. And I have adopted two puppies which appeared from nowhere at our ranch,they are less than 3 months old and they have just made a mess and destroyed one of our cushions outside.
Sincerely…not really willing to argue much,just to learn. Have a blessed day all…

 

[Cathoholic]

graciew . . .

Have a blessed day all…

Thanks graciew. You have a blessed day as well. (And good luck with your puppies. Sounds like work but also sounds like fun too.)

 

[graciew]

Yes,I do! Thank YOU,Catholic!

 

[JonNC]

May His blessings be with you also

 

[Vanny]

This sounds close to the social Capital thing that’s being implemented in China and other places.

Although I see what they’re saying-probably checking to make sure someone isn’t posting violent things on social media so therefore would be a danger…
But that could be abused by progressives, for sure.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

This past week two good guys with guns who sought to help defend against an active shooter were shoot ad killed by arriving police.

Of course these good guys - one a security guard, on a marine home on leave, were black.

That is frankly insulting to suggest that the two citizens shot and killed were killed because they were black. That is nothing more than you grafting your own twisted opinion on the motives of the cops. Disgusting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

dvdjs:

This past week two good guys with guns who sought to help defend against an active shooter were shoot ad killed by arriving police.

Of course these good guys - one a security guard, on a marine home on leave, were black.

That is frankly insulting to suggest that the two citizens shot and killed were killed because they were black. That is nothing more than you grafting your own twisted opinion on the motives of the cops. Disgusting.

That is not quite the suggestion. The fact is people of color are more likely to be shot by police that whites in the same circumstance. This has nothing to do with motivation. It has to do with fear and inadequate training and inadequate police-community relations. Police need to make split-second decisions. It is hard under these conditions to carefully and rationally weigh the evidence. So they react partly based on their fear. If they have a subconscious belief that blacks are more dangerous that whites, that belief will inform their fear and bias their reactions quite independently of their conscious motivations. Such fear is built up by unfamiliarity with a diversity of people. That is why enhanced police-community relations is needed to provide that familiarity and dispel the fear that biases sudden decisions. Unfortunately those at the top often do not lead on these issues, and so we have what we have.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

If our military leaders began sending our soldiers in battle with mere semi-automatic weapons (instead of the switch for a three shot full-auto burst or in other cases fully auto), I would be the first to call for the retiring of the Secretary of Defense, or General, or whoever made such a dangerous decision with our military.

“Military style” or “assault rifles”? Hardly.

It is a common misconception that the military runs around with everyone on full automatic. This is false. 99% of all engagements occur with guys firing on semiautomatic only. Machine guns excepted of course. Rifles were only recently reconfigured for automatic fire about 10yrs ago after the COP at Wanat was almost overrun, and it is reserved for that type of scenario where the hordes have overrun the fighting positions.

But you are right, there is nothing particularly special about the AR-15 that should restrict it to military use only. It is a semi-automatic .223 rifle that shoots one round per trigger pull. People like them because their frame is extremely modular and can be customized to the individual’s preferences for grips, sights, etc. It’s only other standout feature is the magazine well which can take a variety of magazine sizes from 10rds to 100rd drums. But this is only unique in that a wide selection of detachable magazine types are available for the AR-15 platform. Almost every other modern rifle, whether bolt action or semiautomatic, uses detachable magazines. An AR-15 is functionally pretty much the same as a Remington model 742.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

More so than this. The premise is not only governments can own guns, but citizens cannot, but that governments can be trusted with guns, but citizens cannot.

That’s not quite the premise. The more accurate way to describe the premise is that we must trust government to own guns, or else sacrifice all communal self-defense. As long as we believe that self-defense of a community is needed, the trust of the government to do that is essential. (Unless you propose that self-defense be carried out entirely by unorganized citizens with private weapons. That would be either anarchy, or else a really weak nation when facing another nation that does have a government force, like an army, with tanks and planes and bombs, etc.)

 

[JonNC]

That’s not quite the premise. The more accurate way to describe the premise is that we must trust government to own guns, or else sacrifice all communal self-defense.

This is incomplete, ISTM. But okay. We have no choice but to trust government. The framers recognized that, as well, and put into place a protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms in part as a check on that power. As Reagan said, trust but verify.

 

[dvdjs]

That is frankly insulting to suggest that the two citizens shot and killed were killed because they were black. That is nothing more than you grafting your own twisted opinion on the motives of the cops. Disgusting.

I said nothing about “motives of the cops”, and would ask that you retract your unfair and impolite characterization of my words.

We have heard many times here that the best answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
We now have evidence of that a good guy’s responding may not be the best idea. Indeed, the Alabama police, after correcting their mis-identification of the good guy as the bad guy, have released a statement faulting him for heightening “the sense of threat to approaching police officers responding to the chaotic scene” by holding his gun.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-...-black-man-shouldnt-have-held-his-gun-2018-11