Which utopia are you referring to in which there is no need for government?Motherwit:
The issue is, HOW is that BEST provided?
By wasteful Government bureaucracies that piddle-away much of that funding that could go to help?
Or is their a better way without labeling the citizens as beasts (“Oh. They CAN’T take care of the poor. They are just citizens. They NEED Government to take over!”)?
Newsom signs long gun rationing bill into 'law'. Lawsuit ensues
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I was concerned someone would minimize people’s efforts taking care of the sick. (There are good people. We are not beasts.)
Lay people including nuns and also clergy have given their lives helping people who are sick. St. Damien pray for us and all of the sick.
When I suggested there are more efficient ways of taking care of the needy than more Government programs this was the response I got . . . .
I am not going to address it. No time for that sort of thing.
Lay people including nuns and also clergy have given their lives helping people who are sick. St. Damien pray for us and all of the sick.
When I suggested there are more efficient ways of taking care of the needy than more Government programs this was the response I got . . . .
And there ya have it.
To the readers here. This equivocating of course is a straw man.
I am not going to address it. No time for that sort of thing.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
No it’s not.
We don’t check in with the state while shopping regarding purchasing soda pop because we might put on weight.
The individuals have their own responsibilities.
I quit paid work when I started having my kids 30 years ago and since then I’ve only ever worked in the field of charity. Now if you truly believe that nuns and priests and holy charitable people can sort the sick and poor on your own without the government, you must have experienced some utopia? It’s the Nirvana Fallacy.
Last edited:
What exactly are you advocating? No government intervention at all? How will we have any impact on our goal of banning abortion?Motherwit:
No it’s not.
We don’t check in with the state while shopping regarding purchasing soda pop because we might put on weight.
The individuals have their own responsibilities.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Remember the armed school officer who was afraid to go into Stoneman Parkland HS and save children? While unarmed “coach” inside gave his life trying (coach’s guns were at home as teachers concealing then was against the law? I was made fun of here when I suggested they should be and told of wanton death that would result. Now of course Florida DOES have armed teachers.)
Deputy assigned to Florida school 'never went in' during shooting, sheriff says World News
.
And this guy was not the only one . . . .
Police say more deputies waited outside school during Stoneman Douglas shooting World News
Stoneman Douglas students arrested for knives, deputy suspended for sleeping on job World News
WATCH: Teacher Allegedly Plants Ammo at School, Calls 911 World News
Cop who didn’t enter school during Florida shooting resigns, has home guarded . . .
Put your trust in Government some will say.
.
And this guy was not the only one . . . .
Another Stoneman HS “protector” was catching some zzz’s on the job when this was going on . . . .
Or other Government employees faking our police . . . .
1/2 . . .
C
Cathoholic
Guest
2/2 . . .
Or police shooting a good guy . . .
Los Angeles Gamer Arrested After Police ‘Swatting’ Death World News
Minneapolis woman shot by police for no apparent reason World News
Or putting our trust in people who carry out dangerous abuses of power . . . .
Police got search warrant for everyone who Googled Edina resident's name World News
Or police against police with politician’s blessing . . . .
Anarchy Breaks Out in Portland, With the Mayor’s Blessing World News
I just put up a story last February about how people were buying guns because they sensed unrest and the police would be unable or unwilling to protect them.
I was soundly made fun of. Someone put up a FB post of a Texas (?Houston?) Sheriff asking criminals to stay home because of COVID.
I was told how crime went down (for a couple weeks into corona mania) and the media reassured everybody all would be well with regards to crime.
I wasn’t even defending the citizen gun-buyers. Just reporting it.
(But that was enough to trigger some at least into criticizing me over merely reporting it.)
That was before “The Summer of Love”.
Look. If people want to depend entirely upon Government to save them in a situation that may immediately require force, let them choose to do so.
Some people want to be wards of the state too.
This country was set up recognizing that people have rights in this area and those rights do not emanate from a group of people in power this week or that week.
Or police shooting a good guy . . .
Or Government politically-correct programs resulting in hiring an officer that should never have been hired. An officer who kills an unarmed woman for no apparent reason. . . .
Minneapolis Woman Shot by Police For No Apparent Reason
These are some of the people you are supposed to surrender your rights to, to be taken care of by them.
Or putting our trust in people who carry out dangerous abuses of power . . . .
.
Or police against police with politician’s blessing . . . .
Trust in these guys right?
I just put up a story last February about how people were buying guns because they sensed unrest and the police would be unable or unwilling to protect them.
I was soundly made fun of. Someone put up a FB post of a Texas (?Houston?) Sheriff asking criminals to stay home because of COVID.
I was told how crime went down (for a couple weeks into corona mania) and the media reassured everybody all would be well with regards to crime.
I wasn’t even defending the citizen gun-buyers. Just reporting it.
(But that was enough to trigger some at least into criticizing me over merely reporting it.)
That was before “The Summer of Love”.
Look. If people want to depend entirely upon Government to save them in a situation that may immediately require force, let them choose to do so.
Some people want to be wards of the state too.
This country was set up recognizing that people have rights in this area and those rights do not emanate from a group of people in power this week or that week.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Good grief.
Another straw man argument.
As is this . . .
These straw-men are so self-evident, I won’t even try to respond further here.
Last edited:
I think that’s for the best because on one day in one argument you dismiss people arguing from emotion but on another day in another argument you use emotion and outrage arguments to make a case. Your debate style is not rooted in any universal principles.Motherwit:
Good grief.
Another straw man argument.
This is so self-evident, I won’t even try to respond further here.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I guess I looked at them as tangible examples.
Not mere “emotion”.
But you go ahead and think whatever you want.
U
upant
Guest
why does one need a flamethrower
to melt the snow, of course
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
to melt the snow, of course
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
U
upant
Guest
we see what the government does with the vets, enough said.
I was in a VA hospital when a doctor told a medical student, “if we were in private practice we would run more test”.
if you are a vet using the VA, know that everything you say is written in the system from their perspective. the good thing is that you can read it, but good luck changing wrong diagnosis.
Can I ask why you didn’t go to a private practice?Motherwit:
we see what the government does with the vets, enough said.
I was in a VA hospital when a doctor told a medical student, “if we were in private practice we would run more test”.
if you are a vet using the VA, know that everything you say is written in the system from their perspective. the good thing is that you can read it, but good luck changing wrong diagnosis.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No. The words “adequately defend themselves” appears nowhere in the Catechism. Certainly it says nothing about the right to carry a gun.
He does not tell them to purchase a gun.
I doubt that even the Vatican says that their right to own guns comes from God.
No, you misquote them. These countries do not claim the right to own guns as inherent from God. They simply recognize that at present, there is no reason not to.
That isn’t true at all. AT ALL. Only 3 countries in the world even consider owning a gun a constitutional right. The US, Mexico and Guatemala. The majority of countries forbid owning a gun specifically for self defense. For the majority, guns are limited to the military and law enforcement. For certified security officers. And for farmers, hunters and sportsmen. All of whom have to be trained, certified and have renewable licences.
So the majority of countries consider guns as an excessive measure for self defense outside of wartime events.
That’s fine. By the way, your right to religious free exercise does not include placing limits on my rights. That’s the great thing about rights. If you think you shouldn’t own a firearm and I think I should, we agree to exercise our rights.
You don’t tell me I can’t own an AR-15, and I don’t tell you what religious faith you should have.
We end up with trouble when one person tells the other they can’t have their rights.
that’s not the definition of an inherent right.LeafByNiggle:
That’s fine. By the way, your right to religious free exercise does not include placing limits on my rights. That’s the great thing about rights. If you think you shouldn’t own a firearm and I think I should, we agree to exercise our rights.
You don’t tell me I can’t own an AR-15, and I don’t tell you what religious faith you should have.
We end up with trouble when one person tells the other they can’t have their rights.
Actually, that’s exactly the result of large central government, a destruction of not only individual rights, but also the common good.
Rights, by definition, are not declared by governments. Rights are not provided by governments because governments have no means of their own to provide them. The only means governments have comes from the confiscation of the wealth and labor of individuals via taxation.
The right to healthcare is not granted by nor provided by government. Instead government controlled healthcare turns the right into a privilege that can be just as easily denied for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which being political. As an example, the CDC recommending the distribution of the vaccine on the basis of race, instead of by vulnerability.
In short, government cannot be trusted with the healthcare of the populace on a regular basis.
I agree. However, no one has the right to someone else’s wealth and labor in order to acquire it. If someone is forced by government to pay for my healthcare, it becomes a privilege, the the person forced to pay for it a servant/slave.
And yet those who propose government dictated healthcare are intentionally aligned with those in favor of abortion.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Under certain conditions, it does - specifically if what you call a right is not actually a God-given right and if the means by which I place those limits is in conjunction with others in society through the agency of a legitimate authority - i.e. a government. Let me give you an example. You may think that you have the right to build a garage anywhere on your property that you wish. However, if I and a sufficient number of others in the community can convince the local building standards authority to prohibit building a garage less than 3 feet from your property line, I can do that. It is both legal and ethical. Passing gun control legislation is the same thing. It is not a God-given right and therefore it can ethically be limited through action by a legitimate authority.LeafByNiggle:
That’s fine. By the way, your right to religious free exercise does not include placing limits on my rights.
It can be the result, but it does not have to be. It is possible - even common - for a largish central government to enhance the common good rather than destroy it.Motherwit:
Actually, that’s exactly the result of large central government, a destruction of not only individual rights, but also the common good.
Also the notion of a “central” government is relative. Compared to State government, the Federal government is the central government. With respect to county and city government, the state government is central. With respect a neighborhood association, the city government is central.
I can think of at least one example where the federal government was more in line with the common good than a state government. If you remember your history, you can think of it too.
Last edited:
- Status