Where does God give right to arm ourselves for those who trespass against us?So now it is your contention that a freedom is the God given right to smoke pot and snort coke?
ahhhh the corners we paint ourselves into when we just refuse to accept facts.
I asked my guns, they haven’t killed kids.Gun owners can’t control their guns and it’s causing people to die, which is the severest burden on society.
Again, this protection is for CHILDREN. Should we arm them?
No. It means that I, as a parent and husband, have a grave moral duty to protect the lives of my children and my wife.The Church teaching is being interpreted through a biased eye. The specific passage you reference speaks of those with legimate authority have a grave moral duty. This does not mean a person is not obligated to defend, as they can. It also does not mean there is a specific tool of defense. The same passage speaks of limits in defense, and with the specific language of those with legitimate authority, it seems to limit an armed society walking our streets. Reading the same chapter, we see the rules for capital punishment, but gun rights advocates are singling out one part to use as their Church condoned rights to go beyond the teaching.
One could say that there is a moral duty to support controls, which are another form of defense.
How charitable of you.You do know that handguns are used several million times per year to prevent crimes, right? There are these things called facts. You should learn a few.
Can you be with all of them 24/7, 365 days a year?No. It means that I, as a parent and husband, have a grave moral duty to protect the lives of my children and my wife.
My vehicles have never killed anyone, and no one has died at my house, should I be forced to buy insurance?I asked my guns, they haven’t killed kids.
BTW swimming pools and bath tubs kill vastly more kids than guns, should we restrict the nature of liquids to take the shape of their containers?
Think of the CHILDREN rewriting the properties of matter will save, we can fund it with a covalent bond tax,
I am capable of both. Are you?How charitable of you.
So, let me do the CAF thing.
Source?
Or maybe I could just point out that someone who can’t hold a job and can’t understand the origins of the Civil War should not be listened to on any other matter…
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htmWhere does God give right to arm ourselves for those who trespass against us?
Yes, I’ve commented on that chapter and how I see people interpreting it through a biased view to assume greater rights than actually stated.
Well, there’s four things:I am capable of both. Are you?
Well, if you’ve commented on that chapter than you already knew the answer to your question (especially since you’ve quoted the section that deals with our moral right and duty regarding self defense in past posts). Since you decided to post your question anyway, I’d say your’s is the view that is biased.Yes, I’ve commented on that chapter and how I see people interpreting it through a biased view to assume greater rights than actually stated.
Owning and operating a vehicle- not a right.My vehicles have never killed anyone, and no one has died at my house, should I be forced to buy insurance?
What are swimming pools and bath tubs designed for, and what are guns designed for? How many mass murderers are committing mass homicides with swimming pools and bath tubs?
Individual application:Well, if you’ve commented on that chapter than you already knew the answer to your question (especially since you’ve quoted the section that deals with our moral right and duty regarding self defense in past posts). Since you decided to post your question anyway, I’d say your’s is the view that is biased.
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."65
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:
Legitimate authority application:Code: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.66
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.
No where does it specify ALL guns, and the Bishops have spoken recently, on reasonable controls, but many advocates on these forums take liberty to disagree with even reasonable controls.2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
Owning properties are a right, and freedom in this country. Guns are raised up above all things, or so it seems.Owning and operating a vehicle- not a right.
House insurance- a requirement placed upon home owners who go through a lending agency. It’s perfectly legal for someone who owns (no mortgage) their house not to have house insurance. It’s not wise, but it’s legal.
If you wish to argue for requiring gun owners to have insurance than you need to present an honest argument. Namely, you need to compare your argument to other rights (such as voting, free speech, religious freedoms, etc). Last I checked requiring insurance or special taxes on these is not only illegal, but have been declared unconstitutional.
Yes, owning property is a right. However, borrowing money from someone without that person placing requirements upon you (such as house insurance to safeguard their investment) is not a right. Hence your lending agency requiring you to have house insurance in order to get a mortgage through them is legal. Like I said before, if you own your house out right you don’t need to and can not be required to have house insurance. The only one trying to raise guns above all things and create circular arguments would be you.Owning properties are a right, and freedom in this country. Guns are raised up above all things, or so it seems.
As I said previously, we don’t need to go around the circle again.
And no where has anyone argued for the non-regulation of all firearms. In fact you’re the only poster I’ve seen who even brings the concept of no regulation of firearms into the discussion.Individual application:
Legitimate authority application:
No where does it specify ALL guns, and the Bishops have spoken recently, on reasonable controls, but many advocates on these forums take liberty to disagree with even reasonable controls.
That is a biased view.
We can end it, I have no desire to make the circle with you again. I know where you stand, and you know where I stand.
Yea, right. I can, and have said, put the lives of society above my right to be armed, at all times. I view any reasonable controls to be minor inconveniences, and would be more than willing to accept any that might spare one life, even. I believe in our citizens having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; without having to be armed if they choose.Yes, owning property is a right. However, borrowing money from someone without that person placing requirements upon you (such as house insurance to safeguard their investment) is not a right. Hence your lending agency requiring you to have house insurance in order to get a mortgage through them is legal. Like I said before, if you own your house out right you don’t need to and can not be required to have house insurance. The only one trying to raise guns above all things and create circular arguments would be you.
“…forgive us our trespasses…” has nothing to do with the use of violence in regards to self defense and everything to do with the use of violence in regards to vengeance. In fact, if it did than your argument for the use of violence and firearms by the “authority” would be invalid.Yea, right. I can, and have said, put the lives of society above my right to be armed, at all times. I view any reasonable controls to be minor inconveniences, and would be more than willing to accept any that might spare one life, even. I believe in our citizens having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; without having to be armed if they choose.
Those who raise guns above all things, appear to look to guns to save their life. We have to be careful with that train of thought. Christ said those who would save their live, will surely loose their life; and those that lose their life for His namesake, would save their life.
…forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us…
It’s not, …forgive us our trespasses, as we prepare to kill anyone that trespasses against us…
All four. However, I was specifically commenting on the last two.Well, there’s four things:
Which both do you refer to?
- Charity.
- Source
- Holding down a job
- Understanding the origins of the Civil War.
So…All four. However, I was specifically commenting on the last two.