Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

[Stylteralmaldo]

Turn the other cheek, whoever would save his life, will lose his life, whoever gives his life for His namesake will save his life, those who take the sword shall perish by the sword, love one another as He loved us including our enemies. Christ gave us a higher calling than planning on an armed society. He told us to seek a conversion of hearts.

The Church teaches self defense, and the limitations. It also addresses those with the authority over the common good of the civil community.

There are more ways of self defense than arming every citizen in this country. Some legislation could be a self defense, and certain legislation is needed and would not be an infringement on our rights.

Thanks for the response. I now have a better understanding where you are coming from.

An armed society is not inherently contrary to Christ’s teachings. Being armed does not mean one would necessarily not turn the other cheek, save one’s own life and therefore lose it, or conversely give one’s life thus saving it, nor does it necessarily mean one would live “by the gun” perse and therefore perish by it.

With that said, I understand that our ability to have the access to guns in this country has a cost associated with it. That cost is the ability of felons (who already do not have legal access to guns) as well as non-felons (who have slipped through the cracks of the legal system) to cause much pain and suffering in our world that does not further the Kingdom of God.

Conversely, many other forms of government are not inherently contrary to Christ’s teachings although these other forms have flaws in them as well. The flaws of these systems have also caused much pain and suffering that does not further the Kingdom of God.

Even King David’s kingdom had it’s flaws which did not further the Kingdom of God. The closest I can come to agreement with you on your position in that maybe it’s best to say that all forms of government, whether they be an armed citizenry or one that is not is not in conformity with Christ’s teachings because when it comes down to it, all forms of government fail us through sin.

 

[St_Francis]

Turn the other cheek, whoever would save his life, will lose his life, whoever gives his life for His namesake will save his life, those who take the sword shall perish by the sword, love one another as He loved us including our enemies. Christ gave us a higher calling than planning on an armed society. He told us to seek a conversion of hearts.

And Christ also told the Apostles to carry a sword, to sell their coats if they had to to get a sword.

The Church teaches self defense, and the limitations.

What do you mean by limitations on self-defense?

It also addresses those with the authority over the common good of the civil community.

There are more ways of self defense than arming every citizen in this country.

Who is proposing arming every citizen in the country?

Some legislation could be a self defense,

What do you mean by this?

and certain legislation is needed and would not be an infringement on our rights.

What more legislation is needed? Connecticut has very strict laws about guns, and yet this terrible crime was committed. Chicago has very strict laws, and yet hundreds of people are shot there each year.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You advocate stronger regulation of gun ownership while not infringing on people’s right to own a gun. Your attitude seems to be that if 98% of those who own guns didn’t own them, life would be better, while not acknowledging that the 2% or whatever who are criminals would do bad things anyway, no matter what laws we made against guns, *because criminals don’t respect the law! *If it weren’t for those who don’t respect the law, those who do wouldn’t need to protect themselves.

 

[kimmielittle]

I am ready for common sense controls, for the safety of our officers and our public. Are you?

ABSOLUTELY!

IMO you need to understand Mr Lanza and Mr Spengler were morally bankrupt!

Mr Lanza killed his mother then targeted / ambushed his choice of victims…NOT Middle School Children - Not High School Children –

Mr Spengler killed his grandma, served time… and “society” released a morally bankrupt back on the streets.

 

[kimmielittle]

And Christ also told the Apostles to carry a sword, to sell their coats if they had to to get a sword.

Peter was armed at the Garden of Gethsemane

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And Christ also told the Apostles to carry a sword, to sell their coats if they had to to get a sword.

The Great Biblical Commentaries of Cornelius Lapide.

Ver. 36.—But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip. A purse filled with money, a scrip with food, that they might have support in the impending persecution; for they will never find either, “because men will fly from Me, who am bound and accused, and consequently from My disciples as men wicked and condemned.”
And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ, in these words, did not command them to take a purse and a scrip, and to sell their garment and buy a sword, for He soon after forbade Peter to draw his sword; but they were a warning of the fierce persecution which was about to fall upon Himself and the apostles, and which was so heavy to those that regarded the difficulty of the case with the eyes of mere human wisdom, that food and weapons would appear things absolutely necessary for the preservation of life. The meaning therefore is this, “Everything, so far, has happened to you, 0 my Apostles, well and prosperously; for when I sent you to preach the Gospel without purse, or scrip, or sword, you were kindly received by most, fed, and sheltered, and had no need of these things. But now so grievous a persecution is impending over you, and so great is the danger to your lives, that in human prudence it may seem necessary to each to think of the preservation of his life, and therefore to take a scrip and purse for provision, and a weapon for defence, and to sell his cloak, and buy a sword. But to Me, who weigh circumstances by the design and decree of God the Father, there is no need of such things; for I go voluntarily to the cross, and to death, and I offer Myself of My own free will, to those who will persecute Me and crucify Me, so that I may conform Myself to the will of My Father.” So S. Chrysostom (Hom. 85 on S. Matt.), and from him Theophylact on this passage, Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. S. Ambrose says well, “0 Lord, why commandest Thou me to buy a sword, and forbiddest me to strike, unless that I may be prepared for my defence, and that Thou mayest appear able to avenge though Thou wouldst not?”

CYRIL; Our Lord had foretold to Peter that he should deny Him; namely, at the time of His being taken. But having once made mention of His being taken captive, He next announces the struggle that would ensue against the Jews. Hence it is said, And he said to them, When I sent you without purse, &c. For the Savior had sent the holy Apostles to preach in the cities and towns the kingdom of heaven, bidding them to take no thought of the things of the body, but to place their whole hope of salvation in l km.

CHRYS. Now as one who teaches to swim, at first indeed placing his hands under his pupils, carefully supports them, but afterward frequently withdrawing his hand, bids them help themselves, nay even lets them sink a little; so likewise did Christ deal with His disciples. At the beginning truly He was present to them, giving them most richly abundance of all things; as it follows, And they said to them, Nothing.

But when it was necessary for them to show their own strength, He withdrew from them for a little His grace, bidding them do something of themselves; as it follows, But now he that has a purse, that is, wherein to carry money, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, that is, to carry provisions in. And truly when they had neither shoes, nor girdle, nor staff, nor money, they never suffered the want of any thing. But when He allowed them purse and scrip, they seem to suffer hunger, and thirst, and nakedness. As if He said to them, Hitherto all things have been most richly supplied to you, but now I would have you also experience poverty, therefore I hold you no longer to the former rule, but I command you to get purse and scrip. Now God might even to the end have kept them in plenty, but for many reasons He was unwilling to do so. First that they might impute nothing to themselves, but acknowledge that every thing flowed from God; secondly, that they might learn moderation; thirdly, that they might not think too highly of themselves. For this cause while He permitted them to fall into many unlooked for evils, He relaxed the rigor of the former law, lest it should become grievous and intolerable.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

December 21, 2012

I agree with the Bishops.

I also agree with the Bishops. Our government needs to do a better job of enforcing the guns laws already on the books. Perhaps the legislature can address this by passing additional legislation which will force the enforcement of these laws.

Admittedly, I am troubled by what one can do about the tragedy that occurred in Connecticut. You could pass a law requiring people who legally own firearms to lock the firearms up or face stiff penalties for non-compliance. But such a law still would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred. No matter how you slice it, this is a delicate issue.

You could pass a law requiring everyone to hand over all their firearms and that could be dangerous as well. One is that criminals would have more easy targets of knowing even more citizens do not have the ability to defend themselves and the other is that the government would have an easier time forcing it’s citizens in a awful predicament. I just watch what’s going on in Egypt with the government control over the people there and I don’t want my children or my children’s children being subjected to that.

What is sensible hand gun regulations? I believe we have a moral obligation to continually ask that question until these tragedies cease.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

BEDE; For He does not train His disciples in the same rule of life, in time of persecution, as in the time of peace. When He sent them to preach, He ordered them to take nothing in the way, ordaining in truth, that He who preaches the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But when the crisis of death was at hand, and the whole nation persecuted both the shepherd and the Hock, He proposes a law adapted to the time, allowing them to take the necessaries of life, until the rage of the persecutors was abated, and the time of preaching the Gospel had returned. Herein He leaves us also an example, that at times when a just reason urges, we may intermit without blame somewhat of the strictness of our determination.

AUG. By no inconsistency then of Him who commands, but by the reason of the dispensation, according to the diversity of times are commandments, counsels, or permissions changed.

AMBROSE; But He who forbids to strike, why does He order them to buy a sword? unless perchance that there may be a defense prepared, but no necessary retaliation; a seeming ability to be revenged, without the will. Hence it follows, And he who has not, (that is, a purse,) let him sell his garment, and buy a sword,

CHRYS. What is this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say to you, that this that is written must, be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.

THEOPHYL. While they were contending among themselves above concerning priority, He said, It is not a time of dignities, but rather of danger and slaughter. Behold I even your Master am led to a disgraceful death, to be reckoned with the transgressors. For these things which are prophesied of Me have an end, that is, a fulfillment. Wishing then to hint at a violent attack, He made mention of a sword, not altogether revealing it, lest they should be seized with dismay, nor did He entirely provide that they should not be shaken by these sudden attacks, but that afterwards recovering, they might marvel how He gave Himself up to the Passion, a ransom for the salvation of men.

BASIL; Or the Lord does not bid them carry purse and scrip and buy a sword, but predicts that it should come to pass, that in truth the Apostles, forgetful of the time of the Passion, of the gifts and law of their Lord, would dare to take up the sword. For often does the Scripture make use of the imperative form of speech in the place of prophecy. Still in many books we do not find, Let him take, or buy, but, he will take, he will buy.

THEOPHYL. Or He hereby foretell to them that they would incur hunger and thirst, which He implies by the scrip, and sundry kinds of misery, which he intends by the sword.

CYRIL; Or else; When our Lord says, He who has a purse, let him take it, likewise a scrip, His discourse He addressed to His disciples, but in reality He regards every individual Jew; as if He says, If any Jew is rich in resources, let him collect them together and fly. But if any one oppressed with extreme poverty applies himself to religion, let him also sell his cloak and buy a sword. For the terrible attack of battle shall overtake them, so that nothing shall suffice to resist it. He next lays open the cause of these evils, namely, that He suffered the penalty due to the wicked, being crucified with thieves. And when it shall have come at last to this, the word of dispensation will receive its end. But to the persecutors shall happen all that has been foretold by the Prophets. These things then God prophesied concerning what should befall the country of the Jews, but the disciples understood not the depth of His words, thinking they had need of swords against the coming attack of the traitor. Whence it follows; But they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.

CHRYS. And in truth, if He wished them to use human aid, not a hundred swords would have sufficed; but if He willed not the assistance of man, even two are superfluous.

THEOPHYL. Our Lord then was unwilling to blame them as not understanding Him, but saying, It is enough, He dismissed them; as when we are addressing any one, and see that he does not understand what is said, we say, Well, let us leave him, lest we trouble him. But some say, that our Lord said, It is enough, ironically; as if He said, Since there are two swords, they will amply suffice against so large a multitude as is about to attack us.

BEDE; Or the two swords suffice for a testimony that Jesus suffered voluntarily. The one indeed was to teach the Apostles the presumption of their contending for their Lord, and His inherent virtue of healing; the other never taken out of its sheath, to show that they were not even permitted to do all that they could for His defense.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

AMBROSE; Or, because the law does not forbid to return a blow, perhaps He says to Peter, as he is offering the two swords, It is enough, as though it were lawful until the Gospel; in order that there may be in the law, the knowledge of Justice; in the Gospel, perfection of goodness. There is also a spiritual sword, that you may sell your patrimony, and buy the word, by which the nakedness of the soul is clothed. There is also a sword of suffering, so that you may strip your body, and with the spoils of your sacrificed flesh purchase for yourself the sacred crown of martyrdom. Again it moves, seeing that the disciples put forward two swords, whether perhaps one is not of the Old Testament, the other of the New, whereby we are armed against the wiles of the devil. Therefore the Lord says, It is enough, because he wanted nothing who is fortified by the teaching of both Testaments.

 

[kimmielittle]

Admittedly, I am troubled by what one can do about the tragedy that occurred in Connecticut. You could pass a law requiring people who legally own firearms to lock the firearms up or face stiff penalties for non-compliance. But such a law still would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred. No matter how you slice it, this is a delicate issue.

A neighbor friend who visited Mrs Lanza often, stated that her guns were secured. He broke in.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What do you mean by limitations on self-defense?

Read the Catechism. It specifies the limitations on the force that can be used.

Who is proposing arming every citizen in the country?

Those who argue that we need more armed people in all locations.

What do you mean by this?

We can enact stricter laws that make it more difficult for guns to fall in the wrong hands. That is a defense.

What more legislation is needed? Connecticut has very strict laws about guns, and yet this terrible crime was committed. Chicago has very strict laws, and yet hundreds of people are shot there each year.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You advocate stronger regulation of gun ownership while not infringing on people’s right to own a gun. Your attitude seems to be that if 98% of those who own guns didn’t own them, life would be better, while not acknowledging that the 2% or whatever who are criminals would do bad things anyway, no matter what laws we made against guns, *because criminals don’t respect the law! *If it weren’t for those who don’t respect the law, those who do wouldn’t need to protect themselves.

We are required to document the transfer of ownership of vehicles. Guns should be the same. When I sell a vehicle, I take the buyer to the court house and we take my name off the title, releasing me from any liability, or responsibilities. This would close the avenue of purchasing guns through private sales, or some gun shows. This is an access used by those who can’t purchase legally.

We could enact stricter securing laws, requiring safes for certain weapons.

We don’t need 30 round clips, or 100 round drums to hunt. If you do, you need to take up fishing.

We could require insurance for certain weapons.

None of this would be an inconvenience to me, to possibly protect the lives of our officers and public. That’s a defense btw. Of course, I am a law abiding citizen, who tries to think as a part of the ‘culture of life’ the Bishops have called our nation to.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Peter was armed at the Garden of Gethsemane

And Christ told him to put away his sword, that those that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A neighbor friend who visited Mrs Lanza often, stated that her guns were secured. He broke in.

Let’s see the definitive source that states those guns were locked away. All I found was one article that stated they were not locked away. I don’t offer it as a source, since the investigation has not released all the facts yet.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Another control, that I think reasonable, would be to require a mental health disclosure on anyone that lives in the residence where guns are going to be stored.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Another control, that I think reasonable, would be to require a mental health disclosure on anyone that lives in the residence where guns are going to be stored.

To be quite honest with you, I am more concerned about this aspect of “what to do” than any proposed gun control legislation. At least in the gun debate the country is split pretty evenly where a compromise can generally be reached, and with our current split government, even no compromise would result in status quo (not always a bad thing).

However, it appears to me that mentally ill people are being framed as the scapegoat in this whole thing and that’s got me concerned because it appears to be a bi-partisan effort to make mentally ill people as the villains. The head of the NRA is calling for a national registration of mentally ill people and Hollywood’s latest TV series is promoting a schitzophrenic person who leads a dangerous double life.

 

[kimmielittle]

Let’s see the definitive source that states those guns were locked away. All I found was one article that stated they were not locked away. I don’t offer it as a source, since the investigation has not released all the facts yet.

So you don’t know? Yet, you call for

“We could enact stricter securing laws, requiring safes for certain weapons.”

 

[kimmielittle]

However, it appears to me that mentally ill people are being framed as the scapegoat in this whole thing and that’s got me concerned because it appears to be a bi-partisan effort to make mentally ill people as the villains.

I believe, there is a difference between mental illness and moral bankruptcy?

 

[kimmielittle]

And Christ told him to put away his sword, that those that take the sword, shall perish by the sword.

Yes,He did.
What would have happened to Peter had Jesus not repaired the Soldiers Ear?
Do you think maybe, just maybe, Jesus was talking PERSONALLY to Peter? That Jesus had different plans for Peter…Upon this Rock…? And If Peter were killed for the soldiers ear?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you don’t know? Yet, you call for

If this were a single incident, your argument would seem valid. How many mass shootings do we need witness before we decide to take firm action to keep guns from being picked up by kids, or stolen by ‘bad guys’?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes,He did.

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide.

Ver. 51. And behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched forth his hand, and struck the servant of the high priest. Peter, that is, who was more fervent and resolute than the others. S. Luke adds that he first asked permission from Christ, “Shall we smite with the sword?” but waited not for His answer, and in his zeal for Christ in His imminent danger drew his sword.
A question is raised, what was this sword ? merely a knife (culter), or a military sword (ensis), or an ordinary sword (gladius)? The Fathers are in favour of ensis.5 S. Hilary says that the sword was ordered to be sheathed, because He was about to destroy them with no human sword, but with the word of His mouth (Rev_1:16, Rev_19:15). S. Ambrose explains the two swords (Luk_22:38) mystically, as the Old and New Testaments, with which we are armed against the wiles of the devil.
But writers on all sides explain these two swords allegorically as the twofold power of the Church, temporal and spiritual (see Extrav. “Unam sanctam” De Majoritate et obedientia). And again by the sword is denoted excommunication, which cuts off a man from the Church.
Many think that Peter intended to kill Malchus, but that God guided the blow so that he merely cut off his ear.
Tropologically: S. Ambrose by this sword understands martyrdom. “There is,” saith he, “the sword of suffering, by which thou canst cast off the body, and purchase for thyself the crown of a martyr by putting off the slough of the body.” Cornelius urges many reasons why it should be a sword, and not merely a knife which S. Peter used, adding that the sword of Peter is still preserved, and exposed to the veneration of the faithful.
A servant of the high Priest, named Malchus (Joh_18:10). S. Peter seems to have attacked him, as being the most bold and forward in assailing Christ.
Cut off his ear. His right ear, say S. John and S. Luke, signifying, as Origen says, that the Jews in reading and hearing Scriptures had lost their right ear, the true understanding of heavenly things
S. Augustine (Contr. Faust. xxii. 70) remarks that Moses, after he had smitten the Egyptian, was made the head of the Synagogue. S. Peter, after mutilating Malchus, was made the head of the Church. Both of them went beyond bounds, not from hateful cruelty, but from blameless impetuosity. For Peter sinned through rashness, for it was without the knowledge, rather6 against the will of Christ that he drew his sword, his sole means of defending Christ against so many armed men, and in cutting off Malchus’ ear he provoked them the rather against Christ. But he showed his ardour and zeal for Christ, blameable as it was; and when this fault had been corrected at Pentecost, he obtained through Him to be the Pastor and Prince of the Church.
Christ by blaming and restraining S. Peter, and by healing Malchus’ ear, manifested most strikingly His power and clemency. Especially since it is a theological dogma (as Paulus de Palatio adds) that when the Lord heals, He heals perfectly. If Christ healed Malchus both in body and mind, what greater proof could there be of charity, what stronger evidence of an undisturbed mind? It is clear from Act_2:37 that many of these persecutors of Christ were converted. And what marvel if Malchus were, who had experienced so striking an evidence of Christ’s goodness and power? Christ thus acted that He might furnish no ground for the charge that He had opposed the public ministers of justice, and also to exhibit a pattern of forbearance and gentleness, as He did when He converted Saul into Paul. Mystically, the Gloss says that the wounding and healing of Malchus’ car is the restoration of hearing, when the old man is taken away, for slavery is the old estate, healing is liberty.

Ver. 52. Then Jesus saith to him, Put up again thy sword into his place. Christ here reproves Peter’s rashness in drawing his sword against His wish. Peter’s sin, then, was twofold: first in striking against Christ’s wish, and next, because this was an act not so much of defence as of revenge, which did not help to deliver Christ from the soldiers, but rather excited them the more against Him. But Peter, says S. Chrysostom, was hurried on by his eagerness to protect Christ, and did not think of this, but remembered rather His words, that Christ had ordered them to take two swords, inferring that it was for His defence. And accordingly he thought that in striking the servant he was acting according to the mind of Christ, “Let revenge cease, let patience be exhibited,” says the Interlinear Gloss.
For all they that take the sword (without proper authority). To strike, i.e., and wound others. To take the sword by public authority to punish the guilty, or in a just war, is lawful and honest.
Shall perish with the sword. Deserve thus to perish (Gen_9:6) (see Aug. Quæst. V. and N. T., cap. civ.). Homicides, moreover, and gladiators very often die violent deaths in war or by casualties (see Act 28:4).
And Christ here insinuates that the Jews would perish by the swords of the Romans. S. Luke adds that Christ said, “Suffer ye thus far.” “Cease to draw your swords, ye have contended sufficiently,” just as we part two combatants. But Cajetan explains otherwise, “Suffer the Jews to rage against Me, while their hour lasts, and the power of darkness.” Hence Maldonatus and others infer that the other Apostles, when they saw S. Peter’s zeal, wished to fight for Him also, but were forbidden by Christ. For, says S. Ambrose (in Luke xxii.), He who wished to save all by His own wounds, wished not to be saved by the wounding of His persecutors. Whence the motto, “Health by wounds,” which is specially applicable to Christ, by whose stripes we are healed (1Pe_2:24).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes,He did.
What would have happened to Peter had Jesus not repaired the Soldiers Ear?
Do you think maybe, just maybe, Jesus was talking PERSONALLY to Peter? That Jesus had different plans for Peter…Upon this Rock…? And If Peter were killed for the soldiers ear?

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.