NRA vs. ACLU

[melensdad]

melensdad: This is the point you need to resolve.

I’m trying!

If the bishops do not declare that private gun ownership is immoral and base that position on relevant Church teaching then their position individually and collectively is immaterial. Their opinion carries no more moral weight than Vern’s or mine. Can you cite something where the USCCB specifically claims that individual gun ownership is immoral?

No, all I can do is find extensive writings that call for additional gun controls. The gun controls that the Bishops consider to be ‘reasonable’ include waiting periods, limits on purchases, outright bans on “Saturday Night Specials”, outright bans on “Assault Weapons” and confining all guns at authorized gun clubs, where the guns would be locked up and stored when not in use. I’ve seen that written a couple different times in their writing. The USCCB also calls for priests, like Fr Michael Pfleger, to become involved in debates to promote gun bans and fight the “culture of violence” in various ways.

If not, then we are free to agree or disagree with them; we are certainly not bound by their opinions.

Ender

Clearly I disagree with the USCCB. Heck I even live in a state where our state constitution reads pretty clearly, but if the Bishops words are official, then my State is obviously immoral for this wording! :
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

 

[Ender]

Clearly I disagree with the USCCB. Heck I even live in a state where our state constitution reads pretty clearly, but if the Bishops words are official, then my State is obviously immoral for this wording! :
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Yes, **if **their words were official. My point is that they are not; they are personal and are not supported by the teaching of the Church. This doesn’t seem all that complicated to me: if private ownership of firearms is a sin the bishops have the obligation to all who own arms to warn them of their sin. Have they done that? Has any bishop or the USCCB expressly stated that ownership is sinful? No. They offer standard anti-gun arguments and rely on their influence as bishops to try to persuade individuals to comply with their wishes. This is not how they speak when they denounce actions that are inherently sinful.

I was being quite literal when I said that, in this area, their opinions carry no more moral weight than yours, mine, or Verns.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

common sense dictates that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t own or have access to guns. no need to consult the catechism on that.

 

[melensdad]

Yes, **if **their words were official. My point is that they are not; they are personal and are not supported by the teaching of the Church. This doesn’t seem all that complicated to me: if private ownership of firearms is a sin the bishops have the obligation to all who own arms to warn them of their sin. Have they done that? Has any bishop or the USCCB expressly stated that ownership is sinful? No. They offer standard anti-gun arguments and rely on their influence as bishops to try to persuade individuals to comply with their wishes. This is not how they speak when they denounce actions that are inherently sinful.

I was being quite literal when I said that, in this area, their opinions carry no more moral weight than yours, mine, or Verns.

Ender

Well I sure hope you are right. As hard as I try, and believe me I’ve been looking, and asking, I cannot find any official statement that gun ownership is a sin. All I find is the typical anti-gun rhetoric, much of it is parroted from the Brady Campaign, some of which is original thought.

 

[Black_Jaque]

common sense dictates that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t own or have access to guns. no need to consult the catechism on that.

Okey-dokey. But good sense tells us that this gets very murky. Read Blest One’s post. A depression diagnosis for post-partum could result in the oppression of your rights to keep arms?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Okey-dokey. But good sense tells us that this gets very murky. Read Blest One’s post. A depression diagnosis for post-partum could result in the oppression of your rights to keep arms?

Common sense will also dictate that when there is a penalty for seeking medical attention, people who need attention will not seek it.

 

[emily47017]

Common sense will also dictate that when there is a penalty for seeking medical attention, people who need attention will not seek it.

this is an excellent point. during my first depressive episode, i knew treatment was available but didn’t have any hope that it would work for me… hopelessness being one of the main symptoms and all. if i were a person who cared, the idea that i’d also be giving up my 2nd amendment rights would be one more reason not to bother.

clearly the statute would have to be worded very carefully, and the legislature would have to run a serious educational campaign letting people know what does/does not get you banned.

i don’t know. it’s pretty muddy water.

 

[vern_humphrey]

this is an excellent point. during my first depressive episode, i knew treatment was available but didn’t have any hope that it would work for me… hopelessness being one of the main symptoms and all. if i were a person who cared, the idea that i’d also be giving up my 2nd amendment rights would be one more reason not to bother.

clearly the statute would have to be worded very carefully, and the legislature would have to run a serious educational campaign letting people know what does/does not get you banned.

i don’t know. it’s pretty muddy water.

Muddy water, indeed.

I would suggest that a person being deprived of his rights under this law ought to have at least the same rights to council, confrontation of his accuser, and to call witnesses as a person actually accused of a crime.

 

[tomarin]

Okey-dokey. But good sense tells us that this gets very murky. Read Blest One’s post. A depression diagnosis for post-partum could result in the oppression of your rights to keep arms?

even if you interpret the second amendment to apply to individuals and not community militias, firearms have changed so drastically since the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution that it’s difficult to understand why they would guarantee the right of citizens to arm themselves with modern firerams. the typical 18th century blunderbuss was cumbersome, slow to load, often fired wide of the mark and in most cases was a greater hazard to the gun user than to its intended target.

i have no problem with firearm ownership for sporting purposes (a great american pastime), but the application of the second amendment has to be done with concern for the security of everyone.

if you want to arm yourself with an 18th century blunderbuss, however, that’s fine by me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

even if you interpret the second amendment to apply to individuals and not community militias, firearms have changed so drastically since the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution that it’s difficult to understand why they would guarantee the right of citizens to arm themselves with modern firerams. the typical 18th century blunderbuss was cumbersome, slow to load, often fired wide of the mark and in most cases was a greater hazard to the gun user than to its intended target.

Even if you interpret the First amendment to apply to individuals and not community public information offices, printing presses have changed so drastically since the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution that it’s difficult to understand why they would guarantee the right of citizens to arm themselves with modern computers, high-speed printing presses, radios and televisions. the typical 18th century screw press was cumbersome, slow to typeset, often fired wide of the mark and in most cases was a greater hazard to the gun user than to its intended target…

I have no problem with firearm ownership for sporting purposes (a great american pastime), but the application of the second amendment has to be done with concern for the security of everyone

.
have no problem with radio and television ownership for sporting purposes (a great american pastime), but the application of the First amendment has to be done with concern for the security of everyone. You shouldn’t be allowed to discuss politics over the air!!

if you want to arm yourself with an 18th century blunderbuss, however, that’s fine by me.

if you want to arm yourself with an 18th century screw press, however, that’s fine by me.

 

[melensdad]

even if you interpret the second amendment to apply to individuals and not community militias, firearms have changed so drastically since the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution that it’s difficult to understand why they would guarantee the right of citizens to arm themselves with modern firerams. the typical 18th century blunderbuss . . .

i have no problem with firearm ownership for sporting purposes. . .

if you want to arm yourself with an 18th century blunderbuss, however, that’s fine by me.

** First** off, in the late 18th century the blunderbuss was not used by the subjects of the colonies or the citizens of the states that formed from the colonies.

** Second**, the Constitution is written to reserve liberty for the citizens from the government, not to guarantee that people can have hunting weapons for sporting purposes.

** Third**, many states individual constitutions have nothing to do with firearms for sporting purposes. In fact my state, like many others, specifically says firearms may be used for self defense.The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.Forth, the courts just affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in a court case this spring where the Washington DC handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional. Interestingly, in a “friend of the court” brief to support the gun ban, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence cited a proclamation from the late 18th century by King James that forbid Catholics from owning weapons in the colony of Maryland

 

[Brendan]

even if you interpret the second amendment to apply to individuals and not community militias, firearms have changed so drastically since the time the founding fathers wrote the constitution that it’s difficult to understand why they would guarantee the right of citizens to arm themselves with modern firerams. the typical 18th century blunderbuss was cumbersome, slow to load, often fired wide of the mark and in most cases was a greater hazard to the gun user than to its intended target.

i have no problem with firearm ownership for sporting purposes (a great american pastime), but the application of the second amendment has to be done with concern for the security of everyone.

if you want to arm yourself with an 18th century blunderbuss, however, that’s fine by me.

Actually, the common arm in the American colonies was the rifle, a weapon SUPERIOR to the Brown Bess musket of the miltary.

In addition, revolvers were a new, but known technology. So in keeping with your ‘18th Century tech is OK’, we should all be able to keep revolvers as well.

In addition, do you remember ‘Paul Revere’s Ride’, where he (and others) warned the local milita that the Redcoats were marching on Lexington and Concord?

Do you know why the Redcoats were marching? They were trying to confiscate the privately owned gunpowder and ARTILLERY that there stored there.

The framers of the Constitution didn’t have a problem with privately owned artillery equal to that of the military. Should we now?

 

[Bennie_P]

Actually, the common arm in the American colonies was the rifle, a weapon SUPERIOR to the Brown Bess musket of the miltary.

In addition, revolvers were a new, but known technology. So in keeping with your ‘18th Century tech is OK’, we should all be able to keep revolvers as well.

In addition, do you remember ‘Paul Revere’s Ride’, where he (and others) warned the local milita that the Redcoats were marching on Lexington and Concord?

Do you know why the Redcoats were marching? They were trying to confiscate the privately owned gunpowder and ARTILLERY that there stored there.

The framers of the Constitution didn’t have a problem with privately owned artillery equal to that of the military. Should we now?

What a concept, I was in the Artillery when I was in the Army, 56th FA. I think it would be cool to have the weapon that was deployed within our units, yeah it would fit in my back yard - a 32 foot tall Pershing P1a nuclear missile. I wonder if the farmers of the Constitution had things like that in mind when they wrote the 2nd Admendment?

 

[Black_Jaque]

I wonder if the farmers of the Constitution had things like that in mind when they wrote the 2nd Admendment?

Yes and no. No they didn’t have the equivalent of nukes per se. However, in the late 1700s the framers of the Bill of Rights knew about the terribly wicked firepower of a smoothbore cannon. One blast from a 6 lb cannon loaded with grapshot could flatten an angry mob or wreak havoc on a school playground.

Despite the potential for such awesome firepower, private ownership of such cannons was allowed.

Whoever described the common gun of the 18th century as a pitifully inaccurate and dangerous-to-the-user weapon is pathetically uneducated. And it really shows a mark of character that they should post such tripe on a topic they know so little about.

I own contemporary-made flintlock carefully made to look, feel, and perform like a firearm carried by colonists in Virginia just prior to the Revolutionary War. It is fully rifled and I have shot groups at 100 yards that impressed the heck out of modern gun users who were shooting right next to me. It has proven reliable and deadly in the woods on deer. The only thing is, it is slow to reload.

True, at the time the Bill of Rights had been drawn up, the authors did not consider firearms as the main battle weapon. The most wicked battle weapon of that time was the bayonet. However, the framers also were well aware of the progress of technology and could very well guess that firearms would become more effective.

 

[Brendan]

What a concept, I was in the Artillery when I was in the Army, 56th FA. I think it would be cool to have the weapon that was deployed within our units, yeah it would fit in my back yard - a 32 foot tall Pershing P1a nuclear missile. I wonder if the farmers of the Constitution had things like that in mind when they wrote the 2nd Admendment?

Well, they would have desired the public to have sufficent weaponry at their disposal so that they could overthrow a standing army and the government.

So draw your conclusions from there.

 

[melensdad]

Well, they would have desired the public to have sufficent weaponry at their disposal so that they could overthrow a standing army and the government.

So draw your conclusions from there.

The Afghans held off the entire military might of the USSR with small arms. The militants in Iraq are sure giving the US & coalition forces, a difficult time with small arms and improvised weapons.

To presume that small arms cannot stifle or even overthrow an entire government is probably naive.

 

[tomarin]

Whoever described the common gun of the 18th century as a pitifully inaccurate and dangerous-to-the-user weapon is pathetically uneducated. And it really shows a mark of character that they should post such tripe on a topic they know so little about.

well, like mark twain i prefer to discuss things i am not knowledgable about, as i find it increases my confidence and i can throw more light on the subject.

but seriously, according to the wikipedia article on muskets (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket)), they didn’t fire accurately by modern standards because of something called windage, the gap between the projectile and the barrel. therefore musketeers weren’t supposed to hit individual targets but to fire a mass of musket balls into the enemy line. they were heavy, slow to load, and in rainy conditions impossible to load. early designs did blow up sometimes, doing harm to the user and/or igniting gunpowder stores.

nevertheless they changed history, otherwise rudyard kipling wouldn’t have written:

*Though her sight was not long and her weight was not small
Yet her actions were winning, her language was clear;
And everyone bowed as she opened the ball
On the arm of some high-gaitered, grim grenadier.
Half Europe admitted the striking success
Of the dances and routs that were given by Brown Bess.

So she followed her red-coats, whatever they did,
From the heights of Quebec to the plains of Assaye,
From Gibraltar to Acre, Cape Town and Madrid,
And nothing about her was changed on the way;
(But most of the Empire which we now possess
Was won through those years by old-fashioned Brown Bess.)*

 

[emily47017]

well, like mark twain i prefer to discuss things i am not knowledgable about, as i find it increases my confidence and i can throw more light on the subject.

LOL! me too!

 

[Black_Jaque]

but seriously, according to the wikipedia article on muskets (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket)), they didn’t fire accurately by modern standards because of something called windage, the gap between the projectile and the barrel. therefore musketeers weren’t supposed to hit individual targets but to fire a mass of musket balls into the enemy line. they were heavy, slow to load, and in rainy conditions impossible to load. early designs did blow up sometimes, doing harm to the user and/or igniting gunpowder stores.

You missed the part in the Wikipedia entry that specified that muskets were intended for military use. Even today, the standard infantry firearm is not condired the epitome of accuracy and potency. Rather, ever since the firearm was used in combat, the goal has been primarily rate of fire. If you can greatly exceed your enemy’s rate of fire - you win. If you can MATCH your enemy’s rate of fire but exceed his accuracy you’ll win too. But you can’t exceed your enemies accuracy while he exceeds your rate of fire.

The flintlock I shoot is a recreation of the type of civilian arm that would be contemporary to the Brown Bess. It is much more accurate than a Brown Bess.

Wikipedia errs when it blames the inaccuracy of the musket on the windage. The windage was compensated by using a slightly compressible patch - either paper or cloth. I use a patch in my flintlock. The real cause for inaccuracy of the musket was the lack of rifling grooves. Rifling greatly increased the cost of production - and when you’re fitting out an army this matters a lot. Muzzle loading rifles were in use long before the Bill of Rights came about - so the framers were aware of the potential accuracy of such weapons. A rifle could hit an officer’s head at 200 yards. Yet the framers did not specify muskets only.

The Brown Bess could also be loaded with buckshot, also available at the time the B of R was penned. With a load of buckshot the Bess could take out several enemies with one blast.

The idea that because weaponry has progressed, the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic is ludicrous.

 

[tomarin]

The idea that because weaponry has progressed, the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic is ludicrous.

fair enough, jacques. i posted largely for the purpose of getting a rise out of you gun-enthusiasts. the more i learned about the issue the more complex it seemed, so i’m not going to make any big pronouncements. i am concerned about guns being a wee bit too available though.

however, i’m also very interested in going to a shooting range sometime. i have a 16-month old child and my wife would never allow me to purchase a gun and keep it in the house (even if i thought it was a good idea, which i’m not at all convinced of) – any suggestions?