NRA vs. ACLU

[Black_Jaque]

I’ve been reading on a couple threads now that the NRA is in full support of not allowing certain people with mental illnesses to own guns.

While on the surface that sounds good. But I trust the psychology profession about as far as I can throw a psychologist. They seem to be slap-happy with ADD and ADHD diagnoses. I’ve read letters to the editor from college psychology profs saying that hunting is sick. Ten cents will buy you a psychologist who’ll tell you we’re messing up our kids by spanking them.

It scares the begeebers outa me to think that some guy with a few initials after his name could sign a piece of paper deeming me unfit to own a gun. And the NRA is in full support of this?

I think I’m with the ACLU all the way on this one.

 

[Ender]

I’ve been reading on a couple threads now that the NRA is in full support of not allowing certain people with mental illnesses to own guns.

It seems hard to argue with the proposition that the mentally unstable should not be allowed to own guns.

Your comments about psychiatrists and psychologists is valid to some extent, however, and given that there is an enormous amount of judgement in determining who is and who is not psychotic this is a difficult situation. The fact that the borderline cases are hard to judge does not alter the fact that some, like the lunatic at VT, are easy to identify - and there should be a way to keep them from legally obtaining firearms.

Once again the ACLU is on the side of the irrational.

Ender

 

[melensdad]

It scares the begeebers outa me to think that some guy with a few initials after his name could sign a piece of paper deeming me unfit to own a gun. And the NRA is in full support of this?

I think I’m with the ACLU all the way on this one.

I think the details are missing from your post. It is my understanding that the person would have to be deemed violent and possibly may have had to be referred for treatment by the courts (details are sketchy). But in the V.Tech shootings, Cho’s court records and medical records may have both been withheld as they were related to mental records, when the background check was done by the Virginia State Police. It is my understanding that the NRA wants only limited access by the police, and perhaps only those records that may have resulted from interactions with the courts.

The problem is that without actually reading the actual proposals that our Representatives or Senators put forth, we really don’t know exactly what is proposed. But everything I read from the NRA was based on LIMITED access and as there is no current bill pending, the NRA is only supporting a CONCEPT and not any particular legislation.

Clearly the NRA would carefully review any proposal for pitfalls, should a bill actually be written.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let us remember that no less a judicial figure than Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes ordered the involuntarily sterilization of a woman on the grounds that she was an “imbecile.”

I think we should be very cautious about opening the door to depriving people of their rights, or spaying or castrating them, based on psyciatric diagnoses.

We might also consider if people in this category might not be banned from Congress – there are several members who are known to be drug addicts or alcoholics. Sauce for the goose, you know.

 

[melensdad]

I think we should be very cautious about opening the door to depriving people of their rights. . .

Well is not the Catholic Church on the side of the ACLU on the topic of gun ownership? The only reason the ACLU opposes this issue is because it opens medical records, and the ACLU considers those sacrosanct. But on all gun related issues, the ACLU seems to find fault and believes guns can/should legally be banned, or at least severely restricted.

This is one instance where the NRA is looking to restrict firearm access and possibly one of the few times the Catholic Church might agree with the NRA?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well is not the Catholic Church on the side of the ACLU on the topic of gun ownership? The only reason the ACLU opposes this issue is because it opens medical records, and the ACLU considers those sacrosanct. But on all gun related issues, the ACLU seems to find fault and believes guns can/should legally be banned, or at least severely restricted.

This is one instance where the NRA is looking to restrict firearm access and possibly one of the few times the Catholic Church might agree with the NRA?

The Catechism clearly states:

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.

Given this, it is hard to say how one can be prohibited from having the means to carry out his duty.

ON the issue of mental competence, I say go slow – in past times, we have committed what today would be considered unspeakable acts on the grounds of mental incompetence.

 

[melensdad]

The Catechism clearly states:

Given this, it is hard to say how one can be prohibited from having the means to carry out his duty.

Vern, read the entire passage of 2265.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church allows for self-defense.
Here is exactly what it says:

Legitimate defense
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:

• 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.
  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.

2263 and 2264 clearly state you can defend yourself. They don’t say how, but they say you can do it up to the point that you kill your attacker.

2265 is where things get muddy. It clearly says it is your “grave duty” to defend yourself, but it specifies that is for “one who is responsible for the lives of others.” It also states that “those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms” but it does not state if that is a right you and I hold!!! Further it states that the use of arms is “to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” That last line implies that it is not an INDIVIDUAL who has the right to arms in accordance with the church.

I’ve actually tried to get clarification from the Catholic Church to find out if a father is is responsible for protecting the lives of his children/wife. Also I’m trying to find out if a business owner is responsible for the safety of his customers and employees? Etc. I’m still waiting for my answers, but the longer I wait, the more I think I will be disappointed with the answers I get.

Now, I have seen writings from some Bishops who add a clause that reads “within the context of US law . . .” or similar things like that. Further, in a statement to the UN by the Vatican there was admission that this is a dangerous world and there is some legitimate right to possess small arms, but it was not directed specifically at individuals, or at US citizens as we come to know gun rights.

Simply put, the Catholic Church seems to have an official position that guns should be either banned or at least strictly controlled and regulated. You and I may cherish our legal rights, but it seems we are at odds with the Holy Sea and the general teachings of the Catholic Church. IF that is true, then are we immoral for owning guns?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, read the entire passage of 2265.
(some omissioins of quoted material to stay within space limits)

2263 and 2264 clearly state you can defend yourself. They don’t say how, but they say you can do it up to the point that you kill your attacker.

Paragraph 2263 explains how self defense is covered under the principle of double effect. Paragraph 2264 shows how one is legitimately able to choose one’s own life over that of an unjust attacker – with the caution that excessive force is not allowed.

This is how the law on self defense reads in most states – you may use lethal force only if there is no other choice.

2265 is where things get muddy. It clearly says it is your “grave duty” to defend yourself, but it specifies that is for “one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

How is it “muddy?”

We know self defense is moral – to the point of killing if there is no other option. We also know collective self defense is moral and may be a duty. And Natural Law tells us the parents have a duty to protect the children, the husband to protect his wife.

It also states that “those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms” but it does not state if that is a right you and I hold!!!

You are confusing individual self-defense with collectie self-defense of the community. Re-read the quoted section from Saint Augustine.

We do have a right to individual self-defense. And within the family, we have a duty to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

Further it states that the use of arms is “to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” That last line implies that it is not an INDIVIDUAL who has the right to arms in accordance with the church.

That’s just not correct. Let’s re-read what Saint Augustine said:

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.

(my emphasis)

Augustine is clearly talking about individual self-defense here – one man against an unjust attacker.

I’ve actually tried to get clarification from the Catholic Church to find out if a father is is responsible for protecting the lives of his children/wife. Also I’m trying to find out if a business owner is responsible for the safety of his customers and employees? Etc. I’m still waiting for my answers, but the longer I wait, the more I think I will be disappointed with the answers I get.

Taht is, you suspect the Catechism is correct and the position of the Church on self-defense is as I have said.

Now, I have seen writings from some Bishops who add a clause that reads “within the context of US law . . .” or similar things like that.

My state clearly recognizes self-defense, issues Concealed Handgun Licenses to any citizen who takes the course and has no criminal record. It also recognizes that any force used against a home intruder or arsonist is presumed reasonable on its face.

Further, in a statement to the UN by the Vatican there was admission that this is a dangerous world and there is some legitimate right to possess small arms, but it was not directed specifically at individuals, or at US citizens as we come to know gun rights.

To the best of my knowledge, the Vatican has never addressed the US Constitution.

Simply put, the Catholic Church seems to have an official position that guns should be either banned or at least strictly controlled and regulated. You and I may cherish our legal rights, but it seems we are at odds with the Holy Sea and the general teachings of the Catholic Church. IF that is true, then are we immoral for owning guns?

No.

Because first of all, it isn’t true – the Church has an abhorrance of violence, but the recognizes the realities of the world demand the honest people be able to defend themselves.

Secondly, if it were, the Church would take upon herself the guilt for the deaths of those innocent who died for lack of the means to defend themselves.

 

[Ender]

Simply put, the Catholic Church seems to have an official position that guns should be either banned or at least strictly controlled and regulated. You and I may cherish our legal rights, but it seems we are at odds with the Holy Sea and the general teachings of the Catholic Church. IF that is true, then are we immoral for owning guns?

I don’t agree with your conclusion that the Church has an official position on the private ownership of guns.

I agree with your comments that the Church supports the right of those charged with public safety to possess arms but there is nothing in 2265 that speaks to individual ownership. The fact that the Church does not positively express support for individual ownership cannot be taken to mean that she therefore opposes it. Defense of your life and that of your family is your responsibility; the Church is not so irrational as to acknowledge that responsibility and deny you the means to fulfill it.

Ender

 

[BlestOne]

I’ve been reading on a couple threads now that the NRA is in full support of not allowing certain people with mental illnesses to own guns.

While on the surface that sounds good. But I trust the psychology profession about as far as I can throw a psychologist. They seem to be slap-happy with ADD and ADHD diagnoses. I’ve read letters to the editor from college psychology profs saying that hunting is sick. Ten cents will buy you a psychologist who’ll tell you we’re messing up our kids by spanking them.

It scares the begeebers outa me to think that some guy with a few initials after his name could sign a piece of paper deeming me unfit to own a gun. And the NRA is in full support of this?

I think I’m with the ACLU all the way on this one.

I don’t know about anywhere else but in Illinois if you have EVER been diagnosed with any mental disorder, even if situational or temporary, you cannot own a gun ever… This means if you go see a shrink because your spouse dies, you can’t ever get a gun (they will diagnose situational depression). If you have ever had post-partum depression as a result of a hormone imbalance, kiss your gun owning days good bye! To me it is ridiculous… Yes everyone wants that crazy guy down the street to be banned from guns(don’t we all have a neighbor like this or is it just me?), but BlackJaque is right… who can we trust to make the sanity decision? I definitely don’t trust a psychologist or social worker to make that decision about me!!!

 

[melensdad]

Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, told Associated Press “God expects us to use both prayer and common sense. It seems to me common sense dictates that gun control would go a long way to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of those who have them.”

.

Archbishop Roberto O. Gonzalez Nieves. O.F.M., of San Juan, Puerto Rico, former bishop of Corpus Christi who is now its apostolic administrator, added his own call for gun control in a Sept. 16 statement. He noted that Pope John Paul II, in his Jan. 22 postsynodal exhortation at the close of the Synod for America, appealed “to all those holding authority in society, that as a priority, their do all in their power to alleviate the suffering of children in America.” “One of the means of saving children from violence would be adequate gun control measures that do not infringe on constitutional rights, but protect society from the unlawful use of firearms,” said Archbishop Gonzalez, a former pastor of Holy Cross parish in the Bronx.

.

New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse, USCC, 1990. Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated “call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”
.

Confronting A Culture Of Violence: A Catholic Framework for Action, 1995.
Violence in our culture is fed by multiple forces – the disintegration of family life, media influences, growing substance abuse, the availability of so many weapons, and the rise of gangs and increasing youth violence. No one response can address these diverse sources. Traditional liberal or conservative approaches cannot effectively confront them. We have to address simultaneously declining family life and the increasing availability of deadly weapons, the lure of gangs and the slavery of addiction, the absence of real opportunity, budget cuts adversely affecting the poor, and the loss of moral values. (p. 5)

Advocacy: Parish and diocesan representatives and other groups can meet with media representatives to bring pressure against excessive violence and pornography. Legislative networks can advocate for public policies that prevent and combat crime, restrict dangerous weapons, promote safe communities, eliminate the death penalty, and help lift people out of the “hellish cycle of poverty” and confront the violence of abortion. (p. 19)

… intensify our advocacy for national policies that address violence, including strengthening families, violence in the media, the availability of drugs and dangerous weapons, the violence of abortion and the use of the death penalty, and other economic and social policies that attack the root causes of violence. (p. 20)
.

Community and Crime: A Statement of the Committee on Social Development and World Peace, 1978. Par. 61: In 1976, crime statistics indicated that 64 percent of all murders were committed with a firearm and 49 percent were committed with handguns. Twenty-four percent of all aggravated assaults and 43 percent of all robberies were committed with firearms. Eighty-five percent of the police officers killed were killed with firearms.30 Other studies have shown that most homicides are committed against friends and relatives, not strangers. Since such a significant number of violent offenses are committed with handguns and within families, we believe that handguns need to be effectively controlled and eventually eliminated from our society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t agree with your conclusion that the Church has an official position on the private ownership of guns.

I agree with your comments that the Church supports the right of those charged with public safety to possess arms but there is nothing in 2265 that speaks to individual ownership. The fact that the Church does not positively express support for individual ownership cannot be taken to mean that she therefore opposes it. Defense of your life and that of your family is your responsibility; the Church is not so irrational as to acknowledge that responsibility and deny you the means to fulfill it.

Ender

Amen.

It’s a dangrous world out there – and we must be free to deal with situations that might arise.

To those who oppose private ownership of firearms, I ask one question, “Is violent crime a serious problem in our world?”

If the answer is yes, then I need the means to protect myself and my family from violent criminals.

If the answer is no, then what is the justiifcation for denying me the right to be armed?

 

[melensdad]

Here are links to some of the pages of the USCCB website, they clearly take a very strong anti-gun position. If you actually spend time reading the documents you can see they even blame the gun lobby. There is no direct statement that says you and I cannot use guns to defend our lives, but there is very clear evidence that the Church is ANTI-gun. There is very clear evidence in some statements that suggest guns should only be allowed in private possession ON THE GROUNDS OF A GUN CLUB and locked up AT THE GUN CLUB . . . that would eliminate their use as a means of self defense unless a criminal was stupid enough to rob a gun club while members were shooting!

Some Bishops moderate their tone and suggest things must be “within the laws” but still want strict controls as far as the laws allow.

usccb.org/sdwp/international/arms.htm

usccb.org/sdwp/national/assaultbg05.shtml

usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/involvedOLD.shtml

usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml

usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

Specifically to Ender, while you may not believe the Church has an official position, there is clear evidence the Church has, at very least, a VERY STRONG UN-OFFICIAL opinion.

Specifically to Vern, your state laws are in concert with my state laws. But I do not believe that we can interpret the Catechism of the Church from within the context of our respective state laws. I believe your understanding of the Catechism is flawed. I’m not sure mine is correct!!!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Specifically to Vern, your state laws are in concert with my state laws. But I do not believe that we can interpret the Catechism of the Church from within the context of our respective state laws. I believe your understanding of the Catechism is flawed. I’m not sure mine is correct!!!

You said the Bishops said, “Within the law.” Do you now say they don’t say that anymore?

 

[Ender]

Specifically to Ender, while you may not believe the Church has an official position, there is clear evidence the Church has, at very least, a VERY STRONG UN-OFFICIAL opinion.

I don’t doubt that there are many individual bishops who strongly oppose private gun ownership; I don’t consider that any more significant than saying there are many Hollywood actors who oppose it as well.

For the Church there is no such thing as an unofficial moral opinion on a subject and an individual bishop’s personal objection carries no moral weight. Don’t conflate some bishops opinions with what the Church teaches. If you can’t support your position from the Catechism or official Church documents then you should suspect that maybe your position is not supportable.

Ender

 

[melensdad]

You said the Bishops said, “Within the law.” Do you now say they don’t say that anymore?

Well not quite, the USCCB did not say “withing the law” but one or two individual Bishops suggest that. The writings from the USCCB is very clearly anti-gun. Very clearly in favor of gun regulation, to the point of confiscation of some types of guns. Very clearly in favor of limiting any guns to ownership only when stored at gun clubs.

I don’t doubt that there are many individual bishops who strongly oppose private gun ownership; I don’t consider that any more significant than saying there are many Hollywood actors who oppose it as well.

For the Church there is no such thing as an unofficial moral opinion on a subject and an individual bishop’s personal objection carries no moral weight. Don’t conflate some bishops opinions with what the Church teaches. If you can’t support your position from the Catechism or official Church documents then you should suspect that maybe your position is not supportable.

Ender

Well my position is that I should be able to own guns. I’ve got dozens, I wouldn’t have it any other way. But I see overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church, both in the USCCB writings and in statements from the Vatican, is very anti-gun. In fact, I see little to no evidence to support any ‘gun neutral’ positions. And there is no evidence that I can find that suggests the Church supports gun ownership.

Personally I would love to see pro-gun positions, but I can find them. What I can find are pro-gun individuals (Priests, Bishops) but not any pro-gun Church statements. Quite to the contrary, Priests are actually DIRECTED by the Bishops to advocate gun control.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I said:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
You said the Bishops said, “Within the law.” Do you now say they don’t say that anymore?

Well not quite, the USCCB did not say “withing the law” but one or two individual Bishops suggest that.

Do you now back away from what you say those Bishops said?

The writings from the USCCB is very clearly anti-gun. Very clearly in favor of gun regulation, to the point of confiscation of some types of guns. Very clearly in favor of limiting any guns to ownership only when stored at gun clubs.

And do they assert this under the Magisterium and command all the Faithful to comply?

Well my position is that I should be able to own guns. I’ve got dozens, I wouldn’t have it any other way. But I see overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church, both in the USCCB writings and in statements from the Vatican, is very anti-gun. In fact, I see little to no evidence to support any ‘gun neutral’ positions. And there is no evidence that I can find that suggests the Church supports gun ownership.

That may be because Bishops seldom have to come face to face with someone attacking their waves or children.

Personally I would love to see pro-gun positions, but I can find them. What I can find are pro-gun individuals (Priests, Bishops) but not any pro-gun Church statements. Quite to the contrary, Priests are actually DIRECTED by the Bishops to advocate gun control.

Do you have a cite for that direction?

 

[melensdad]

I said:
Do you now back away from what you say those Bishops said?

And do they assert this under the Magisterium and command all the Faithful to comply?

That may be because Bishops seldom have to come face to face with someone attacking their waves or children.

Do you have a cite for that direction?

Vern,
Point 1, no I do not back away, I was clarifying that there were SEVERAL points made by the Bishops, most were official releases from the USCCB, there were a few independent Bishops who made the “under current law” references. They were not part of the releases from the USCCB.

Point 2, I don’t know. I don’t know either way. Remember, I am pro-gun, but I am looking at the writings from the USCCB and the Vatican and all are heavy anti-gun.

Point 3, no argument from me!

Point 4, yes, I cited some of them in some of the posts today. Please check the links I provided. The directions were made by the USCCB to the Priests.

 

[Ender]

And do they assert this under the Magisterium and command all the Faithful to comply?

[/quote]

melensdad: This is the point you need to resolve. 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? If not, then we are free to agree or disagree with them; we are certainly not bound by their opinions.

Ender

 

[emily47017]

i’m of two minds on this. (haha! get it? two minds! haha!)

i have two acquaintances who have been committed… well, one of them checked himself in, but had a tough time getting back out.

the one who checked himself in has multiple personality disorder. he’s terribly ashamed of his diagnosis and doesn’t talk about it with anyone. he doesn’t have even the faintest hint of violent impulse, but he sometimes has memory lapses when he reverts to his “primary” personality, which is probably something that would raise red flags.

the other is paranoid schizophrenic – voices, conspiracies, the whole bit – and has been violent on a couple of occasions. a gun was found in his closet once, and had fired it at some point (gun powder residue), but nobody knew when or where or why.

so fellow number two obviously should never be in possession of a gun. he really ought to be in an institution indefinitely (at least, according to his mother). fellow number one probably doesn’t need to be on a no-gun list, and it would certainly be one more layer of stigma for a guy who’s already got his share of stigma.

myself, i’ve checked in to the hospital twice, and couldn’t give a rat’s bottom whether or not i was allowed to own a gun.