U
Pope: "Let's ban all weapons so we don't have to live in fear of war"
- Status
M
Mtdobbs
Guest
I repeat, he means all weapons that make us fear war 
Rocks? Sticks? Batons? Clubs? Bow and Arrows? Swords?
Wars in 2018 don’t involve these weapons. Banning all weapons that make us fear war wouldn’t include these items, in my opinion.
Rocks? Sticks? Batons? Clubs? Bow and Arrows? Swords?
Wars in 2018 don’t involve these weapons. Banning all weapons that make us fear war wouldn’t include these items, in my opinion.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
he is against all weapons,I repeat, he means all weapons that make us fear war
his history speaks for him.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I agree!
Pope Francis believes that in an ideal world, all weapons would be banned - just like in an ideal world all direct abortions would be banned.
This is because Pope Francis is uncompromisingly ProLife as all good Catholics should be.
However, since gun rights and abortion rights are Constitutionally protected, but not without restriction, the best we can do is put as many constraints as are legally possible on gun rights and abortion rights.
Bans on certain types of weapons and certain types of abortions is what good Catholics should support.
Therefore, Catholics who vote ProLife, need to forget party platform (they mean nothing) and look instead for the candidate with the worst ratings from both the NRA and NARAL.
U
upant
Guest
why are you against self-defense? we have been down this thread before.
we all can’t afford bodyguards like the gun control celebs. we need our arms and the catechism allows us to use them. obligates some of us in certain circumstances.
i am not your kind of pro-life, i am anti-abortion.
self-defense is pro-life
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Yes, we have been through this before, but at least we agree that Pope Francis is my kind of pro-life.
However, banning certain weapons does not deny you a right to defend yourself, it simply imposes a constraint on how you are allowed to do that.
U
upant
Guest
A
Annie
Guest
We have constraints constraints when it comes to self-defence personally as well as as a nation.
The problem with saying, oh let’s ban all weapons is that then the nation which secretly starts making weapons is in a strong position via a vis the nations which have no weapons at all.
Right now, for example, we have treaties against chemical weapons. Does this mean the chemical weapons no longer exists in the entire world? No.
However, if one nation uses chem weapons against another, other kinds of arms can be used in response. So ridding one’s own nation of chem weapons is not very dangerous. If, however, no nation were to have weapons at all, a nation could secretly produce war weapons and take over large swathes of the world before he rest could catch up in production .
The problem with saying, oh let’s ban all weapons is that then the nation which secretly starts making weapons is in a strong position via a vis the nations which have no weapons at all.
Right now, for example, we have treaties against chemical weapons. Does this mean the chemical weapons no longer exists in the entire world? No.
However, if one nation uses chem weapons against another, other kinds of arms can be used in response. So ridding one’s own nation of chem weapons is not very dangerous. If, however, no nation were to have weapons at all, a nation could secretly produce war weapons and take over large swathes of the world before he rest could catch up in production .
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Just because we do not live in an ideal world, doesn’t mean we abandon the ideal. We can ban certain weapons for civilian use & make treaties to reduce WMDs.
A
Annie
Guest
Which is a completely different thing. And not something those in a position to do something about have been ignoring.
Last edited:
- Status