Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gamewell45 said:
I found it interesting how you took this out of context.

Let me print the rest of the succeeding paragraph, it changes the entire context of the Vatican’s position.

"Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to ban all kinds of small arms and light weapons. “In a world marked by evil … the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms”. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms. Nonetheless, in our meeting today the topic is fairly limited. Here we are discussing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. This is, in a manner of speaking, a negative statement of the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the international arms trade."

Lets be honest here; it was a conference that the topic was the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, not production, possession and acquisition of arms. Not a position on gun control for the average civilian.

You twisted it to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...
Nothing was taken “out of context” and “twisted” around. The passage is very clear. We live in a fallen world and we have a right and even a DUTY to protect ourselves and others from danger. The Church goes so far as to call it a GRAVE duty. A “grave” duty is to be fulfilled by the BEST means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty.

I refer you to Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2263 - 2265 of the Catholic Church Catechism which represent OFFICIAL Church teaching on the matter …
  • 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.”
  • 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.
 
Lycorth said:
Excellent quote, one that is most surely not out of context nor twisted, despite the criticism you’ve received. This quote reflects the traditional teaching of the Church on self-defense and the grave duty of defending others.
Click to expand...
Thank you 👍
 
Sir_Knight said:
Nothing was taken “out of context” and “twisted” around. The passage is very clear. We live in a fallen world and we have a right and even a DUTY to protect ourselves and others from danger. The Church goes so far as to call it a GRAVE duty. A “grave” duty is to be fulfilled by the BEST means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty.

I refer you to Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2263 - 2265 of the Catholic Church Catechism which represent OFFICIAL Church teaching on the matter …
  • 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.”
  • 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.
Click to expand...
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Now, go clean your gun. 🙂
 
gamewell45 said:
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Now, go clean your gun. 🙂
Click to expand...
Disagree if you would like, but theology is clear.

Luke 22:36: “… and he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment, and buy one.”

Sir Knight, I salute you!👍
 
gamewell45 said:
go back and re-read post #218. Then post your response.
Click to expand...
218="Really? then why are there so many more women who are victims of asault from men than the other way around? "

It seems you are saying that since a well trained police woman can defend herself against an asailant, that it justifies making every other potential victim who is not as equally skilled essentially defenseless.
 
Guns are just tools. Do not put the business end of a gun towards anything that you do not want to destroy.

Knives and automobiles are actually more dangerous than guns. I live in Louisiana, the sportsman paradise. I have been duck hunting since I was 10 years old. I am more scared of my woodworking tools than I am of guns. I have heard of the kickback on a table saw putting a piece of wood through a wall!
 
I am NOT in favor of any laws against guns if it violates the principles of the second amendment. The second amendment says that there shall be no infringement on the right to bear arms. I do not think that the founding fathers could have made it any clearer. I ask myself only one question, “Does this law violate the principles of the second amendment?” Using that criteria, almost all of the gun control laws are unconstitutional.
 
I agree but I think that the point of disagreement is from a Church / biblical perspective.
 
Perhaps Friedman is apropos for gun control as we struggle with rules-based standards, principles-based standards and objective-based standards. Rules or laws do not work for dishonest people!

We then struggle with a code of society’s ethics that does not mention a deity or a moral code. I find it all very interesting, and dare I say, amusing.
 
CPA2 said:
Perhaps Friedman is apropos for gun control as we struggle with rules-based standards, principles-based standards and objective-based standards. Rules or laws do not work for dishonest people!

We then struggle with a code of society’s ethics that does not mention a deity or a moral code. I find it all very interesting, and dare I say, amusing.
Click to expand...
but many of our laws (good and bad) are based on purely a moral code. The problem comes when people who have faulty morality attempt to push their view of morality on others. For instance those who believe it is immoral for an individual to take up arms to defend themselves against others who wish them harm.
 
gamewell45 said:
Interesting figures regarding deaths of children by firearms. Keep in mind that children cannot obtain full carry permits. Over 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006; more the reason why we need strict gun control laws in this country.

childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-report-2009.html
Click to expand...
Abortion murders approximately 4,500 babies per day or about 1,642,500 babies per year. Let us abolish abortion. An unjust law is no law at all.

Gun control laws do not work. Criminals steal guns; that is why they are criminals.
 
CPA2 said:
Abortion murders approximately 4,500 babies per day or about 1,642,500 babies per year. Let us abolish abortion. An unjust law is no law at all.

Gun control laws do not work. Criminals steal guns; that is why they are criminals.
Click to expand...
Abortion is off-topic in here.

You can’t hide from the fact that those innocent kids died. Gun control laws will work if implemented properly, trust me, with time, they will be implemented.
 
gamewell45 said:
Abortion is off-topic in here.

You can’t hide from the fact that those innocent kids died. Gun control laws will work if implemented properly, trust me, with time, they will be implemented.
Click to expand...
“Innocent” is a bit of a biased term considering many of those deaths are due to gang bangers thinning out the ranks of rival gangs. These are not all law abiding citizens to which the proposed gun laws would relate.

If you are so afraid of guns in America you can always leave.
 
gamewell45 said:
Abortion is off-topic in here.

You can’t hide from the fact that those innocent kids died. Gun control laws will work if implemented properly, trust me, with time, they will be implemented.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in salvation by law? Do you believe in the promises of politicians? Gun control laws increase crimes with guns. Do you have any empirical proof that disarming citizens would decrease crime? An economic law that I believe in is the law of unintended consequences.

The false promise of saving lives through gun control is just a ploy to disarm America. Hitler used the same phony rationalization to disarm German citizens.

I bet that there are more deaths from children riding bicycles than there are deaths from guns. Most people survive from a gunshot wound from a pistol. The hole that a pistol round makes is small, anywhere from 9m.m. to .45 inches. Most gun fights occur at knife fighting ranges. I am more afraid of an attack with a knife than I am of a pistol. A knife makes a very big wound, and the victim bleeds to death.
 
gamewell45 said:
Interesting figures regarding deaths of children by firearms. Keep in mind that children cannot obtain full carry permits. Over 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006; more the reason why we need strict gun control laws in this country.

childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-report-2009.html
Click to expand...
You shouldn’t believe everything you hear.

I just skimmed the link and here’s an inconsistency:
*
Black males ages 15 to 19 are almost five times as likely as their White peers and more than twice as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed by firearms.*

Then we read:

*Sixty percent of them were White; 37 percent were Black. *

The article claims two things that cannot possibly co-exist. Either Blacks are more likely to be killed in firearm-related incidents or Whites are. It cannot be both.

What we have here are manufactured statistics promoted by people with a fear-based agenda. Gun control can’t be justified on its face (ie, no one can justify disarming anyone on the argument that it’s better to be unarmed) so the children have to be brought into it. What I’ve seen in my years is that the children is a convenient magic spell that any leftist can utter in order to make his or her argument seem better. All we need to do is invoke the children and all of a sudden, instant credibility is added to any position!

The facts are, for those who have actually lived in high-crime areas, most crimes committed with firearms are committed by criminals in generally criminal areas. Most of these so-called “children” are nothing more than ghetto thugs who happen to be of a young age yet have traded the innocence of childhood for “gangsta” posturing and violence. If ghetto thugs learned how to handle disputes without resorting to gunfire and violence, so many “children” would not die.

Innocent, law-abiding, civilized people should never be made to atone for the crimes of a few. It is unjust and insane to claim otherwise.
 
CPA2 said:
Do you believe in salvation by law? Do you believe in the promises of politicians? Gun control laws increase crimes with guns. Do you have any empirical proof that disarming citizens would decrease crime? An economic law that I believe in is the law of unintended consequences.

The false promise of saving lives through gun control is just a ploy to disarm America. Hitler used the same phony rationalization to disarm German citizens.

I bet that there are more deaths from children riding bicycles than there are deaths from guns. Most people survive from a gunshot wound from a pistol. The hole that a pistol round makes is small, anywhere from 9m.m. to .45 inches. Most gun fights occur at knife fighting ranges. I am more afraid of an attack with a knife than I am of a pistol. A knife makes a very big wound, and the victim bleeds to death.
Click to expand...
CPA2,

The facts speak for themselves on children killed by guns; again, you can’t hide from that fact no matter what defense you make for ownership of guns or whatever you bring up to shift attention from the facts presented.

It is what it is.
 
royal_archer said:
If you are so afraid of guns in America you can always leave.
Click to expand...
I’m not afraid of guns; unlike some, I don’t need guns.

Advising me to consider leaving America if I’m afraid of guns is a typical reaction by many who are deathly afraid of having that precious weapon they appear to hold so dear removed from their possession by gun control laws being passed.

If one innocent child dies from gunfire, its one too many.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top