San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[Sir_Knight]

wabrams:

Research it in the Bible. Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords.

I already told him that and what the Son of God said wasn’t good enough for him. He wants to see Encyclicals & Papal Letters written about it; but for some of us, the Word of God is sufficient.
Arba Sicula:

Not for ordinary people. Not for the Jews of Jesus’ time. Maybe for the Romans.

Not orddinary people? Not the Jews of Jesus’ time? Where are you getting your facts from? I believe that St. Peter was a Jew, was he not? And he was a fisherman by trade which made him an "ordinary’ person … Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear - John 18:10.
Arba Sicula:

That’s a matter of fact that would have to be researched.

I guess you failed to research that one.
Arba Sicula:

Normal? Among what people? Handguns aren’t available to the populace in most of the world, and even in the United States, it is not the norm to carry a handgun.

A hundred years ago, it was. People were even REQUIRED to bring their guns while attending church. If it was correct back then, why is it incorrect now?

And if you need help, aren’t you going to call the police? Aren’t you going to call someone with a gun?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

Research it in the Bible. Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords.

Implying that they were unarmed, right?

And what of His command? Where does it say that they took that literally and didn’t consider it hyperbole. There is nothing in Scripture that says that they went armed thereafter.

A handgun is a normal weapon of self defense here in the US.

Where? You are speaking of the norm. I believe that the norm in the United States is to be unarmed.

And you would be very suprised at how many people carry handguns, whether on their person or in their vehicle.

Maybe so. Bill Bennett got into trouble by saying that the “car of choice” for drug dealers in Miami was a BMW, with an UZI on the passenger seat. But, that’s not what I had in mind.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

Where does it say that they took that literally and didn’t consider it hyperbole.

We went throught this before. It was not a hyperbole because when the Apostles showed Jesus their swords, He said that those would be sufficent clearly showing that He was speaking literally and commanding them to buy weapons – even to sell their coats if they had to. If it was a hyperbole, Jesus would not have answered the way that He did when they showed Him the swords.
Arba Sicula:

There is nothing in Scripture that says that they went armed thereafter.

Yes, there is and I quoted the passage up above. In the garden, Peter was armed with a sword thus obeying the commandment that Jesus gave to them earlier.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

I already told him that and what the Son of God said wasn’t good enough for him. He wants to see Encyclicals & Papal Letters written about it; but for some of us, the Word of God is sufficient.

You are hanging your entire case on one verse, which may well be hyperbole, but you reject Encyclicals and Papal Letters as insufficient for you. I wouldn’t place my personal interpretation of the Word of God above the published teachings of the Church. I hope you wouldn’t either.

The teachings of Christ have been repeated often for reinforcement, first by Jesus Himself, then by the Apostles, then by the Fathers of the Church, then time and time agains by the Successors of Peter, the Popes. Where have Christ’s Representatives of Earth taught that Christians everywhere should carry handguns?

Not ordinary people? Not the Jews of Jesus’ time? Where are you getting your facts from? I believe that St. Peter was a Jew, was he not? And he was a fisherman by trade which made him an "ordinary’ person

Would a fisherman not have a reason to carry a large knife or sword in the conduct of his trade?

… Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear - John 18:10.

What was Christ’s reaction to Peter’s action? Approval?

A hundred years ago. People were even REQUIRED to bring their guns while attending church. If it was correct back then, why is it incorrect now?

In 1905? What diocese ordered this or tolerated that? Certainly not any diocese in the United States! What part of the world are you referring to? Africa where some wild animals were a real danger?

And if you need help, aren’t you going to call the police? Aren’t you going to call someone with a gun?

What do Brits do? Don’t they call on someone who doesn’t carry a gun? (except in special circumstances)

Besides, the Police have a special duty and powers that are not shared by the ordinary citizen.

 

[MikeWM]

Arba Sicula:

What do Brits do? Don’t they call on someone who doesn’t carry a gun? (except in special circumstances)

Yes We neither want an armed populace or a generally-armed police.

Mike

 

[VictoriaRW]

How dare any community disrespect our wonderful men and women in uniform going into harm’s way for us by forbidding recruitment on school campuses! It seems that some of SF’s citizens feel that serving our country is an ignoble profession. Young people should be encouraged to explore every avenue of career opportunity, especially a selfless one like the military.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

MikeWM:

Yes We neither want an armed populace or a generally-armed police.

Mike

And, I understand that the police themselves don’t want to be armed. I’ve heard interviews where policemen said that the very idea of carrying a gun detracts from the relationship that the British policeman enjoys with the people he serves. The police there are very proud of the style of policing they do.

There was even an article in Atlantic Monthly about the late Jack Slipper, the most famous detective Scotland Yard ever had. He was always unarmed, he never used violence, and his arrest and conviction record was unsurpassed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

Would a fisherman not have a reason to carry a large knife or sword in the conduct of his trade?

The point was that the common man WAS indeed armed with a sword contrary to your statement earlier that the Jews of Jesus’ times did not have swords.
Arba Sicula:

What was Christ’s reaction to Peter’s action? Approval?

Christ reaction was in keeping with knowing what faith awaited Him.
Arba Sicula:

Besides, the Police have a special duty and powers that are not shared by the ordinary citizen.

But if it’s wrong to have guns, then it is equally wrong for them to have them and if there is nothing wrong with them having guns, then why is it wrong for the ordinary citizen to have a gun? Is the life of a police officer worth more than that of an ordinary citizen? I thought that we were all equal.
Arba Sicula:

You are hanging your entire case on one verse, which may well be hyperbole,

Considering the entire bible is the infallible Word of God, even one verse is sufficient and I already showed how it is not possible for that passage to be a hyperbole.
Arba Sicula:

but you reject Encyclicals and Papal Letters as insufficient for you. I wouldn’t place my personal interpretation of the Word of God above the published teachings of the Church.

I’m not rejecting any Encyclicals or Papal Letters. What Encyclicals and Papal Letters say that we should not own firearms?

Where have Christ’s Representatives of Earth taught that Christians everywhere should carry handguns?

The Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (authored by Christ’s Representatives of Earth) in Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 states that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and other innocent individuals from death and serious bodily injury AND it places NO RESTRICTION on how we are to protect ourselves. In absence of any such restriction, a wise & prudent individual would use the BEST means possible to protect themselves. Less wise individuals would resort to less effective means to protect themselves.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

The point was that the common man WAS indeed armed with a sword contrary to your statement earlier that the Jews of Jesus’ times did not have swords.

You’d best check history books. There was no reason for the Jews of Jesus’ time to be armed, especially with a hostile Roman occupation force in their midst. And, even if that were true, the question is not what Jews of two millenia ago did, but what the Catholic Church has taught for the past two thousand years.

But if it’s wrong to have guns, then it is equally wrong for them [police] to have them

No. Police are specially charged with maintaining public order and with the apprehension of criminals, “to protect and serve.” They are allowed to carry arms by dint of their sworn duties.

Considering the entire bible is the infallible Word of God, even one verse is sufficient and I already showed how it is not possible for that passage to be a hyperbole.

I’m afraid that you are also ignorant of the Catholic position on the Scripture. Catholics consider the Bible to be absolutely without error and infallible only in the areas of faith and morals. The position you expressed is the fundamentalist one.

I’m not rejecting any Encyclicals or Papal Letters. What Encyclicals and Papal Letters say that we should not own firearms?

You believe that the Church allows or even encourages possession of and carrying handguns. You are taking the positive position and the burden is on you to provide evidence that the Church allows such. That’s simply one of the rules of evidence. So, vulgarly spoken, put up or shut up.

The Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (authored by Christ’s Representatives of Earth) in Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 states that we have a grave duty to protect ourselves and other innocent individuals from death and serious bodily injury AND it places NO RESTRICTION on how we are to protect ourselves.

You are wrong. There are restrictions. It is unlawful to use more than necessary force in defending ourselves.

In absence of any such restriction, a wise & prudent individual would use the BEST means possible to protect themselves. Less wise individuals would resort to less effective means to protect themselves.

You have attempted to change the subject to self defense, which is not in issue, and are consciously avoiding answering what I’ve continually been asking you to provide:evidence that the Church calls on us to carry handguns.

You have not done so because you are incapable of doing so - incapable because there are no Church teachings, Papal pronouncements or such that address carrying handguns let alone commanding Catholics to do so.

Sorry, but if you’re going to prove something, you’re expected to show some evidence. And you haven’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

No, but rather that they both spring from the same source.

Phillip? Read the Catechism. The right to self-defense is part of the right to life.

You’re saying, in effect that abortion springs from the right to life!!

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Phillip? Read the Catechism. The right to self-defense is part of the right to life.

You’re saying, in effect that abortion springs from the right to life!!

I think we must have two different versions of the Catechism. Mine has the imprimatur - yours has the NRA seal, I take it?

BTW, read the encyclicals, especially those on the culture of life. I would also recommend Cardinal Bernardin’s writings on the Consistent Ethic of Life.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

You’d best check history books. There was no reason for the Jews of Jesus’ time to be armed, especially with a hostile Roman occupation force in their midst. And, even if that were true, the question is not what Jews of two millenia ago did, but what the Catholic Church has taught for the past two thousand years.

First off, you made a statement with no supporting data. I provided a reference from scripture (chapter & verse) which showed your statement to be in error. Exactly what history books are you offering up as counter proof?

Second, just as the Jews had a right to self defense two thousand years ago, so do we today and that is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church HAS been teaching.
Arba Sicula:

Police are specially charged with maintaining public order and with the apprehension of criminals, “to protect and serve.” They are allowed to carry arms by dint of their sworn duties.

Gun ownership / possession is either wrong or not. A person’s title / position should have no bearing on the matter.
Arba Sicula:

I’m afraid that you are also ignorant of the Catholic position on the Scripture. Catholics consider the Bible to be absolutely without error and infallible only in the areas of faith and morals. The position you expressed is the fundamentalist one.

No, it is not a fundamentalist one but one dealing with morals for it shows us that we have a right to self defense and use whatever means are available. This duty to protect ourselves is so important that we are to sell our very coat in order to purchase an effective means of self defense.
Arba Sicula:

You believe that the Church allows or even encourages possession of and carrying handguns. You are taking the positive position and the burden is on you to provide evidence that the Church allows such. That’s simply one of the rules of evidence. So, vulgarly spoken, put up or shut up.

I guess you haven’t been reading what people have been saying. The Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states that we not only have a right but a duty (a GRAVE duty, as a matter of fact) to protect ourselves and other innocent individuals from death and serious bodily harm. Nowhere in the Catechism does it list any restrictions on how we are to accomplish this. With no restrictions listed, the wise and prudent thing to do is to use the most effective means of self defense possible. In most cases, that is a gun.
Arba Sicula:

You are wrong. There are restrictions. It is unlawful to use more than necessary force in defending ourselves.

It also says that someone who defends his life is NOT guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
Arba Sicula:

You have attempted to change the subject to self defense, which is not in issue,

Of course it is the issue. Why do you think people carry guns? To have more weight in their pockets? Give me a break!
Arba Sicula:

You have not done so because you are incapable of doing so - incapable because there are no Church teachings, Papal pronouncements or such that address carrying handguns let alone commanding Catholics to do so.

And there are no Papal pronouncements AGAINST carrying handguns eiher but there IS official church teaching regarding our duty to protect ourselves and in absence of any restrictions (which there are none), there is nothing wrong with using a gun for that purpose.
Arba Sicula:

Sorry, but if you’re going to prove something, you’re expected to show some evidence. And you haven’t.

There is no OFFICIAL church teaching against handguns and in good conscious the church can not tell me that I have a GRAVE duty to do something and then deny me the means by which to do it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Philip P:

I think we must have two different versions of the Catechism. Mine has the imprimatur - yours has the NRA seal, I take it?

My Catechism in Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 says …

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. 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.

… What does your’s say?

 

[rlg94086]

Arba Sicula:

An Encyclical, Papal Letter, Bishop’s Letter, or such, please. Not your personal opinion.

All of Christ’s teachings have been repeated by Him in the Gospels, in the Apostles’ Letters, and in the Encyclicals.

That doesn’t equate to carrying a concealed handgun. Please provide a citation from Church documents calling for Catholics to carry handguns.

There are pious legends associated with many saints.

Sorry for butting in here, but you keep asking SirKnight to prove something he never asserted…that the Catechism (or an encyclical, etc.) calls on us to carry concealed weapons. He never claimed that.

He has cited the Catechism and the Bible in regards to the grave right to defend oneself and family.

While I am not particularly pro-gun (don’t own one, but I have shot them…hunting birds, deer and elk), the burden of proof is yours. If you believe the Church forbids gun ownership, than you need to let us know where you read it.

Note: I said forbid, so even discouraging, while interesting, won’t cut it.

God Bless,

Robert

EDIT: Oops…I used a rifle to shoot the birds, deer and elk…I can hear my father lecturing me now

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

An Encyclical, Papal Letter, Bishop’s Letter, or such, please. Not your personal opinion.

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

“…Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense.”

He goes on to say:

“…legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”

According to the July 15, 2000 edition of the Washington Post, Rev. Michael R. Duesterhaus of the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale; did exactly what the Pope taught when he used his concealed 9mm Beretta to defend himself and two other priests when an intruder attacked them IN THE CHURCH. He did not get into any trouble with either his local Bishop nor the Holy See. If, having a concealed gun was wrong, surely the church would have taken some sort of action against Father Duesterhaus.

Finally, at the UN Conference in 2001 on the proliferation of small arms, the Holy See has gone on public record as stating unequivocally that the legitimate need for self-defence is itself sufficient to justify private ownership of firearms.

Now the ball is in your court. I have presented you with biblical evidence, a Papal Encyclical, passages from the Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and even an official statement made before the entire world in support of a person’s right to self defense AND gun ownership (the statement before the UN was in support of the private ownership of firearms). As “rlg94086” said above, the burden of proof is now your’s to prove that the church forbids (not just discourages but actually forbid) gun ownership. As you so rudely said to me earlier, either put up or shut up.
Arba Sicula:

So, vulgarly spoken, put up or shut up.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Arba Sicula:

Oh? Where’s the “concealed weapon” language? And the Amendment is about “well regulated militias,” not personal handguns.

Like others said, all the other amendments deal with individual rights, mostly due to those rights having been taken away for certain groups of people. Like Catholics in Ireland were not allowed to own a firearm, but protestants were.

 

[mjdonnelly]

Arba Sicula:

But, as for me, I’ll support every law that restricts the “right” to carry a hidden handgun in public, at least in my city.

But wasn’t the law for all firearms?

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

Second, just as the Jews had a right to self defense two thousand years ago, so do we today and that is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church HAS been teaching.

You keep changing the topic. There is no question that we have a right to self-defense. But, you were claiming that the Church tells us to carry a concealed weapon. It does not.

No, it is not a fundamentalist one but one dealing with morals for it shows us that we have a right to self defense and use whatever means are available.

You have a profound lack of understanding of what the Church means by matters of faith and morals. And the notion that the Bible is everywhere totally inerrant as you claimed is in fact the Fundamentalist position. Think back to your Theology classes and try to remember what “faith and morals” mean to Catholics.

I guess you haven’t been reading what people have been saying. The Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states that we not only have a right but a duty (a GRAVE duty, as a matter of fact) to protect ourselves and other innocent individuals from death and serious bodily harm.

A matter of self-defense, which is quite proper - not a matter of goingaround strapped.

Nowhere in the Catechism does it list any restrictions on how we are to accomplish this. With no restrictions listed, the wise and prudent thing to do is to use the most effective means of self defense possible. In most cases, that is a gun.

There is no positive direction to carry a gun - none whatever in the Catechism.

It also says that someone who defends his life is NOT guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

A matter of self-defense. It is not a command to carry a gun.

Why do you think people carry guns?

To commit crimes, maybe. Because they’re nuts, maybe. Who knows?

And there are no Papal pronouncements AGAINST carrying handguns eiher but there IS official church teaching regarding our duty to protect ourselves and in absence of any restrictions (which there are none), there is nothing wrong with using a gun for that purpose.

Your logic is off. You can’t argue from the negative. Where were you during Logic 101?

There is no OFFICIAL church teaching against handguns and in good conscious the church can not tell me that I have a GRAVE duty to do something and then deny me the means by which to do it.

Arguing from the negative.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:

“…Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense.”

He goes on to say:

“…legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”

Speaking of a right to self-defense, not about any Church command for all Catholics to go around with a gun in their pockets.

According to the July 15, 2000 edition of the Washington Post, Rev. Michael R. Duesterhaus of the Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Annandale; did exactly what the Pope taught when he used his concealed 9mm Beretta to defend himself and two other priests when an intruder attacked them IN THE CHURCH. He did not get into any trouble with either his local Bishop nor the Holy See. If, having a concealed gun was wrong, surely the church would have taken some sort of action against Father Duesterhaus.

You are in error. The Church is famous for covering things ups - I’m not surprised that the Bishop didn’t do anything. Besides, a single anecdote doesn’t equal evidence or official Church policy.

Finally, at the UN Conference in 2001 on the proliferation of small arms, the Holy See has gone on public record as stating unequivocally that the legitimate need for self-defence is itself sufficient to justify private ownership of firearms.

The question isn’t private ownership of firearms. That is legitimate to be sure. The question is the Church’s command for Catholics to carry guns in public, concealed.

You keep avoiding the subject. Yes, we are allowed to defend ourselves and yes, we may own firearms, but nowhere does the Church tell us to carry them in public.

Now the ball is in your court. I have presented you with biblical evidence, a Papal Encyclical, passages from the Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and even an official statement made before the entire world in support of a person’s right to self defense AND gun ownership (the statement before the UN was in support of the private ownership of firearms). As “rlg94086” said above, the burden of proof is now your’s to prove that the church forbids (not just discourages but actually forbid) gun ownership. As you so rudely said to me earlier, either put up or shut up.

And I say it again. You changed the topic to gun ownership and the right of self defense. Your original proposition was that the Church calls for Catholics to go armed in public. Show me where the Church so instructs. Put up or shut up.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

rlg94086:

Sorry for butting in here, but you keep asking SirKnight to prove something he never asserted…that the Catechism (or an encyclical, etc.) calls on us to carry concealed weapons. He never claimed that.

Check Post 151 and other posts of his. He never says that we have a simple right to gun ownership, which is not in question, but that we can carry one, and he relies on that one verse of Scripture as proof of Christ’s command for people to go around armed. Knight is not arguing for a rifle over your fireplace, but a .38 in your pocket.

While I am not particularly pro-gun (don’t own one, but I have shot them…hunting birds, deer and elk), the burden of proof is yours. If you believe the Church forbids gun ownership, than you need to let us know where you read it.

Logically, one can’t argue from the negative. The burden of proof in logic, as in courts, is on the person making the positive assertion - that is, Knight, because he asserts that we should carry guns in public, with the Church’s blessing.

I used a rifle to shoot the birds, deer and elk…I can hear my father lecturing me now

And I’ve hunted deer in New Jersey with a shotgun (because of population density the state forbids the use of a rifle.) I’m not against private ownership of firearms at home or at one’s business.