San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[vern_humphrey]

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?

Questionning other poster’s motives is against the rules.
Philip P:

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.

I recommend you read the Catechism:

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.66

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.

Now, do you claim that abortion springs from those paragraphs?

 

[Philip_P]

Sir Knight:

My Catechism in Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 says … … What does your’s say?

To go from this to a positive injunction to carry a weapon requires a lot of unwarranted assumptions. What this passage tells us in regards to personal defense is if you are attacked, and *if *you are carrying a weapon, and *if *you kill your attacker in the process of defending yourself, *then *you are not guilty of murder. Note that nothing here says you *must *kill your attacker (indeed, the preference is to avoid this if possible). Nor is there anything saying that you must be carrying a weapon. What we have here is simply an establishment of the *right *to self defense, but no prescriptive command on the manner in which to exercise that right.

Try thinking about this in a different way. We also have a right, and a duty, to look after our physical health. Therefore, it is a good idea to receive vaccinations against tropical diseases if one were to travel to Africa. In fact, one would need a very good reason to imperil oneself by refusing such vaccinations. However, if one were traveling to Scandinavia rather than Africa, receiving vaccinations against tropical illness would make no sense. In fact, one may even run some risks by insisting on an unnecessary and inappropriate vaccination.

The difference is, of course, the circumstances. The conditions affecting health in Africa are different than those in Scandinavia.

Apply this to self defense. In some parts of the world, it makes sense to carry weapons for self-defense. In yet other parts of the world, it makes the most sense for that weapon to be a firearm. Those conditions, however, do not apply in the United States (with the apparent exception of the ultra-dangerous Lehigh Valley)

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Questionning other poster’s motives is against the rules.

I recommend you read the Catechism:

Now, do you claim that abortion springs from those paragraphs?

Your assumption is that the embrace of guns as a solution springs from a right of self defense. My argument is that the mentality that insists violence is the solution is the well-spring which leads our culture to embrace killing people before and after birth.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Your assumption is that the embrace of guns as a solution springs from a right of self defense. My argument is that the mentality that insists violence is the solution is the well-spring which leads our culture to embrace killing people before and after birth.

Again, I point out that it is against the rules to question other poster’s motives.

If you say the Catechism says “violence is the solution” you are wrong. If you say the Catechism condemns self-defense, you are wrong again.

Your argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

If you say the Catechism says “violence is the solution” you are wrong. If you say the Catechism condemns self-defense, you are wrong again.

You’re right - the Catechism doesn’t say violence is the solution. That’s precisely why the American embrace of violence as the solution is wrong, whether that applies to unplanned pregnancies, complicated foreign policy situations, or crime.

Killing people is not prolife.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

You’re right - the Catechism doesn’t say violence is the solution. That’s precisely why the American embrace of violence as the solution is wrong, whether that applies to unplanned pregnancies, complicated foreign policy situations, or crime.

Killing people is not prolife.

You need to read the definition of violence:

Main Entry: vi·o·lence [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?violen01.wav=violence’))
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Source: m-w.com/dictionary/violence

Obviously 3 and 4 are just expressions, so lets look at 1 and 2. It appears by the language used that violence is a force which is illegal, done for the sake of it, or an act of vengence.

Now, self defense is exacting enough force to protect yourself or others. If a perpetrator is threatening me with a knife and I shoot him, I’d say that doesn’t fit into the category of violence. Now if the same person makes a commit about my momma and I hit him or shoot him, I’d say that qualifies as violence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

You’re right - the Catechism doesn’t say violence is the solution. That’s precisely why the American embrace of violence as the solution is wrong, whether that applies to unplanned pregnancies, complicated foreign policy situations, or crime.

Which is a false argument. The Catechism recognizes the right and duty of self-defense, and there’s no way you can get around that.
Philip P:

Killing people is not prolife.

And do you say the Catholic Church – which says there can be a duty to defend oneself and others – is not prolife?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

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.

And how are we suppose to defend ourselves with a gun if we don’t have the gun with us? Ask our attacker to wait?
Arba Sicula:

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.

Actually, it is you who needs a better understanding of Catholic teaching. I followed the advise that you gave me earlier about speakign with a Catholic priest because accroding to you, my understanding of this subject was incorrect …
Arba Sicula:

You’d better talk to a priest as you have a deficient understanding of the Catechism.

… I pointed him to this topic and this was his reply … “Your interpretation of the Catechism is correct. There is no doubt about this point. If anyone tries to insinuate that there is doubt, they, themselves, are in conflict with Catholic teaching.”
Arba Sicula:

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

None of us know the time or the place where danger might strike. Therefore, to fulfill this grave duty that we have regarding self defense, we should always be at the ready.
Arba Sicula:

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

And there is no negative direction to not carry a gun - none whatever in the Catechism.
Arba Sicula:

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

If you have a grave responsibility to do something, you do it in the BEST way possible not the second best or third best. And the best means of self defense in most cases is with a firearm.
Arba Sicula:

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

Yes you CAN argue from the negative. The church never declared that useing a microwave was right, using your logic, since they never said that it was right, it is automaticly wrong. THAT is faulty logic! If something is wrong, the church delares it to be so as in the case of abortion, stem cell research, etc. If the church does not declare it to be wrong, then the conclusion is that it is not wrong. Don’t see any church teaching that traveling by car, train or airplane is correct. Because they never declared it to be correct, does that automaticly make it wrong? No! The same applies to guns. The church never officially declared them to be incorrect, Therefore the conclusion is that there is nothing wrong with them.
Arba Sicula:

Arguing from the negative.

Okay, why don’t YOU argue from the positive? Show me where in the Catechism, which according to the preface written by Pope John Paul II is the authoritative source for Catholic norms, the ownership and possession of guns is wrong.
Arba Sicula:

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

Why else would I want to carry a gun if not to protect myself and my loved ones?

And the church doesn’t specifically command all Catholics to go around with a gun in their pockets but it DOES command all Catholics to be prepared to take on the GRAVE responsibility of protecting themselves and other innocent individuals from death or serious bodily injury. If this is a GRAVE responsibility, then it needs to be done in the best way possible and the best way possible in most cases is with a gun.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

You are in error. The Church is famous for covering things ups - I’m not surprised that the Bishop didn’t do anything.

That is your opinion and one which does not reflect kindly on the Catholic Church. Show me proof that in this particular case the bishop or the Holy See covered things up.
Arba Sicula:

Besides, a single anecdote doesn’t equal evidence or official Church policy.

Maybe not but the Holy See stating unequivocally that the legitimate need for self-defence is itself sufficient to justify private ownership of firearms at the UN Conference in 2001 on the proliferation of small arms DOES prove the point.
Arba Sicula:

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.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I am saying that the church commands Catholics to be able to defend themselves. Also, nowhere does the church say that the use, ownership or possession of guns is wrong. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Catholics carrying guns.
Arba Sicula:

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.

And you are also avoiding the subject. Show me where the church says that we are not to carry guns in public? And how are we suppose to defend ourselves if we do not have the gun in our possession?
Arba Sicula:

You changed the topic to gun ownership and the right of self defense.

I feel like I’m talking to a wall. Why else would you carry a gun if not to defend yourself? Gun ownership and self defense are tied together. You can’t seperate the two.
Arba Sicula:

Your original proposition was that the Church calls for Catholics to go armed in public.

My original proposition was that the Church requires us to be able to defend ourselves and it places no restrictions on how we accomplish that. If it is with a gun, then that is what we are to use.
Arba Sicula:

Show me where the Church so instructs. Put up or shut up.

Show me where the church instructs against carrying guns. Put up or shut up.
Arba Sicula:

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.

The infallible Word of God says that ALL of scripture is there for our benefit. Whether it’s one verse or a thousand. And Jesus DID command his followers to go out and buy a weapon – even if they had to sell their coat to do so.

And a rifle over my fireplace at home is not going to do me any good if I am attacked in a mall parking lot but a .38 in my pocket will. If I had the opportunity to defend myself by being armed and didn’t do so, did I live up to my GRAVE duty of protecting myself? I don’t see how!

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

The Catechism recognizes the right and duty of self-defense, and there’s no way you can get around that.

You’re proposing a very limited view of self-defense. Self-defense quite often precludes any violence at all. Prudently staying away from certain bars could be a legitimate means of self-defense. Getting a restraining order is good defense. In any case, you have to have a very strong case to justify any violence at all, even in the name of self-defense. If the Church advises us to be careful even when expressing anger, then one can see how strict are the limitations for justified violence.

 

[Sir_Knight]

st.jerome:

You’re proposing a very limited view of self-defense. Self-defense quite often precludes any violence at all. Prudently staying away from certain bars could be a legitimate means of self-defense. Getting a restraining order is good defense. In any case, you have to have a very strong case to justify any violence at all, even in the name of self-defense. If the Church advises us to be careful even when expressing anger, then one can see how strict are the limitations for justified violence.

Your are correct. With carrying a gun comes a big responsibility which is not to be treated lightly and you have to take the extra step to avoid confrontations which means that if someone insults your manhood or your wife’s looks, you let it slide off your back and try to defuse the situation. Also, you do not draw your firearm unless you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury and there is no opportuntity to escape or run away. But when all else fails, the church tells us that we have a grave duty to defend ourselves and it places no restriction on how that is done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

You’re proposing a very limited view of self-defense. Self-defense quite often precludes any violence at all.

And you’re accusing me of something I have not done.

Note that the Church says:

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.66

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.

The Church accepts that self-defense can extend to the use of deatly force.

The idea that self-defense can result in a non-violent end to a confrontation is one specifically advanced by, among others, John Lott – who points out that the possession of a firearm is often enough to end an attack. More than 95% of defensive uses of firearns do not actually result in a shot being fired.

st.jerome:

Prudently staying away from certain bars could be a legitimate means of self-defense.

I don’t go to any bars.

st.jerome:

Getting a restraining order is good defense.

I suggest you talk to your local law enforcement – even judges agree that restraining orders are basically worthless.

st.jerome:

In any case, you have to have a very strong case to justify any violence at all, even in the name of self-defense.

And no one on this thread denies that.

st.jerome:

If the Church advises us to be careful even when expressing anger, then one can see how strict are the limitations for justified violence.

Do you honestly think you needed to say that?

I suggest you have a very prejudiced view of the people on this echo who support the right to self-defense.

 

[rlg94086]

Arba Sicula:

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.

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.

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.

Interesting, so you believe that we are only allowed to do something if the Catechism says it is okay? That is illogical.

The Catechism says we have a right to self-defense, but it does not tell us how. This means it is up to our discretion, unless you can tell me where it say we should not carry a concealed weapon.

I’m not sure what courts you hang around, but if you are going to tell someone they are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, you should be able to tell them what law they are breaking. IOW…where in the Catechism does it say carrying a concealed weapon is a sin?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Which is a false argument. The Catechism recognizes the right and duty of self-defense, and there’s no way you can get around that.

And do you say the Catholic Church – which says there can be a duty to defend oneself and others – is not prolife?

You’re error is in jumping from “right to self defense” to “no restrictions on firearms.” I’ve addressed this in post 181 .

What I find interesting are the scenarios constructed to justify walking around armed. They all are based on an assumption that violent attackers are widespread, and the threat of violent attack high.

This is interesting on two counts. First, it is a fantasy scenario with no basis in reality. At the very least, it has no basis with my reality, which is intensely urban NYC. Of course, it is possible that Arkansas and the Lehigh Valley are in the grip of violent, lawless anarchy. Perhaps someone should look into this, maybe send in the National Guard?

The second reason this is interesting is that the proposed solution is killing the attackers. A better solution would seem to be making sure the attackers don’t exist in the first place. Switch perspectives for a second and imagine that the problem is not the threat of hoodlums, but a pregnancy that you are emotionally, psychologically, and financially unprepared for. You could just kill the child. That would certainly “solve” the problem. A better solution would be to avoid the situation in the first place. Healthy relationships, and an attitude that sees people as people, rather than as problems, are less likely to get you into the dilemma of a problem pregnancy.

Similarly, I have to wonder why, when faced with the problem of the threat of violent attack, some people instinctively jump to “kill the attacker” as the best and most effective solution.

Now, someone will point out that abortion is a sin, whereas carrying a gun is not intrinsically sinful. This would miss the point entirely. Think about the attitude that reaches for the gun as the best and surest answer. Is that too different from the attitude that reaches for the syringe?

 

[wabrams]

st.jerome:

Self-defense quite often precludes any violence at all.

Main Entry: self-de·fense m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: "self-di-'fen(t)s
Function: noun
1 : a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
2 : the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative

Source: m-w.com/dictionary/self%20defense

In other words, no.
http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

st.jerome:

Prudently staying away from certain bars could be a legitimate means of self-defense.

That’s just common sense. By that arguement I can claim wearing a seat belt is self defense.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

What I find interesting are the scenarios constructed to justify walking around armed. They all are based on an assumption that violent attackers are widespread, and the threat of violent attack high.

This is interesting on two counts. First, it is a fantasy scenario with no basis in reality.

The exact same could be said about your arguement.
Philip P:

At the very least, it has no basis with my reality, which is intensely urban NYC. Of course, it is possible that Arkansas and the Lehigh Valley are in the grip of violent, lawless anarchy. Perhaps someone should look into this, maybe send in the National Guard?

So you would have no problem walking through Brooklyn or Hell’s Kitchen at 1am, unarmed, if your car happened to break down?
Philip P:

The second reason this is interesting is that the proposed solution is killing the attackers. A better solution would seem to be making sure the attackers don’t exist in the first place. Switch perspectives for a second and imagine that the problem is not the threat of hoodlums, but a pregnancy that you are emotionally, psychologically, and financially unprepared for. You could just kill the child. That would certainly “solve” the problem. A better solution would be to avoid the situation in the first place. Healthy relationships, and an attitude that sees people as people, rather than as problems, are less likely to get you into the dilemma of a problem pregnancy.

Don’t change the subject to abortion. You’re right on one count: making sure the attackers don’t exist. We’re working on that, but until that day comes people should be allowed to defens themselves.
Philip P:

Similarly, I have to wonder why, when faced with the problem of the threat of violent attack, some people instinctively jump to “kill the attacker” as the best and most effective solution.

Well, when someone threatens to kill you and they have the means to do it, what would you have the would be victim do, use harsh language?
Philip P:

Now, someone will point out that abortion is a sin, whereas carrying a gun is not intrinsically sinful. This would miss the point entirely. Think about the attitude that reaches for the gun as the best and surest answer. Is that too different from the attitude that reaches for the syringe?

Last time I checked, people didn’t get abortions because the fetus had a knife in it’s hand threatening to stab his/hers momma if she didn’t give the fetus her purse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

You’re error is in jumping from “right to self defense” to “no restrictions on firearms.” I’ve addressed this in post 181 .

What I find interesting are the scenarios constructed to justify walking around armed. They all are based on an assumption that violent attackers are widespread, and the threat of violent attack high.

Who said that?

Home fires are not widespread – but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I also have insurance.

I’ve never been in a collision – but I have seat belts and airbags.

I’ve never need helicopter medical evacuation (except after being wounded in combat) but I subscribe to an evacuation service.
Philip P:

This is interesting on two counts. First, it is a fantasy scenario with no basis in reality.

Huh? What scenario are you talking about?
Philip P:

At the very least, it has no basis with my reality, which is intensely urban NYC. Of course, it is possible that Arkansas and the Lehigh Valley are in the grip of violent, lawless anarchy. Perhaps someone should look into this, maybe send in the National Guard?

Are you saying there is no violent crime in NYC?

And no home fires, heart attacks, or any other things against which would take precautions?
Philip P:

The second reason this is interesting is that the proposed solution is killing the attackers.

Where do you get that? You seem to be accusing others of things they have not said or advanced.
Philip P:

A better solution would seem to be making sure the attackers don’t exist in the first place.

And your strategy for doing that is?
Philip P:

Switch perspectives for a second and imagine that the problem is not the threat of hoodlums, but a pregnancy that you are emotionally, psychologically, and financially unprepared for. You could just kill the child.

That is an unethical argument – you are asking me to do something the Catholic Church forbids, equate an unborn child with an unjust aggressor.

Shame on you.
Philip P:

Similarly, I have to wonder why, when faced with the problem of the threat of violent attack, some people instinctively jump to “kill the attacker” as the best and most effective solution.

Similarly, I have to wonder why you continually make this claim. Just who “instinctively jump(s) to ‘kill the attacker’ as the best and most effective solution?”
Philip P:

Now, someone will point out that abortion is a sin, whereas carrying a gun is not intrinsically sinful. This would miss the point entirely. Think about the attitude that reaches for the gun as the best and surest answer. Is that too different from the attitude that reaches for the syringe?

Think about your attitude where you try to get people to equate an unborn child with an unjust aggressor, and where you accuse other people “instinctively jump(ing) to ‘kill the attacker’ as the best and most effective solution?”

You should be ashamed to use tactics like that.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Philip P:

To go from this to a positive injunction to carry a weapon requires a lot of unwarranted assumptions. What this passage tells us in regards to personal defense is if you are attacked, and *if *you are carrying a weapon, and *if *you kill your attacker in the process of defending yourself, *then *you are not guilty of murder. Note that nothing here says you *must *kill your attacker (indeed, the preference is to avoid this if possible). Nor is there anything saying that you must be carrying a weapon. What we have here is simply an establishment of the *right *to self defense, but no prescriptive command on the manner in which to exercise that right.

What this passage tells us is that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves. It doesn’t tell us how we are to do it nor does it place any restrictions on how we are not to do it. Without any such conditions or restrictions, it is left up to us but since this is a GRAVE responsibility, we should do it in the best way possible, The best means of self defense in most cases is with a gun. And if we COULD be armed with a gun but weren’t and something happens, have we not failed in performing our GRAVE duty of self defense?
Philip P:

Try thinking about this in a different way. We also have a right, and a duty, to look after our physical health. Therefore, it is a good idea to receive vaccinations against tropical diseases if one were to travel to Africa. In fact, one would need a very good reason to imperil oneself by refusing such vaccinations. However, if one were traveling to Scandinavia rather than Africa, receiving vaccinations against tropical illness would make no sense. In fact, one may even run some risks by insisting on an unnecessary and inappropriate vaccination.

The difference is, of course, the circumstances. The conditions affecting health in Africa are different than those in Scandinavia.

This example has no bearing on anything that we are discussing as far as I can see.
Philip P:

Apply this to self defense. In some parts of the world, it makes sense to carry weapons for self-defense. In yet other parts of the world, it makes the most sense for that weapon to be a firearm. Those conditions, however, do not apply in the United States (with the apparent exception of the ultra-dangerous Lehigh Valley)

Crime happens everywhere. A place may have a 0.1% crime rate but it still has crime. There is no place that has a 0% crime rate. A crime against us will happen in a time and place not of our picking.

Just as some people are lucky and win the lottery even though the odds of doing so is one in ten million. On a particular day and place you could be the unlucky one and be the victim of a crime in an extremely low crime rate place.

We carry a gun because we don’t know when and where something might happen. Most people will never be in a serious car accident, yet most people wear a seat belt. Most people will never have a fire in their house but most people still have fire insurance. Most people will never have their home broken into yet most people lock their doors.

Why? Because it is the prudent thing to do to be prepared and take precautions. The same applies to carrying a gun.

 

[Sir_Knight]

vern humphrey:

Home fires are not widespread – but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I also have insurance.

I’ve never been in a collision – but I have seat belts and airbags.

I’ve never need helicopter medical evacuation (except after being wounded in combat) but I subscribe to an evacuation service.

Great minds think alike I used almost the exact same examples in my above reply.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sir Knight:

Great minds think alike I used almost the exact same examples in my above reply.

And somehow we manage it without drawing a moral equivallance between an unborm child and an unjust aggressor.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif