Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have spent DECADES begging my pastors to TEACH Catholic doctrine on respecting life, on behaving well, on Jesus’ words.

They have all said that they are not permitted to teach.

If the Catholic Church emphasized the basics, people would have some idea … but now the people in the pews are clueless.
 
Antifa was endorsed by the left? The whole left? Everyone? I didn’t know “the left” was that monolithic, but ok.

As to what “resistance group” Hillary Clinton is supporting, I have no idea.

Why are you asking me? I didn’t bring Clinton into this conversation.
 
Oh, my goodness, just google obama resistance … many articles … many many articles.

nypost.com

How Obama is funding the anti-Trump resistance

Wall Street might be shocked to learn it is helping bankroll the anti-Trump “resistance” movement that’s aggressively fighting policies it favors — including corporate tax cuts and the repeal of Ob…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
TK421:
The US constitution is a man-made invention. It was not penned by God. A human being saying that gun ownership is a God-given right does not make it so, anymore than a human being saying there is no sun makes the sun cease to exist.
Click to expand...
But the rights protected there are inherent. And the right to self defense are inherent.
You saying we don’t have a right to self defense also doesn’t make it right.
Click to expand...
The right to defend yourself is inherent. The right to own a specific gun is not. Your saying so, or even the founding fathers saying so, does not make it so.
Click to expand...
He is not talking about a specific firearm
Click to expand...
The argument over gun rights is an argument for specific firearms, otherwise everyone would be satisfied with an air rifle. But no, they want the Series Four De-atomizer.
 
Join the NRA and learn what they really teach and preach. Attend some of their functions. Otherwise, you are dealing with second hand information.

[I assume you realize that the Series Four De-atomizer is so yesterday.]
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The argument over gun rights is an argument for specific firearms, otherwise everyone would be satisfied with an air rifle. But no, they want the Series Four De-atomizer.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not. Not in the long run. Last year Secretary Clinton invoked the Australian model, which was a confiscation. So the issue is much broader than specific arms. Additionally, the arms being targeted are semi-automatics. Just go back and read this, other threads, and the national debate. A huge percentage of firearms owned by civilians are semi-automatic.
 
That’s the problem … our anti-gun people are living in fantasy land.

God gave us free will and the ability to get together for mutual protection instead of railing at the moon and wishing for some sci-fi movie to be real.

God is real, but you have to pray to Him.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
@JonNC

I have not said that people do not have the right to defend themselves. I do not have the authority to say such a thing.

Let’s do a thought experiment: so people have a right to defend themselves. Does that mean we are allowed to have machine guns? What about drones with a weapon payload? What about killing somebody before we even know their intentions?.
Click to expand...
The generic right to defense would include the ability to amount a successful defense against those who are intending evil.

An example would be the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943. The Jews obtained and used machine guns. That was contrary to the civil law, that denied them arms at all. But all would call that a legitimate defense. If they obtained tanks, that too would have been legitimate self defense.

So, yes, the natural right of self defense can include the possession and use of machine guns, if that is what is reasonably necessary to defend against that attacker.

The right to defense can include having more ‘firepower’ than your attacker. A 90 year old lady could legitimately use a handgun, rifle or shotgun to oppose a 20 year old, 220 lbs attacker with a baseball bat. Or an adult male could legitimately use a semi automatic rifle against a group of knife wielding attackers.

The natural right of defense includes all of that. Any reasonable person would agree that criminals in the US are well armed. Ergo, the natural right of defense would include firearms, firearms capable of deterring or countering the types of attacks that one might encounter.
 
The AR-15 is the perfect home defense gun for women. Virtually no recoil, very little sound … so no startle factor, short stock and easy to handle in a home hallway, large magazine so plenty of ammo with which to confront a home invader.
 
Padres1969 said:
That might be true, if countries that have similar “cultures of death” as you call it, have stemmed the tide of these massacres by enacting sweeping gun control measures.
Click to expand...
How about “sweeping machete control measures”? The problem is not the choice of weapon but the hate in the one who wills to employ it.
See Mat 5:21-22.
In the lead-up to the genocide the number of machetes imported into Rwanda increased.
(The Machete". Imaging Genocide. Michigan State University. 2 October 2016.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Brendan said:
The generic right to defense would include the ability to amount a successful defense against those who are intending evil.

An example would be the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943. The Jews obtained and used machine guns. That was contrary to the civil law, that denied them arms at all. But all would call that a legitimate defense. If they obtained tanks, that too would have been legitimate self defense.
Click to expand...
That example does not prove your point. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was justified under a different provision of the Catechism, namely section 2243. In fact the legitimacy of gun control is affirmed in section 2316, which I quote here (bolding mine):
The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
As a parent I want to teach my kid to stay away from guns. Are you saying the government knows better than the parent what a kid should know about guns? I don’t mind the schools telling my kids that guns are dangerous, but I don’t want them getting hands-on training on how to aim and fire. That is not necessary to ensure safety.
Click to expand...
I don’t want government telling me what healthcare I should have, when and if I should have, and taking my money for the "privilege ".
I do want schools to teach fire safety, how to safely buckle up in a car, to sit while on the bus, safe bicycle practices, and safety around firearms.
I don’t want schools teaching that firearms shouldn’t be a right,or that guns are bad, or that a pastry nibbled into the shape of a gun is an offense at all, much less one worthy of suspending a seven year old.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Padres1969:
That might be true, if countries that have similar “cultures of death” as you call it, have stemmed the tide of these massacres by enacting sweeping gun control measures.
Click to expand...
How about “sweeping machete control measures”? The problem is not the choice of weapon but the hate in the one who wills to employ it.
See Mat 5:21-22.
In the lead-up to the genocide the number of machetes imported into Rwanda increased.
(The Machete". Imaging Genocide. Michigan State University. 2 October 2016.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It is a problem when hate is employed, but the size of the ensuing problem is affected by the weapon in hand. A person with hate and an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a person with hate and a machete. Also our nation is not flooded with machetes.
 
JonNC said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
As a parent I want to teach my kid to stay away from guns. Are you saying the government knows better than the parent what a kid should know about guns? I don’t mind the schools telling my kids that guns are dangerous, but I don’t want them getting hands-on training on how to aim and fire. That is not necessary to ensure safety.
Click to expand...
I don’t want government telling me what healthcare I should have, when and if I should have, and taking my money for the "privilege ".
I do want schools to teach fire safety, how to safely buckle up in a car, to sit while on the bus, safe bicycle practices, and safety around firearms.
Click to expand...
Safety on a bus - sure - because kids get to school on a bus. And fire safety - sure - because there could be a fire at school. But schools do not teach kids how to ride a bike or give them hands-on practice buckling a car seat belt. Perhaps they should mandate a basic air safety course with an AOPA program in case any of them find themselves in a small plane some day. It is the same thing with guns. Being around guns should not be taken for granted as something that is just going to happen. As a parent I want the right keep my kids from having anything to do with guns. Do you object to that?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is a problem when hate is employed, but the size of the ensuing problem is affected by the weapon in hand. A person with hate and an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a person with hate and a machete.
Click to expand...
The menace presented by a person with an AR-15 is limited. The menace presented by a person with a machete is unlimited.
LeafByNiggle said:
Also our nation is not flooded with machetes.
Click to expand...
Such a worldview is quite parochial.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As a parent I want the right keep my kids from having anything to do with guns. Do you object to that?
Click to expand...
As a parent, I want the right to my kids being able to have proper knowledge, safety, and training with firearms. (I’ll do this on my own; not implying schools should)

As long as you do not object to me teaching my children proper firearm techniques and safety procedures, then there is no objection here.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It is a problem when hate is employed, but the size of the ensuing problem is affected by the weapon in hand. A person with hate and an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a person with hate and a machete.
Click to expand...
The menace presented by a person with an AR-15 is limited. The menace presented by a person with a machete is unlimited.
Click to expand...
Do you mean in the sense that a person can swing a machete over and over while a person with an AR-15 will run out of bullets? They are both limited. In a mass killing scenario, the person with a machette will be subdued by people with their bare hands probably before he kills ten people. I suppose he could sit up in a tower over the crowd and wave his machete threateningly. Then maybe eventually throw it and hit someone. A person with an AR-15, while limited to the number of bullets, can carry a heck of a lot of bullets.
LeafByNiggle said:
Also our nation is not flooded with machetes.
Click to expand...
Such a worldview is quite parochial.
Click to expand...
Yes, I never claimed to be speaking for countries where machetes are more popular than guns. In such a place, maybe machete control is needed. I can’t say.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top