Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[pnewton]

Ok. Agreed. But when I brought up the real reason for them you dismissed it as treason (even though in the proper circumstances it wouldn’t be)

You are right. There is always the zombie apocalypse if the zombies had enough votes to win the White House.

In 1776, many countries were under dictatorships and controlled as part of an Empire. That was then. There is zero reason to take up arms against a government we can more easily vote out.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Agreed. But even the cathechism gives the ok for armed insurrection in certain cases. You should read them.

 

[pnewton]

If my wife is at home without me, I want her to have as many rounds as she needs- for a Break in by multiple intruders, etc.

Have you considered M18 Claymores?

But self defense is not the issue, and neither is hunting. In fact, for the vast number of murders involving firearms, AR-15s are not the issue.

Like I said when I mentioned this gun, that is just a detail for the purpose of discussion. And I do not think the USCCB document was addressing the problem of murder so much as it was mass shooting.

 

[pnewton]

You should read them

Trust me, I have. The one that gives me pause is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. I do not see how that could happen without a very large majority on board, which again, would simply make voting the bad guy out an easier option. (Exhausting other options is another).

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

You’re assuming voting will ALWAYS be an option.

Trust me, it’s not something I fantasize about. It’s a last resort. But we don’t do ourselves any favors ignoring the possibility of government gone bad. History is full of examples.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

If my wife is at home without me, I want her to have as many rounds as she needs- for a Break in by multiple intruders, etc.

Have you considered M18 Claymores?

But self defense is not the issue, and neither is hunting. In fact, for the vast number of murders involving firearms, AR-15s are not the issue.

Like I said when I mentioned this gun, that is just a detail for the purpose of discussion. And I do not think the USCCB document was addressing the problem of murder so much as it was mass shooting.

In any case, the firearm is not responsible for its misuse. The law abiding owner is not responsible for others misusing theirs.
The question remains how to stop the violence without compromising individual rights.

 

[upant]

but he does lose his right to self defense against the guards taking him to the death chamber.

what if he was wrongly accused? would he be justified in putting up some kind of self defense?

because there is a moral right to self defense, there is a moral right to carry weapons of self defense… That specific argument, I claim, is invalid because the premise is always true but the conclusion is sometimes not true.

just because the right is taken away does not mean it isn’t moral. in new jersey you have a duty to flee, removing your right to self defense. is self defense than not moral?

Planning my next gun buy. Probably a military-style, hi-capacity rifle, probably a Colt 6920, similar to the M-16 I shot expert with in the military.

which American Rifle do you like?

The right to carry weapons can be abridged.

the right to self defense has been abridged by the duty to retreat. 17 states have laws on their books. is self-defense moral since it can be abridged?

Whats the problem with gun control?

it hasn’t worked with all of the laws currently on the books. why will one more be the holy grail

What would you rather, tighter gun laws or no guns at all?

the gun group founders want both. read their own words. i have posted them in this or another gun thread.

so which gun should we ban?

neither. allow conceal carry. when he burst in shooting, he will be shot before he inflicts too much damage. even with the potential for collateral damage, which i believe would be limited, it is still better than everyone being shot.

 

[jfz178]

Even in the US. Read up on the Battle of Athens, aka the McMinn County War. 3,000 discharged WWII veterans returned to McMinn County, TN in 1946, with their discharge pay. They found out that a corrupt political machine had been running the county while they were off serving in the war. The corrupt sheriff’s department, aided by corrupt judges, started shaking down the vets for their money on a variety of pretexts.

The vets ran their own candidates in the next election. The sheriff, fearing he would lose, confiscated the ballot boxes. Up to 2,000 armed vets laid siege to the sheriff’s office until he surrendered the ballot boxes. The ballots showed all the veteran candidates had all won. The state government refused to get involved either way. It was up to armed citizens to fight tyranny.

 

[jfz178]

I think there are two very possible scenarios in the US where voting would not be a solution.

First, the government departs from the Constitution in a highly visible and obvious way. For instance, a president refuses to leave office when his term is up and he has gotten the support of enough people to feel he can pull off a coup. This has happened in other countries. We would be arrogant to say there is no way it could happen here. The armed citizenry organized into guerilla groups, could be very effective, even against our high-tech military. That has been shown in other countries. In addition, all military personnel and law enforcement officers have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and most of them take it seriously. Many of them would not follow unconstitutional orders and would side with the armed citizenry, essentially becoming armed citizenry in the eyes of the illegal government. Finally, if those two groups could hold out long enough, eventually we would get help from select entities in the international community.

Second scenario, probably more likely: There is a temporary breakdown in society. A disaster of some sort takes out government services in a widespread area for an extended period of time. This has happened for over a year in parts of Bosnia and Argentina. Fortunately, we have only had limited instances of this in the US, but we could have one that is much worse. It is not hard to envision something happening that it would take the government months to right. Then, fighting “tyranny” would not be fighting the government, but roaming gangs and bandits.

I think we assume the government will always be there for us and we can always vote them out. And thankfully, that is usually true. But it is foreseeable that it might stop being true very quickly.

 

[Ender]

Yet the apostles went further than deciding that the widows and orphans should be helped. They devised a specific plan of action in appointing the seven men to provide that help. I don’t know whether we need to call that decision a moral decision, but it certainly was an appropriate decision for them to make, don’t you agree?

It is certainly appropriate for the church to decide what the church should do, but I don’t see any suggestions being made by the apostles about what the Roman government ought to be doing. Nor was their decision to appoint seven men to the task a moral choice. This has been my point all along, otherwise you’re left arguing that seven is the moral number, while six and eight are immoral.

You commit no sin in believing that a specific proposal by the bishops does more harm than good.

But if this is so, and this much at least seems undeniable, then this cannot possibly be a moral concern. Morality does not permit two contrary positions to be equally moral, but that is precisely what the question of gun control permits.

But let’s go back to Acts 6. What sin would someone commit who believed that the apostle’s decision to appoint seven men was the wrong way to provide for the widows and orphans? If you say there is no sin, then how can this possibly be an appropriate subject on which the apostles should decide?

It was no more a sin to disagree with the apostles then about the best way of helping widows and orphans than to disagree with a bishop today about the best way to spend the money he collects from the bishop’s annual appeal. These are practical questions that are the specific responsibility of the clergy to address. They have practical problems just like the rest of us. Questions about what the government or the wider society should do, however, are not their responsibility, and it is at best unwise to interject themselves into such debates - unless there is a question of morality involved.

 

[Ender]

LeafByNiggle:

Safety, for those concerned that there are too many guns, is a moral issue for them

Define “too many”.

“Safety” is nor a moral concern whether one is speaking about guns or the tires on ones car. It is a serious - but entirely practical - concern, and deciding what to do calls for a full understanding of the major aspects of the problem, about which one can learn nothing at all from any church doctrine, catechism, or encyclical.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yet the apostles went further than deciding that the widows and orphans should be helped. They devised a specific plan of action in appointing the seven men to provide that help. I don’t know whether we need to call that decision a moral decision, but it certainly was an appropriate decision for them to make, don’t you agree?

It is certainly appropriate for the church to decide what the church should do, but I don’t see any suggestions being made by the apostles about what the Roman government ought to be doing.

That’s because there was no way for them to influence Roman government policy. If the Church was as influential in Rome then as it is now in America they would have spoken out on social issues then too.

Nor was their decision to appoint seven men to the task a moral choice.

You have been using “moral choice” as a proxy for “appropriate for comment by the Church.” But that is clearly not so because as you note right here, the decision to appoint seven men was not strictly a moral choice. But you have yet to declare that the decision was not appropriate for the apostles for that reason. If you are going to use “not a moral choice” as the reason to declare the US bishops’ comment inappropriate then you have to justify why that didn’t make the apostles’ decision inappropriate too.

But let’s go back to Acts 6. What sin would someone commit who believed that the apostle’s decision to appoint seven men was the wrong way to provide for the widows and orphans? If you say there is no sin, then how can this possibly be an appropriate subject on which the apostles should decide?

It was no more a sin to disagree with the apostles then about the best way of helping widows and orphans than to disagree with a bishop today about the best way to spend the money he collects from the bishop’s annual appeal.

Yes. And I am not contesting the point that one may disagree with the bishops on their gun control message. I am only disagreeing with the claim that it is inappropriate for them to comment about it at all.

 

[Maximilian75]

one can achieve the same results with a belt loop and a semi automatic rifle.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Yep, I’ve done it. It’s fun, but not useful. Same with bump stocks. The fact that 1 shooting occurred with one and people are screaming for them to banned shows how hysterical our society is.

 

[Ender]

You have been using “moral choice” as a proxy for “appropriate for comment by the Church.”

It really works best if you just assume I really mean exactly what I write, and not reinterpret my words to mean something other than what I have said. I use “moral choice” to mean exactly that: one is making a choice that is either moral or immoral, just or sinful. This is not complicated.

But that is clearly not so because as you note right here, the decision to appoint seven men was not strictly a moral choice. But you have yet to declare that the decision was not appropriate for the apostles for that reason.

No, the decision to appoint seven men was clearly not a moral choice; it was entirely a practical one, but the mere fact that it was solely practical cannot mean it was therefore inappropriate for the apostles to make such a decision. They were responsible for addressing all of the practical difficulties that arose with serving the church. It is not the fact that a choice is practical that makes it inappropriate for the clergy to address it, it is a question of whether the issue falls within their sphere of responsibility. Matters of the church, yes; matters of government, no.

I am not contesting the point that one may disagree with the bishops on their gun control message. I am only disagreeing with the claim that it is inappropriate for them to comment about it at all.

You have been arguing for hundreds of posts that this is a moral issue. If that was true then when guidance is given by the bishops it comes with the presumption that they are laying out moral choices: allow this, don’t allow that… But as you yourself note, we are free to disagree with the bishops suggestions, a position which refutes the notion that the bishops are in fact giving moral guidance.

Bishops speaking out on non-moral concerns do a number of things, all of them unhelpful. They imply that their opinions represent moral positions - which by implication means that contrary positions are immoral. This changes the nature of the discussion away from what is better to who is better, with anyone holding the “immoral” position clearly in the latter category. It poisons the discussion from the start and severely reduces the possibility that the talks can be productive. It provokes charges like “cafeteria Catholic” and “denying the church”, and other equally silly and offensive slurs. They reduce their own credibility by blurring the line between their political pronouncements and their moral ones.

Really, their persistent involvement in political issues has nothing whatever to recommend it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have been using “moral choice” as a proxy for “appropriate for comment by the Church.”

It really works best if you just assume I really mean exactly what I write, and not reinterpret my words to mean something other than what I have said. I use “moral choice” to mean exactly that: one is making a choice that is either moral or immoral, just or sinful. This is not complicated.

What I meant was that you are using the absence of a “moral choice” as the reason to say the bishops’ message is inappropriate. Perhaps “proxy” was not quite the right word.

It is not the fact that a choice is practical that makes it inappropriate for the clergy to address it, it is a question of whether the issue falls within their sphere of responsibility. Matters of the church, yes; matters of government, no.

So matters of the church business are the only matters that are within the sphere of responsibility of the bishops? During WWII, Pope Pius XII asked the churches to provide sanctuary and aid to the Jews being persecuted by Germany. What about the Kenyan bishops publicly questioning the safety of polio vaccines, calling for a boycott? It seems the Church has made lots of statements about how civic life should be governed. I don’t think statements on gun control are the first. The sphere of responsibility is not quite so sharp as you imagine. There is some overlap.

You have been arguing for hundreds of posts that this is a moral issue. If that was true then when guidance is given by the bishops it comes with the presumption that they are laying out moral choices

I do not agree with that presumption. They may also just draw attention to an issue that the laity should consider.

But as you yourself note, we are free to disagree with the bishops suggestions, a position which refutes the notion that the bishops are in fact giving moral guidance.

There is a difference between guidance and laying down the law.

Bishops speaking out on non-moral concerns do a number of things, all of them unhelpful. They imply that their opinions represent moral positions - which by implication means that contrary positions are immoral.

I disagree.

 

[pnewton]

“Safety” is nor a moral concern whether one is speaking about guns or the tires on ones car.

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.
It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God.
We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

 

[Ender]

None of this applies to the question of whether “safety” is a moral concern. Yes, I have a moral responsibility to care for myself, but that says nothing whatever about what acts are too far, not far enough, or just right.

I couldn’t even tell you what “safety is a moral issue” means; perhaps you can spell out exactly what you mean by the claim, and explain where the line is drawn between moral and immoral “safety”.

 

[pnewton]

None of this applies to the question of whether “safety” is a moral concern. Yes, I have a moral responsibility to care for myself, but that says nothing whatever about what acts are too far, not far enough, or just right.

Just because the Catholic Church does not quantify immorality does not mean it cannot qualify it. That is why an issue that requires prudence in understanding morality in a specific circumstance does not mean it is not a moral issue. I have noticed a rejection of what the Church has said in areas that she is not qualified to give specifics, as in some algorithm, scale, list, or directions. Yet even the principles given are thrown out, though that is inherent in the teaching office of the bishop.

 

[Ender]

Just because the Catholic Church does not quantify immorality does not mean it cannot qualify it. That is why an issue that requires prudence in understanding morality in a specific circumstance does not mean it is not a moral issue.

This is pretty generic and could mean any number of things. How about an example? Remember, for an issue to be moral it must be sinful, not merely mistaken, to assume a particular position. What is the example from any political issue whatever (that does not involve an intrinsic evil) where choosing either of opposing sides is a sin?

I have noticed a rejection of what the Church has said in areas that she is not qualified to give specifics, as in some algorithm, scale, list, or directions. Yet even the principles given are thrown out, though that is inherent in the teaching office of the bishop.

I am responsible for my own comments, not for what others have said. If you have an example of where I’ve done this then bring it forward, otherwise none of this is relevant.