The 2nd is not a product of the 18th century (17th century) and the weapons are fundamentally the same. Your understanding of the “west” is a bit of a red herring, and certainly not all towns required you to turn in your guns when visiting town.
Let me get this straight: you’re saying the fact that people are armed makes your country a safe spot where you don’t have to be armed? And also you’re, for some reason, ignoring the extremely large number of massacres that occur in the US, in SCHOOLS, where young Americans go every day. Do you seriously believe you feel safer in the US than we do in Europe?
I’m saying that the historical fact that many citizens were armed has impacted our culture in a positive direction, where we are generally a very safe country outside of specific high crime areas. It’s impacted or represented by basic mores and expectations that are widely shared.
I was responding to someone posting in spanish who was complaining about how it was in the US, they introduced Mexico and the cartels into their post. I used google translate.
Why are you introducing exemptions, I didn’t say that?
I don’t look upon the 17 innocent people shot dead in Parkland as a statistic. They were human beings with families and friends who loved them. They are not a statistic. This is the problem with the gun lobby. It is wrong for those who want guns to dehumanize people and look upon others as statistics and not as human beings. Where is the love and the charity Christians are supposed to have toward our fellow human beings?
Neither do I, but your emotional response is not an excuse to misrepresent the scope of the issue across the country. Learn to make facts your friend, not your enemy, if you want to actually cause change.
Proof? When did he oppose the death penalty? He actually conceded that Pilate had authority given from above to execute him. If Jesus was so obviously anti-death penalty, Aquinas and Augustine sure missed it
I think the problem is caused by your understanding of what the phrase “the traditional teaching of the church” means. It doesn’t mean there are normal and unusual forms; it means there are doctrines that have been taught and repeated throughout church history. Something therefore that is part of the traditional teaching of the church can be traced back through history. This is the case of capital punishment whose origins can be traced back to the earliest years of the church.
This is not true. The church never had that as a requirement for the use of capital punishment…prior to 1995. States have had, however, the capability of imprisoning people for life for centuries, and probably for millennia.
The circumstances of particular cases may indeed cause a punishment that is appropriate in one case to be inappropriate in another, but these conditions are prudential. The relevant doctrine says that if the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime, the punishment is just. It may not, because of practical considerations, be wise in particular instances.
The justness of the punishment depends on two things: is its severity appropriate for the crime, and are there any particular considerations that might mitigate the sentence? For capital punishment, death is always of the appropriate severity. Whether there are mitigating conditions is a judgment call. The necessity for protection is not something that can lessen the punishment a person deserves.
