The Right to Bear Arms

[JesuisSean]

I know, it’s a fact that lots of people want to be able to defend themselves from others, thus what they want is a basic Personal Defense Weapon (PDW).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/H&K_MP7.jpg/250px-H&K_MP7.jpgSee en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_defense_weapon

Hmmm, maybe it looks a bit to nasty,…might have to scale it down a bit to remove that feeling of guilt.

 

[FightingFat]

Book/chapter/verse, please?

Exodus 22:2-3

 

[Actaeon]

It’s a crazy world at this time.

People believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms” such that they can protect themselves from other people who believe that they clearly have the “Right to Bear Arms”.

Then you here statements such as " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.".

Therefore, based on this specific logic, every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb.

After all, even if the weapons get bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans, the people, are still the same size. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic of " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.", every person in the country should have the right to bear at least one atomic bomb, because the bombs don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the atomic bombs would just sit there at rest hurting no one at all. Thus based on today’s INSANE logic there would be absolutely nothing to worry about.

However, for some bizarre reason, many of those who support the idea of every person having the right to bear arms, and also state that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, for some reason would back down to the approval of individuals having the right to have atomic bomb ownership, even though in turn this throws the " Guns don’t kill people; people kill people." statement out the window.

Thus they are saying that a certain number of deaths is acceptable, meaning, just keep it small and we as usual will be totally happy about it.

False analogy, nuclear weapons are ARMAMENT, which is quite different from ARMS in military parlance.

 

[FightingFat]

Therefore what? You agree with their opinions, that’s all they are.

Again, so what? Those statements are simply political opinions by the Bishops. I am completely free to disagree with them. Doing so does nothing to separate me, or put me odds with The Church.

Why am I not surprised with your response. Pope John Paul II called this utilitarianism.

 

[wondrousgnat]

is it lonely on your pedestal wondrousgnat?

Certianly can be, Especially considering all the others here on their pedestals.

 

[FightingFat]

And while you’re busy swinging your nunchuks around, the “someone” who broke into your home will be busy emptying his gun into your chest.

Deeply unlikely in this country friend.

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with you, but it’s no use trying to use evidence or facts to argue with them. It goes in one ear and out the other, and in the end the only way to win such an argument is by successively countering every one of their arguments, after which they will promptly change the subject.

I don’t want to go that far, but I am disappointed, consistently, at the willingness of many here on CAF and elsewhere to base their conclusions on emotion rather than evidence and reason and to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. President Obama, during his inaugural address in 2009, went out of his way to state that his administration would be informed by scientific opinion and implied strongly that the previous administration was not. Unfortunately, that only seems to be true for things in which the science agrees with the President’s previously established views. He appears quite willing to abandon science in this case as well as others. Other politicians have made ridiculous claims such as saying that unloaded firearms can still shoot someone. Many others themselves have guns to include concealed carry permits, but wish to take that right away from others. Does that bother me? Yes. Yes it does.

In addition, I am disappointed, consistently at the repeated use of logical fallacy rather than debating on the actual issue at hand. Finally, I am disappointed at the suggestion that the Church has taught something at the level of the Magisterium which is not the case (note, I did not say infallibly. There are a great many things we are bound to as Catholics which are Magisterial, but not necessarily Ex Cathedra).

 

[dshix]

I don’t want to go that far, but I am disappointed, consistently, at the willingness of many here on CAF and elsewhere to base their conclusions on emotion rather than evidence and reason. President Obama, during his inaugural address in 2009, went out of his way to state that his administration would be informed by scientific opinion and implied strongly that the previous administration was not. Unfortunately, that only seems to be true for things in which the science agrees with the President’s previously established views. He appears quite willing to abandon science in this case as well as others.

In addition, I am disappointed, consistently at the repeated use of logical fallacy rather than debating on the actual issue at hand. Finally, I am disappointed at the suggestion that the Church has taught something at the level of the Magisterium which is not the case (note, I did not say infallibly. There are a great many things we are bound to as Catholics which are Magisterial, but not necessarily Ex Cathedra).

I agree. I couldn’t say it better.

 

[JesuisSean]

If everyone could see the truth of the matter, there would be no arguments. But instead, almost 100% see less than the complete truth.

If you are a believer, and thus are happy with your beliefs, then you are happy with less than truth since one need only practice a belief if one is located at a distance from the truth in the first place. If one is located at a distance from the truth, one is thus is located within the zone of less than truth. Thus those whom are happy with their beliefs, are happy with less than truth.

Conflicts then arise due to the presence of numerous varieties of acceptance of less than truth.

 

[dshix]

If everyone could see the truth of the matter, there would be no arguments. But instead, almost 100% see less than the complete truth.

If you are a believer, and thus are happy with your beliefs, then you are happy with less than truth since one need only practice a belief if one is located at a distance from the truth in the first place. If one is located at a distance from the truth, one is thus is located within the zone of less than truth. Thus those whom are happy with their beliefs, are happy with less than truth.

Conflicts then arise due to the presence of numerous varieties of acceptance of less than truth.

Hmm. Funny that you mention truth… if you really like truth all that much and really care to find and nurture it, perhaps you’ll condescend to actually reply to my previous post using reason and tell me why I’m wrong.

Please answer me, I’m just salivating to find out how my statement isn’t already true:

Your points seem quite well-founded. However, there is one small detail you seemed to ignore which rather undermines your whole argument.

Guns =/= bombs.

Our right to the private possession of guns is realistic. It gives citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. In the event of government imposing bad policies, it is possible for the citizens to stand up and fight back (as in the Revolutionary war).

Bombs, however, are an entirely different story. Nor are we talking about bombs. As a matter of fact, you brought bombs out of the blue from who knows where, and they have no part in this discussion. It is not legal for private citizens to possess atomic bombs; that is stupid, irrational, and dangerous.

If every person in the nation owned a gun and carried it with them, crime would be negligible because what criminal would be stupid enough to stick up a cashier when he knows everyone around him could possibly just pull out a gun and shoot him?

If every person in the nation owned an atomic bomb, if a single one of them used it, it would be game over. Literally. That’s why you argument that guns = bombs makes no sense.

I agree that there should be a ceiling at how powerful weapons get in the hands of citizens. As soon as we get to the point where a single shot from such a weapon could utterly destroy a large number of people where there is no chance of retaliation, it is not logical to put it in the hands of citizens.

 

[JesuisSean]

Hmm. Funny that you mention truth… if you really like truth all that much and really care to find and nurture it, perhaps you’ll condescend to actually reply to my previous post using reason and tell me why I’m wrong.

Please answer me, I’m just salivating to find out how my statement isn’t already true:

I refuse to condescend.

However, too see the completeness of any particular truth, one must see it from all directions that surround that particular truth. This includes all space and all time surrounding it. This seeing of the 3D reality surrounding that surrounds it, then provides a 100% support of this particular truth.

Thus it would take me forever to reveal to you the complete truth of the matter at hand.

Thus the trick is for you too to figure out how to wrap your mind around all time and all space. But you’re out of luck, for all time is all time, and all space is all space, thus this can be achieve by one person only. Once it is done, it is done.

 

[dshix]

I refuse to condescend.

However, too see the completeness of any particular truth, one must see all that surrounds that particular truth. This includes all space and all time surrounding it. This seeing of the 3D reality surrounding that surrounds it, then provides a 100% support of this particular truth.

Thus it would take me forever to reveal to you the complete truth of the matter at hand.

Thus the trick is for you too to figure out how to wrap your mind around all time and all space. But your out of luck, for all time is all time, and all space is all space, thus this can be achieve by one person only. One it is done, it is done.

Wow.

My friend, consider your argument groundless. If you refuse to even engage in intelligent debate with your opponents, read their points, or even make sense, I can’t debate with you.

If you just constantly go around talking, but not listening, I can’t debate you.

Unless you even acknowledge my responses to your posts, I will choose to ignore your arguments themselves.

Will you argue with the use of reason, common sense, and logic, or will you argue with a senseless agenda? That is the question.

 

[ProVobis]

False analogy, nuclear weapons are ARMAMENT, which is quite different from ARMS in military parlance.

The spirit of the Second Amendment permits one to use whatever weapon he or she needs to protect against the aggression of his own government. In 1776 nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, hand grenades, etc. did not exist. “Arms” has a different meaning today.

But then I could be misreading the Amendment and all the posts here.

 

[JesuisSean]

Wow.

My friend, consider your argument groundless. If you refuse to even engage in intelligent debate with your opponents, read their points, or even make sense, I can’t debate with you.

If you just constantly go around talking, but not listening, I can’t debate you.

Unless you even acknowledge my responses to your posts, I will choose to ignore your arguments themselves.

Will you argue with the use of reason, common sense, and logic, or will you argue with a senseless agenda? That is the question.

Yet I am still your friend. Thank you.

 

[Arandur]

Thanks James

I have to say, I have read the second amendment, and indeed quote it in my article there, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with personal gun ownership for self defence. It’s about the British invading and being able to raise a militia quickly to defend the States. But that’s just my outside, objective perspective

It has very little to do with that. It has much more to do with a study of history, governments, and yes, the American experience of British tyranny. As I just wrote in another, related thread:

Try this on: the fundamental (inalienable) right to Life and Liberty demands that no one unjustly take either from you (Life being the prime right, required, of course, for Liberty and any other right or privilege). In fact, having a right to something also requires that you have some remedy against a violation of that right–either to repair damage done, or better yet, prevent the infringement of that right in the first place.

The American experience, as well as the observation of ALL of human history (which was carefully considered, to the extent known at the time, by the founders), reveals that man’s injustice against man stems from a violation of those rights made possible by the application of superior force. That is, all tyrannies are made possible by the threat and imposition of violence by the state, and that all crimes against life are made possible by one person being able to do violence to another person unable to successfully defend against that violence. Moreover, experience and history similarly testify to that parties capable of doing violence to others with little risk of significant opposition are extraordinarily likely to do such violence in order to impose their will or get their way.

How do you ultimately safeguard all rights to Life and Liberty? By enabling self-defense. And how can you have self-defense if you have no means of opposing the violence of some aggressor?

The right to bear arms, then, is essential to the right to Life and to Liberty. Without it, those rights are hollow, faint whisps of an idea soon proven useless vapor as soon as the hard, cold reality of violence (or threatened violence) is used to violate those rights.

The right to bear arms is an outgrowth, an inherent part of, the rights to Life and Liberty. It is the aspect of those rights that proves them, and it is their final defense and most concrete proof. Without it, I have no right to either Life or Liberty that does not rest on the fickle respect of another person or government.

I might also add that the other inalienable right in our Declaration of Independence, the right to Pursuit of Happiness (or Property, as it was phrased prior), as the tertiary right on that list, is similarly proven and guaranteed by the right to bear arms, and also (as arms are property) more directly speaks to it.

 

[FightingFat]

It has very little to do with that. It has much more to do with a study of history, governments, and yes, the American experience of British tyranny. As I just wrote in another, related thread

I always find this quite amusing. Of course, most of the settlers were British as well.

 

[jwinch2]

I always find this quite amusing. Of course, most of the settlers were British as well.

Showing yet again evidence of a government becoming tyrannical against its own citizens, or in that case, subjects, and the clear need for the ability of people to remove such a government from power.

 

[Arandur]

I always find this quite amusing. Of course, most of the settlers were British as well.

You find the point about “British tyranny” amusing, when the settlers were predominantly British? Most tyranny is of a people upon their own people, so that’s hardly surprising. There is American tyranny upon Americans, just as there is Saudi tyranny over Saudi Arabians. It is the nature of governments to violate liberties when not restrained from doing so.

 

[marywarfield]

I’m going to guess this is a very touchy subject on here, but try to open a reasoned debate in any case. I have read quite a bit here and elsewhere, in defence of gun ownership. It could be because I come from a different culture (England/ Ireland), but I find it difficult to reconcile gun ownership with a moral Catholic position. I completely understand that the basic argument is that guns equate to defence. If you are armed, you are able to defend yourself. I also do not think you could disarm, certainly not quickly. That would mean that the only people left with guns would be those who do not accept the rule of law, and law abiding citizens would then have little or no defence against them.

However, I would like to suggest that the Catholic Church is very solidly, very calmly against gun ownership and that this is very clear and consistent in Catholic teaching. I have written something about it here outlining my argument and providing references and I would invite you to review and please, comment and help me to understand where and if I’ve got this wrong.

I read it. I fail to see any reference that would indicate the Catholic Church is “very solidly, very calmly against gun ownership”. Normally, when the Church is solidly against something, it simply says so, such as abortion, birth control, adultery etc. One can cite chapter and verse from the catechism as to the Church’s stance on anything it is solidly against, one does not have to attempt to extrapolate intention, as you have with gun control. For instance, discussion of what St. Thomas of Aquinas meant- you cannot seriously be intimating that he was “solidly” referring to gun ownership. The catechism: where is it “solidly” stating gun ownership is incorrect? Contrast the catechism discussions on abortion with your statement about gun ownership and then show us where the Church is “solidly” against it.

 

[Actaeon]

The spirit of the Second Amendment permits one to use whatever weapon he or she needs to protect against the aggression of his own government. In 1776 nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, hand grenades, etc. did not exist. “Arms” has a different meaning today.

But then I could be misreading the Amendment and all the posts here.

Actually, explosive shells have been in existance since the 14th century, and were in wide use by the 17th century, more than 100 years before the revolutionary war… and “smoke shells” which were the basis of chemical weapons shells (because they were essentially early tear gas) have been in use since the 17th century.

Furthermore, private ownership of cannons (again, armament) was NOT envisioned and protected by the 2nd amendment. Presser v. Illinois saw a ruling that stated that the right to bear arms did not entail the right to supplant military functionality, nor to carry out military related tasks with weapons which were meant solely for semi-military purposes (and by extension for military purposes). To wit, armament is banned because it is weaponry which does NOT cary out a militia driven purpose: it is weaponry designed for massive destruction in war by military forces. Under the militia model, arms were the property of able-bodied men called up to fight, while armanet (canons, explosive shells, smoke shells, etc) were the property of the state to be issued to the militia for use.

It makes sense given the varying definitions of arms and armanent. Arms, in merriam-webster, are defined as “the means to offense or defense” while armanent is defined as “the arms and equipment with which a military unit or military apparatus is supplied.”

So no, the 2nd amendment did not and never has provided the right of citizens to possess armament… those have always been the property of the states (and now the federal government)