The Right to Bear Arms

[FightingFat]

I guess the concesus is that we need more guns as the only way to stop shootings.

Really? This is the kind of society you want to live in? One where citizens are coerced to behave by the threat of lethal force?

Anybody want to explain their interpretation of the phrase in the 2nd Ammendment: “well regulated militia?”

I’d say this basically means what I quote from St. Thomas Aquinas here: that it is the proper function of the public authorities to punish wrong-doers, not the right or responsibility of individuals. Thus offenders ought to be brought to justice according to a proper system of apprehension, investigation and trial. An individual does not have the right to kill an unjust aggressor normally.

 

[Mike_Dye]

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.

As I have stated in another post:
I believe Obama and Biden are in for a suprise when it comes to the second amendment. They think that just because Catholics and other people of faith were willing to give up their first amendment rights with little more than a whimper gun owners will do the same. I believe that they have assumed incorrectly.

 

[FightingFat]

How does that change anything? It’s simply a collective, political opinion. I’ll ask again for the hundredth time, where is the Church doctrine that tells me I cannot own a firearm? Or buy one? Or possess one? Or carry one? And where is a single statement by a single U.S.Bishop, or a collection of Bishops, or a synod of Bishops, or a conference of Bishops that forbids me from doing so?

I don’t think anyone is forbidding anything. The point I’m trying to make in my blog is that we should be ordered towards peace and non-violence. Sure, that’s not always possible, but violence is a desperate, last resort action.

I understand that in a society that has as many guns as the USA, banning guns isn’t the answer, but I’m suggesting it should be a long term goal. And I am joined in that assertion by the USCCB, the Vatican and the Pope, who wrote in his message to the disarmament conference, no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root.

Every person “is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere,”

 

[wondrousgnat]

In 1970 I carried a little Vietnamese girl (5, 6, maybe 7) to a hospital. Her arm was gone and she lost her entire family. It was a memory that still haunts me. My dad, like me a former member of the NRA, was a fireman. They would often go to fires with no lights or sirens on because snipers would shoot at them in the 70’s. My house asnd my car were hit by gunfire one new years eve. And while I was working a kid about 100 feet away from me was killed by a driveby.

So how could I have prevented these situations?

 

[FightingFat]

As I have stated in another post:
I believe Obama and Biden are in for a suprise when it comes to the second amendment. They think that just because Catholics and other people of faith were willing to give up their first amendment rights with little more than a whimper gun owners will do the same. I believe that they have assumed incorrectly.

I’m not sure why this particular Amendment is set so firmly in stone. Others have come and gone, as needs dictated. Prohibition, for example, was a Constitutional Amendment. when it was fully appreciated what the consequences were, it was repealed.

 

[FightingFat]

In 1970 I carried a little Vietnamese girl (5, 6, maybe 7) to a hospital. Her arm was gone and she lost her entire family. It was a memory that still haunts me. My dad, like me a former member of the NRA, was a fireman. They would often go to fires with no lights or sirens on because snipers would shoot at them in the 70’s. My house asnd my car were hit by gunfire one new years eve. And while I was working a kid about 100 feet away from me was killed by a driveby.

So how could I have prevented these situations?

Sorry sir, I’m not sure I understand your question?

You can’t always prevent the repercussions of others actions. You just have to deal with them, in charity.

 

[jwinch2]

I’m not sure why this particular Amendment is set so firmly in stone. Others have come and gone, as needs dictated. Prohibition, for example, was a Constitutional Amendment. when it was fully appreciated what the consequences were, it was repealed.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights has “come and gone” as needs dictated. Regardless, the ability of the citizenry to overthrow an oppressive or tyrannical government will always be needed. The right of people to defend themselves, loved ones, or other innocents will always be needed.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. The power of the government derives from our consent and the constitution is not an instrument to limit the power of the people, it is to limit the power of the government.

 

[wondrousgnat]

Nothing in the Bill of Rights has “come and gone” as needs dictated. Regardless, the ability of the citizenry to overthrow an oppressive or tyrannical government will always be needed. The right of people to defend themselves, loved ones, or other innocents will always be needed.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. The power of the government derives from our consent and the constitution is not an instrument to limit the power of the people, it is to limit the power of the government.

Is America becomming that scary? Are you that scared of the young American men and women who serve in our military?

 

[FightingFat]

Is America becomming that scary? Are you that scared of the young American men and women who serve in our military?

Well said!

 

[jwinch2]

Is America becomming that scary? Are you that scared of the young American men and women who serve in our military? (I am a vet myself and remember how we were treated in the 1970s.)

Strawman argument.

However, for the record, I’m a vet also and no, I am not scared of our young men and women. In fact, the overwhelming majority of veterans I know agree that the second Amendment is about being able to overthrow the government if necessary. nydailynews.com/news/national/marine-senator-won-give-guns-article-1.1233050

Even if that were not the case, it would not alter one iota the intent of the second amendment. In fact, it would be the opposite.

 

[wondrousgnat]

The 2nd Ammendment is about a well regulated militia. That is the national guard.

I enlisted in the army and went to Nam. Nevertheless I almost reenlisted to make it a career…When I returned to Ft Dix our welcome home speech told us not to wear uniforms off base because it was not safe for us. When I arrived at O’Hare Airport in Chicago at 11 PM. Soldiers getting off the plane were shoved (including me) and others were spit on. Rejection for jobs and insults were quite commmon. A couple of times secretaries told me not to admit to being a vet or I would not get hired. Several times I received 3AM phone calls asking me what it feels to to “kill a baby.” I eventually moved and told nobody that I am a vet (and still proud of it).

I am not reading any such direct comments here. But I am still catching some of the same anti servicemen comments here. And today’s military does not scare me.

 

[FightingFat]

The 2nd Ammendment is about a well regulated militia. That is the national guard.

I enlisted in the army and went to Nam. Nevertheless I almost reenlisted to make it a career…When I returned to Ft Dix our welcome home speech told us not to wear uniforms off base because it was not safe for us. When I arrived at O’Hare Airport in Chicago at 11 PM. Soldiers getting off the plane were shoved (including me) and others were spit on. Rejection for jobs and insults were quite commmon. A couple of times secretaries told me not to admit to being a vet or I would not get hired. Several times I received 3AM phone calls asking me what it feels to to “kill a baby.” I eventually moved and told nobody that I am a vet (and still proud of it).

I am not reading any such direct comments here. But I am still catching some of the same anti servicemen comments here. And today’s military does not scare me.

That must be so hard after you have given so much and suffered so much. Thank you.

 

[Sarcelle]

Settle down - I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m being serious.

Maybe it’s time to look at the drug trade.

There’s not as many homicides over it in Canada as the US, but it’s a huge business, the number 1 crop in BC. Decriminalize it, get the gangs and cartels out of it and they will starve and fade away.

We would have to get rid of human trafficking and the sex trade too as the number 2 money maker for gangs.

However, the sex trade SHOULD stay illegal since it is intrinsically evil.
I wouldn’t call cannabis intrinsically evil, in the same way that I would not call alcohol intrinsically evil.

I agree, cannabis is not intrinsically evil and should be decriminalized.

Gangs and cartels, however, will not fade away once you decriminalize drugs. They will just move on to profiting from sexual trafficking and other intrinsic evils. They will also continue to use guns and won’t care if owning guns are legal or illegal.

 

[Sarcelle]

I always feel like I’m from another planet when I come into contact with the American view of their own government.

The government is you is it not?

Maybe your political system is too big? Maybe it needs to be dismantled and the principles of subsidiarity applied?

Serious question: do Americans not feel that the state is THEM?

As a Canadian I feel I could take on the state, but I would never be at war with the state, or could ever be the enemy of the state. That when the nation is more secular, or “pro-choice” it’s not because of the “government,” but because of the will of the people - flawed though it may be. Do Americans feel different?

Speaking as an American I feel like I’m from another planet when I see Europeans’ and Canadians’ view of the government. It strikes me as naive. The government, for the moment is us, but it can change at any time.

I am a legal immigrant to the U.S. and as a child in the old country I have seen coup after coup take place. So yes, it is very possible that government can be the worst enemy of the citizens.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t think anyone is forbidding anything. The point I’m trying to make in my blog is that we should be ordered towards peace and non-violence. Sure, that’s not always possible, but violence is a desperate, last resort action.

I understand that in a society that has as many guns as the USA, banning guns isn’t the answer, but I’m suggesting it should be a long term goal. And I am joined in that assertion by the USCCB, the Vatican and the Pope, who wrote in his message to the disarmament conference, no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root.

Every person “is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere,”

If you are looking for a long term goal of banning guns, look also for a way of taking guns away from criminals. Putting gun bans into law will do nothing but take guns away from honest citizens who obey the law. Somehow this point seems to get lost on all the pro-ban advocates.

 

[FightingFat]

If you are looking for a long term goal of banning guns, look also for a way of taking guns away from criminals. Putting gun bans into law will do nothing but take guns away from honest citizens who obey the law. Somehow this point seems to get lost on all the pro-ban advocates.

I think that is the essential point isn’t it? The whole point is not to take guns away from good, sensible, reasonable people, but from people who might use them to commit crime.

 

[Sarcelle]

I think that is the essential point isn’t it? The whole point is not to take guns away from good, sensible, reasonable people, but from people who might use them to commit crime.

Okay.

I am curious as to how you propose to take guns away from criminals. Remember they already ignore the law so a legal course of action is not an option.

 

[mary_bobo]

If you are looking for a long term goal of banning guns, look also for a way of taking guns away from criminals. Putting gun bans into law will do nothing but take guns away from honest citizens who obey the law. Somehow this point seems to get lost on all the pro-ban advocates.

Exactly. It is going to be interesting to see how those folks pretzel themselves into trying to make us believe whatever they come up with is going to help. My guess is, it won’t pass. But I could be wrong.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

Would we not equate owing a gun with “taking up our swords” to defend? I mean, when it comes to defending the life of my family, I will not “turn the other cheek” and let an intruder do what he wishes to my family. i will defend the lives of my family.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Okay.

I am curious as to how you propose to take guns away from criminals. Remember they already ignore the law so a legal course of action is not an option.

lets say you are a bubonic plague farmer. but you are a bit lax about your fences. so a thief breaks into your fields and steals your bubonic plague. after killing a few people with the plague he sells it to someone else who also uses it on others.

the responsibility ultimately rests on the original farmer. if he had mended his fences those people could not have died that way.
if you own a gun you could be made responsible for whoever uses it with or without your permission. a heavy penalty, like many years in prison, on gun owners for crime committed with their guns would almost guarantee that the guns are made safe and kept out of reach of anyone.

maybe when a registered owner of a gun dies their weapons should be returned to the state instead of being willed to family or friends.