The Right to Bear Arms

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are a lot of good people who have posted in this thread. And they hold different and opposing opinions. But they all came by their opinions honestly and have reasons for them. Nevertheless, people are very quick to pass judgement and make personal insults against one another. Is this how we treat each other in the Catholic church?
 
How about collecting World War II artifacts? I have a good friend of mine who comments artifacts from the past American wars, and two weeks ago free night hours first real gun: a Japanese rifle with and emperor’s symbol. He doesn’t even use your for protection; either hemakes films about about wwii, vietnam, etc, or collects them. By the way you can look up his fillms. Tom Lynskey films I believe it’s called.

He had to register the gun because it’s still able to work if you can get it fixed. He is worried about Obama’s Gun control plan.

Another thing is the catholic church has taught abbot gun control. It’s not in the catechism, but I believe it’s mentioned once in evangelium vitae, along with statements from USCCB and the pope. Just Google catholic position on gun control. The social teaching of the usccb is that they want to have cessation some point in the future I’d I am not mistaken…or for only military and police force to use them…then again I believe both just war and self defence are covered in the catechism…but it’s hard for anyone to found the exact documents. The USCCB made the statement in a footnote of an article about gun control.

But when out comes to many question, what do you think?
 
Actaeon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay but since we’re discussing on a moral theology forum, does throwing a hand grenade at your attackers any less moral than shooting them with a 30-rounder?
 
“ Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
 
“Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
 
“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Letter from Richard Henry Lee #18 January 25, 1788.
 
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78
 
OK, so here is a question. When there is a terrorist incident, you hear all sorts of politicians come out of the woodwork talking about how we need to be careful in our response here in America so that we do not give up our freedoms and allow the terrorists to force us to change our society. Certainly, we saw that after 9-11 with the resistance to the patriot act (I agree with that resistance by the way), on the part of the majority of Democrats and many Libertarians as well.

Now, looking at the writings of the framers of the US Constitution, it is painfully obvious that their intent was for all citizens to have the right to arms and that the militia included everyone.

So, how is this any different? Why should we allow evil people such as the one who perpetrated this horrific crime in CT to force us to change our society? Why should we allow them to force us to give up our freedoms?
 
jwinch2 said:
OK, so here is a question. When there is a terrorist incident, you hear all sorts of politicians come out of the woodwork talking about how we need to be careful in our response here in America so that we do not give up our freedoms and allow the terrorists to force us to change our society. Certainly, we saw that after 9-11 with the resistance to the patriot act (I agree with that resistance by the way), on the part of the majority of Democrats and many Libertarians as well.

Now, looking at the writings of the framers of the US Constitution, it is painfully obvious that their intent was for all citizens to have the right to arms and that the militia included everyone.

So, how is this any different? Why should we allow evil people such as the one who perpetrated this horrific crime in CT to force us to change our society? Why should we allow them to force us to give up our freedoms?
Click to expand...
“Never let a crisis go to waste.” Rahm Emmanuel

When people’s emotions are high, agendas come to the fore. It is prudent to do NOTHING rather than jump in and make things worse, but being human, our impulse is to DO SOMETHING. Thus, “Homeland Security” and the TSA after 9/11/2001. And now look at what we, the people, have to do before boarding a plane. When we were never the problem!

The people’s representatives were not meant to operate out of hysteria. But that is the national climate now. No one seems to have the sense to say, “Now wait just a minute…” and if they did, the media would suppress it anyway.

It’s a right mess.
 
marywarfield said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about this? uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians
 
stewstew03 said:
Really - Mosaic Law? My apologies, I thought you were serious…
Click to expand...
You don’t think the Decalogue is relevant? I think you’ll find it is. 🙂

However, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some other reason to ignore God, the Bible, the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church and justify your own position.
 
isn’t the problem about guns being fired in public places rather than the possession of a gun. they are two different things. if no gun was ever used against an innocent there would be no discussion.
if you want a private militia to protect your constitutional rights then have one. but it should have the same attitude towards security of weapons as the military or police force does.
your private militia should be trained properly and the weapons stored in an organized secure dedicated building.

glancing through a gun forum i see these comments;
Anybody got any suggestions for how to go about prepping a rifle for long term storage? I’ve got a Marlin Model 99 that’s not firing consistently. At this point I don’t want to continue to shoot it because I’ve got to clear a misfire too often to make it fun. Originally, I thought it was the cheap Wal-Mart ammo so I got some better ammo and am still having the same problem. I’ve disassembled, cleaned, oiled, reassembled and tried again and no luck. I think it’s going to need a little work and don’t have to bucks to invest in that work currently so am going to stick it in the closet until I do.
Click to expand...
For rifles that I’m going to store for a long time I do pretty much what you did. When I first joined the Army I stored my rifles for 4 years I used silicone impregnated sackups. I then put them in hard side gun cases and stored them in my parents basement. When I came home from the Army and got them out no rust what so ever. I cleaned them up again before firing and the only problem I had was my .243 wouldn’t fire, I guess leaving it cocked for 4 years the firing pin spring broke. I don’t know if the sackups helped or not but they sure didn’t hurt.
Click to expand...
perhaps what you guys need are gun clubs that will store your guns for you, safely.
 
jwinch2 said:
So, how is this any different? Why should we allow evil people such as the one who perpetrated this horrific crime in CT to force us to change our society? Why should we allow them to force us to give up our freedoms?
Click to expand...
We shouldn’t, same point with 9-11 and lived by New Yorkers.
 
" I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

NRA President Karl Frederick, 1934
 
wondrousgnat said:
Today there are 283,000,000 registered firearms in America. Plus many have concealed/carry permits. Others carry them without permits. Yet of 66 “mass shootings” no armed civilian ever took out a shooter. What is the solution to all the shootings in America? The NRA has the simple answer: we need more guns.

From AMERICA , Jan 7-14, 2013: “We can control the nature of the weapons and ammunition we allow. We can simply reread the part of the Second Ammendment that acknowledges the collective responsibility to maintain a ‘well-regulated militia’ and ask, after Columbine, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora, and now after Newtown, how well regulated the nation’s self appointed militia appears.”
Click to expand...
Sandy Hook was a no gun area. What does that mean to a killer? Defenseless people easy to kill. Ft. Hood restricted its military from carrying arms. I’m very sure if the soldiers had been carrying, the crazy Muslim psychiatrist would have been shot. Let us certainly hope so otherwise their training would be usless to us. Training them and then instructing them not to carry is counter productive. Recently, two detectives were told they could not bring their concealed guns into a restaurant. What sense does that make?

You’ve cited three schools. I’m sure all were a NO GUN ZONE. Even if you had a concealed permit, I doubt you’d be able to carry it into the school unless of course you are a killer and the law means nil.
 
aicirt said:
Sandy Hook was a no gun area. What does that mean to a killer? Defenseless people easy to kill. Ft. Hood restricted its military from carrying arms. I’m very sure if the soldiers had been carrying, the crazy Muslim psychiatrist would have been shot. Let us certainly hope so otherwise their training would be usless to us. Training them and then instructing them not to carry is counter productive. Recently, two detectives were told they could not bring their concealed guns into a restaurant. What sense does that make?

You’ve cited three schools. I’m sure all were a NO GUN ZONE. Even if you had a concealed permit, I doubt you’d be able to carry it into the school unless of course you are a killer and the law means nil.
Click to expand...
Are you saying we need more guns? And what is your interpretation of the constitutional statement “well regulated militia?”
By the way I own a .22, a .38 and a shotgun. So don’t misunderstand where I am coming from.
 
FightingFat said:
You don’t think the Decalogue is relevant? I think you’ll find it is. 🙂

However, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some other reason to ignore God, the Bible, the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church and justify your own position.
Click to expand...
We do not do private interpretation of the Bible in the Catholic Church. So, please show us in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states that Catholics are not to own guns. Since you claim that the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church have all taught on this, you should have no problem doing so.
 
wondrousgnat said:
Are you saying we need more guns? And what is your interpretation of the constitutional statement “well regulated militia?”
By the way I own a .22, a .38 and a shotgun. So don’t misunderstand where I am coming from.
Click to expand...
No, I believe that we just need fewer “no-gun zones.” So, less regulation when it comes to stopping law-abiding citizens from bringing their weapons inside. Schools included.
 
jwinch2 said:
We do not do private interpretation of the Bible in the Catholic Church. So, please show us in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states that Catholics are not to own guns. Since you claim that the Vatican, the Pope, and the Church have all taught on this, you should have no problem doing so.
Click to expand...
A rather narrow interpretation of the Magisterium isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top