We need gun owners and everyone else to speak for forgiveness

[OneSheep]

By forgiving that group of people.

Well, that doesn’t really enter into it very deeply, right? For example, if a person says “those government folk are of bad intent”, then this is an assumption, and it indicates that the speaker still holds something against the Government, right?

So how does one go about forgiving the government to the point that the person actually can relate to the government, as Jesus relates to his own presecuters with “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep:

.

So how does one go about forgiving the government to the point that the person actually can relate to the government . . .

.
That’s fine OneSheep.

.
You were the one who said . . .

.

Can we focus on the forgiveness?

.
Then I attempted to do just that.

.
Now you are going to focus on the logistics of that forgiveness

.

That’s your call. You go ahead and work out and discern the ways you are going about forgiving people who have denied you (and/or) of your (their) Constitutional rights.

And I’ll just forgive them.

(But that doesn’t mean I’ll stop advancing ideas that preserve freedoms and rights of citizens as well as forgive perpetrators against freedom that attempt by varying degrees to illicitly strip Americans of their Constitutional Rights. The gun-grabbers need forgiveness too).

 

[OneSheep]

Now you are going to focus on the logistics of that forgiveness

.

That’s your call. You go ahead and work out and discern the ways you are going about forgiving people who have denied you (and/or) of your (their) Constitutional rights.

And I’ll just forgive them.

I appreciate your call for forgivness, thanks!

I do think that some people really don’t understand why some government people want to restrict gun ownership, how they can actually be of good intent in doing so. The lack of understanding, coupled with the threat of taking away some ownership rights, leads to some understandable resentment.

I can definitely relate to resentment of our government, but when I have such emotion I do remember to forgive.

 

[Cathoholic]

I do think that some people really don’t understand why some government people want to restrict gun ownership, how they can actually be of good intent in doing so. . .

OK. So now you are going to take the thread into a restriction of Constitutional Rights direction.

I’m perfectly OK with that too (just like I was OK with the alleged “forgiveness” direction)

So when I have such emotion . .

.
I am glad you take into consideration your feelings and “emotions” OneSheep.

But I based my post upon fact not feelings. (Which is WHY I posted the late professor Rummel’s book and thesis. I’ve read a lot of his stuff as he had made it available for free online).

I focused on the millions upon millions of people who have been killed just recently in history, by Governments via gun violence (not from law-abiding citizens . . . but by people in Government positions of power which in many cases I’m sure had “good intentions”).

.

I do think that some people really don’t understand why some Constitutional supporters want to safeguard their Constitutional protections, how they can actually be of good intent in doing so. . .

A lot of people with a “low-ball” or quasi-puritan (or Jansenist if they are Catholic) view of humanity think that because there are SOME bad guys out there, that ALL humanity (except their favorite politicians) should be disarmed.

This is a “Collective Punishment” paradigm and is wrong.

And we need to forgive those people who have such jaded views against these good honest people.

 

[OneSheep]

I focused on the millions upon millions of people who have been killed just recently in history, by Governments via gun violence (not from law-abiding citizens . . . but by people in Government positions of power which in many cases I’m sure had “good intentions”).

Yes, they did have “good” intentions, that is, they thought they were doing something good, but were blinded by their own fear or resentment.

So, generally speaking, it isn’t helpful to promote fear and resentment in a population, but forgiveness. If the government fears the populace, yes, they may go after their guns, and when the government sees that gun use is out of control in society, they may make moves to restrict such ownership. All can be understood and forgiven.

As you importantly point out, forgiveness does not mean giving up what we see as our right to protect ourselves. Forgiveness changes the tone of our activism, and it changes the means by which we go about our activism. Do you agree?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep:

when the government sees that gun use is out of control in society, they may make moves to restrict such ownership

WHY would ownership restrictions “control” gun use? (It only completely “controls” the honest, good, hard-working, law-abiding criminals while leaving them defenseless in some cases against criminals [see the example I gave above in post 21 as an illustration of that]. WHY are you collectivizing these law-abiding people and admixing them with the criminals?)

Mexico has ownership restrictions.

Do you think they now have “control” there too over their criminals?

Do you even think that kind of “control” over the good citizens is healthy?

You said:

when the government sees that gun use is out of control in society, they may make moves to restrict such ownership

Likewise someone else COULD say . . .

When the citizenry has seen that gun use is out of control by some Governments, they may make moves to restrict such imposed controls helping to safeguard the citizenry by maintaining checks and balances.

.

The most egregious violations of gun use, has been from people in power in Governments by thousands-of-fold over the common citizens.

Yet your “restrictions” seem to be aimed exclusively at good, honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

Bill Bonner has said:

.

(People in governments) claim a monopoly on the use of violence to get what they want.

.
Given the sordid history of gun use by people in Government in the past, do you think good, honest, law-abiding citizens have the right to also be concerned about ongoing power imbalances that may occur?

Or should we just ignore all of that and think “it can’t happen here” and any citizen that thinks otherwise and thinks that Constitutional Rights should be upheld . . . well . . . just isn’t forgiving enough and are merely promoters of “fear” and “resentment”?

 

[OneSheep]

WHY would ownership restrictions “control” gun use?

First of all, a glance toward the objective, which is forgiveness. When we understand people, we can more easily forgive them. However, in order to understand people, we have to be open minded to the fact that none of us sees everything with complete clarity.

I could imagine that a legislator could see that if guns could not fall into the hands of the mentally ill, for example, then the use could be more controlled. If a person thought that the ability to buy parts to modify a semi-automatic weapon to a machine gun would restrict the use of those guns, they might support such legislation against the availability of the equipment. Without condemning these approaches, could you see these as coming from understandable viewpoints, even if they are perhaps not seeing with complete clarity?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The most egregious violations of gun use, has been from people in power in Governments by thousands-of-fold over the common citizens.

I agree, America and their allies invaded Afghanistan and especially Iraq, without any due concern for justice or a solution for a lasting peace.

There may have been a hundred Afghans responsible for 9/11, but tens of thousands of innocent’ people died. The invasion of Iraq looking for invisible WMDs has left tens of thousands dead; two million refugees and a destabilised country.

Is this the kind of the misuse of weapons by governments that you were referring to?

Doubtful, I think.

 

[OneSheep]

First of all, a glance toward the objective, which is forgiveness.

The most egregious violations of gun use, has been from people in power in Governments by thousands-of-fold over the common citizens.

You see, the reason why I earlier asked “how do we forgive…?” is because in my experience, it is very difficult to forgive a person or people who appear to be a current threat. The actions of a group of citizens, for example, who are successfully lobbying for legislation to restrict gun ownership will appear to be a threat to a person who feels more secure owning a gun. The gun owners’ minds may go to the WCS, where the government goes house to house searching for guns to confiscate or something like that.

So how do we help those people who feel threatened to forgive?

 

[Cathoholic]

I’ve taken a stand on wars here at CAF Eric (but it won’t fit the picture you painted).

So your response Eric_Hyom is to take away power from the good, honest, law-abiding citizenry, and give MORE POWER to this Government you are implicitly castigated in your post?

Is THAT your “solution” to gun violence?

If not . . . What are you suggesting?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep:

because in my experience, it is very difficult to forgive a person or people who appear to be a current threat.

Well OneSheep.

You have focused your posts on YOUR feelings and YOUR emotions earlier. (And I think you were right by the way)

Now you are going to base your suggestions on YOUR experiences too. (And again I think you are right on in your assessment of forgiveness)

But what about OTHER people’s experiences?

What about a mindset that gets beyond what WE think and OUR FEELINGS?

What about the woman who has a couple of children she is trying to raise?

Her “ex” who has beat her in the past, and has been ignoring his restraining orderS, now threatens to soon make her watch him kill her children, and then says he will kill her.

Not only is she being victimized by her “ex”, but she is ALSO being victimized by her Government.

A Government that is going to turn her down for a firearm permit, despite the fact that she took a training class and has no police record.

And she is ALSO being victimized by social justice warriors around the internet that subtly work to undermine her rights even though she is a law-abiding citizen.

Social justice warriors that proverbially run around virtue-signaling, because they need conscience salve because of other short-comings they have in their own lives.

What about HER? What about HER perspective? What about HER rights?

Where are all the self-righteous for HER?

What about the tall order of forgiveness SHE has to wrestle with?

What about the tears welling up in HER eyes as she quietly in the dark, checks on her babies, and wonders if this is the night “he” will break-down the door again.

And how last time, the 9-1-1 operator told HER to stay on the line, and everything would be fine.

But it wasn’t “fine”.

And after she left the hospital early to get her kids from her girlfriends place because her girlfriend’s boyfriend had arrived from out of town and was planning on “staying a few days” and had nowhere else for her children to go, thought it better she leave the hospital EARLY, pick up her kids, and get back home.

And as she drove home from getting her kids on the way home from the hospital she thought . . . “Surely the landlord would have fixed the door by now!” . . . . “Right?”

What about HER perspective and HER rights (which are summarily being violated)?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But what about OTHER people’s experiences?

What about a mindset that gets beyond what WE think and OUR FEELINGS?

We look to our Lord and his feelings, how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself?
Imagine holding out your hands and looking at the guy who is nailing you to the cross, how do you love that person as you love yourself?
We know Jesus prayed forgive them Father.
As you described in your last post, all victims suffer, and very often there is little justice in this world. We will only find peace in a greater good life after death.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I’ve taken a stand on wars here at CAF Eric (but it won’t fit the picture you painted).

I am against war, America and their allies should never have invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq afterwards.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Cathoholic!

But what about OTHER people’s experiences?

Yes! You and I are very like-minded on this. We cannot enter into and understand people unless we respect that their viewpoint comes from their experience of life.

What about a mindset that gets beyond what WE think and OUR FEELINGS?

I think that a mindset that goes beyond our thoughts and feelings is beyond all “mindset”. While I think it is important to acknowledge and pay attention to our thoughts and feelings, we can be present to the Lord in a deeper part of ourselves. Is this what you are referring to?

What about HER? What about HER perspective? What about HER rights?

Exactly my point too. We are not to limit understanding of people to those we resent. I appreciate your empathy for her predicament. I share your concern. Does the government turn down her permit?

And she is ALSO being victimized by social justice warriors around the internet that subtly work to undermine her rights even though she is a law-abiding citizen.

So, paying respect again to our thoughts and feelings (it does no good to deny or ignore them) how do you feel about “social justice warriors”?

What about HER perspective and HER rights (which are summarily being violated)?

Again, I appreciate your bringing forth her predicament!

 

[Cathoholic]

Eric_Hyom:

We look to our Lord and his feelings, how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself?

And . . .

I am against war . . .

.

We SHOULD look to our Lord Eric. And we ALL should be “against war” too.

But you don’t “look to our Lord” while ignoring the plight of the poor and those in need of defense.

The woman (that I gave in the example above in post 60—not to mention her children who she is responsible for) is in just THAT situation!

You have to take ALL that our Lord teaches (not merely parts YOU may like. Not merely picking and choosing). . . .

Accept ALL the our Lord Jesus teaches (in this case through His Church) . . . .

. . . . “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave DUTY . . . ”

.

CCC 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

.
If the Government wants to curb the spread of harmful behavior to this woman by stripping her of her firearm rights (which they are violating), the Government is DUTY-BOUND to safe-guard the common good and make up for her inability to defend herself in such situations.

They need to do MORE–not less.

.

CCC 2266a The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. . . .

.

Not ONLY CAN’T the Government provide such protection to this woman and her children in this situation, but they don’t even PRETEND to be duty-bound to do so!

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

Jun 28, 2005 - WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the
police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm,
even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. . . . .

. . . . Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. . . .

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - The New York Times

I hear what you are saying Eric. And a lot of it is great (keep up the good work).

But the dynamic is too complex to attempt to reduce such issues down to platitudes and trendy maxims like being “against war” (this woman might be “against war” too. But her being “against war” ISN’T going to PROTECT her or her children from this large violent man).

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep:

I share your concern. Does the government turn down her permit?

The example I gave, was not a distinct case history but a hypothetical composite of MANY instances of this kind of behavior that I have read over the years.

Refusing gun-permits to good honest law-abiding citizens is the default position in some places.

Like this illustration . . .

Stossel Tries to Get a Gun Permit

John Stossel

Published on Apr 20, 2016

The Constitution says individuals have a right to bear arms. But some cities make it nearly impossible to carry one. Stossel tests the system by applying to carry a gun in New York City. They REJECT his application.

Some people in Government (mis)use their positions of power to bully good, honest, hard-working law-abiding citizens.

This is NOT about “safety” at that point.

It is about pushing a political agenda that promotes elitism (“We are all equal here. Just SOME are MORE equal than others” as the late George Orwell has pointed out and I am paraphrasing here).

Elitism is where persons think they are ABOVE serving other persons because they think they are BETTER than them. It is an attitude satan made his own with his “I will NOT serve” proclamation.

These Government people (some not all) would never dream of stripping themselves or their political demi-gods of their armed guards.

They just want to strip the “common-folk” of their’s. . . . Even if it means IGNORING common sense, the law, and the Constitution in the process.

WHY?

Because such arrogance put themselves ABOVE common sense.
Such hubris put themselves ABOVE the law.
Such insolent conceit put themselves ABOVE the Constitution.

Stossel NYC Government Traumatizes Gun Owners

John Stossel

Published on Aug 8, 2017
In its battle against guns, New York City traumatizes law-abiding gun owners who pass through New York and its airports with guns. One man was even arrested for traveling with an empty magazine.

.

Do these people who use their influence and power to attack the “insignificant” people of this world need our prayers?

Yes.

Do they need our forgiveness?

Yes.

Do they need our complicity?

No.

 

[Cathoholic]

“Social justice” is a good thing.

But some people re-define “social justice” to mean any political position THEY assert (especially positions to control other people in a gratuitous fashion - i.e. the CONTROL by some of others . . . for example say . . . the size soft-drinks OTHER people can and cannot purchase. And misusing Government and abusing police power they have under them to enforce such personal opinions).

When these people utilize inordinate efforts AND co-opt true and good “social justice” for political advancement of their political beliefs in the process, they are sometimes called “social justice warriors”.

.
OneSheep to Cathoholic:

.

how do you feel about “social justice warriors”?

.

Cathoholic to OneSheep:

.

My “feelings” in such situations are irrelevant. I won’t get into that here.

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep to Cathoholic:

Again, I appreciate your bringing forth her predicament!

Cathoholic:

Thanks OneSheep.

Pray for those victims that have very few advocates and I will too.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks OneSheep.

Pray for those victims that have very few advocates and I will too.

I do pray for them, and I thank you for your prayers. I am a fellow gun-owner, and I hope that you can see that we are in this together.

Now, as a fellow Catholic gun-owner, let’s take a look at this, for my OP said:

For starters, we can make an assessment of how not to create a safe society, and that is to support a climate of resentment. Let’s reflect on the past year or so. We had a presidential campaign, and the campaigns “gathered the masses” with resentment tying everyone together in their in-groups.

On the Donald Trump side we had people who resented “job stealing illegal aliens”, “environmental do-gooders”, “Muslim terrorists” (perceived as all Muslims) and Hillary Clinton herself.

On the Donald Trump side we also had people who resented “anti-gun government do-gooders”. When we resent people, we pin on them all the worst motives, right? This is human nature, we all do it.

Now, feel free to be frank. Do you feel any resentment at all towards “social justice warriors”?

 

[Cathoholic]

OneSheep:

Now, feel free to be frank. Do you feel any resentment at all towards “social justice warriors”?

I gave you my answer already (“My “feelings” in such situations are irrelevant. I won’t get into that here”).

I think this is a condescending remark and I’m going to ignore it.