What can be done to stop gun violence

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

That’s what it asserts. That does not prove it is true in any context outside of the US legal system.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Nihilo:

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

If the US is unique in defending this right to bear arms, that should make you wonder if it really is a universal right after all. I mean if it is so universal, everyone should recognize it, don’t you think? Why do you think they don’t?

Because they aren’t wise.

I don’t or won’t point any of my guns at anyone unless an innocent is in danger of losing his/her life. If everyone would practice that, problem solved. The only solution to a heart problem is our living loving Jesus.

Thank you. You just sound like a member of the well regulated militia. The benefit of the well regulated militia is estimated when defensive gun use (DGU) is accurately measured, and there is reason to believe that it’s undercounted by an order of magnitude or two, maybe even 1000.

The well regulated militia is responsible for all DGUs, and while there have been over 1000 quantified so far in 2019, that number might be 10,000-1,000,000—it’s probably significantly underreported, underestimated, underquantified, undercounted, how many DGUs there are in America, and every DGU is positive proof of the well regulated militia in action.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

That’s what it asserts. That does not prove it is true in any context outside of the US legal system.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Right there, in your own quote above, when you said “The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.” If the right was pre-existing before the 2nd Amendment was adopted, and the 2nd Amendment just “recognized” (but did not “establish”) the right, then the clear implication is that the right had some relevance outside of the US legal system.

Nihilo:

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

If the US is unique in defending this right to bear arms, that should make you wonder if it really is a universal right after all. I mean if it is so universal, everyone should recognize it, don’t you think? Why do you think they don’t?

Because they aren’t wise.

When most of the world is declared “unwise” and only the US is declared “wise”, the proposition is less believable. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.)

 

[Nihilo]

Part 1 of 2

Nihilo:

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

That’s what it asserts. That does not prove it is true in any context outside of the US legal system.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Right there, in your own quote above, when you said “The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.” If the right was pre-existing before the 2nd Amendment was adopted, and the 2nd Amendment just “recognized” (but did not “establish”) the right, then the clear implication is that the right had some relevance outside of the US legal system.

If the right to bear arms is real, then and only then does it have relevance for all ppl everywhere, that is trivially true. The founders wrote the Second Amendment with the to them already established natural human right to bear arms in mind, which does not establish that they were right in their opinion, and I did not claim otherwise.

 

[Nihilo]

Part 2 of 2

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

There is no country, some variation of liberal democracy or otherwise, that is better at defending the basic human right to bear arms, than America.

If the US is unique in defending this right to bear arms, that should make you wonder if it really is a universal right after all. I mean if it is so universal, everyone should recognize it, don’t you think? Why do you think they don’t?

Because they aren’t wise.

When most of the world is declared “unwise” and only the US is declared “wise”, the proposition is less believable.

I’m merely presuming that I’m right in making that judgment. You asked me a question and I answered it, from my viewpoint, which is my right to do. It would be foolish of me to presume that my position is incorrect, in answering that question. And it is unjustified to require me to answer your question as if I’m wrong. Because we are in direct opposition on the point, you are already providing your answer to your question as if I am wrong already, in a way, on my behalf.

If I am correct, then it is trivially true that in not recognizing, affirming, protecting, preserving, honoring, defending, and respecting the right to bear arms, then all the other countries are being unwise, and the US is wise.

And if I’m not correct, then your view is correct, and the US alone is unwise, because we are in direct opposition on the point.

(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.)

It is not my fault that it appears to you to be an extraordinary claim. You yourself have already conceded that if ever the life of your family is imperiled, by an aggressor, or by some force of nature, and you have direct access to any weapon, then you should not be penalized for using that weapon. And I agree with you, and that is the right to bear arms.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Part 1 of 2

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.

That’s what it asserts. That does not prove it is true in any context outside of the US legal system.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Right there, in your own quote above, when you said “The right to bear arms is not created but recognized as already existing in the Second Amendment.” If the right was pre-existing before the 2nd Amendment was adopted, and the 2nd Amendment just “recognized” (but did not “establish”) the right, then the clear implication is that the right had some relevance outside of the US legal system.

If the right to bear arms is real, then and only then does it have relevance for all ppl everywhere, that is trivially true. The founders wrote the Second Amendment with the to them already established natural human right to bear arms in mind, which does not establish that they were right in their opinion, and I did not claim otherwise.

OK, then I guess you are also not claiming they were right in their opinion that the right to bear arms is universal and pre-existing. Good. We finally agree on something.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You yourself have already conceded that if ever the life of your family is imperiled, by an aggressor, or by some force of nature, and you have direct access to any weapon, then you should not be penalized for using that weapon. And I agree with you, and that is the right to bear arms.

I did not say I have an inherent right to own or carry a gun. I just said that if I have a gun available to me, it would not be a sin for me to use it, and it may even be a duty for me to use it. That is not the same thing as saying I have a right to store one in my hall closet, or carry one on my person.

 

[Nihilo]

OK, then I guess you are also not claiming they were right in their opinion that the right to bear arms is universal and pre-existing. Good. We finally agree on something.

I am obviously claiming they are right. I agree with them. And you do too…

Nihilo:

You yourself have already conceded that if ever the life of your family is imperiled, by an aggressor, or by some force of nature, and you have direct access to any weapon, then you should not be penalized for using that weapon. And I agree with you, and that is the right to bear arms.

I did not say I have an inherent right to own or carry a gun. I just said that if I have a gun available to me, it would not be a sin for me to use it, and it may even be a duty for me to use it. That is not the same thing as saying I have a right to store one in my hall closet, or carry one on my person.

Tomato tomahto.

To be preserved from penalty for using a weapon is the right to bear arms.

Given all the restrictions and regulations and laws surrounding weapons use, that in such a case where you are not imprisoned for using a weapon, there is only one option. You must have a ‘background’ ‘abstract’ right to bear arms.

For comparison, in places like China, where there really is no right to bear arms recognized, even using a weapon in self defense is still illegal, and you would be imprisoned or otherwise penalized even for saving your own life or the lives of your family with a gun.

Countries that would protect such defensive gun use do ultimately acknowledge the right to bear arms, and all the rest of their gun control is shown to be therefore incoherent, incorrect, inconsistent, and unwise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I did not say I have an inherent right to own or carry a gun. I just said that if I have a gun available to me, it would not be a sin for me to use it, and it may even be a duty for me to use it. That is not the same thing as saying I have a right to store one in my hall closet, or carry one on my person.

Tomato tomahto.

To be preserved from penalty for using a weapon is the right to bear arms.

To see how you are wrong, take a look at where in the Catechism this “right to self defense” appears. It is in the section entitled “ARTICLE 5 - THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT”
And specifically it is contained in paragraphs #2263 - #2267 (Legitimate Defense). The most relevant ones regarding personal self-defense are #2263 and #2264, which state:
CCC2263 CCC2264:

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

These are instructions given to the individual that tell him what he may or may not do in order to avoid sin. There is no mention of specific weapons, and, more importantly, there is no mention of the duty of authorities give the individual any particular rights.

There is a whole separate section of the Catechism devoted to what a government ought to do. It is in:
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNION

ARTICLE 2
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE

This is the portion of the Catechism that deals with such issues as what is a legitimate authority, and the role and duties of the state in protecting the common good. If it were a duty of the state to safeguard a person’s right to self defense, and specifically the right to own any specific weapon, it would be in that section - because it covers the duties of the state. And the right to bear arms we are talking about is a right you say (I think) the state has the duty to uphold, or at least not to interfere. But look really hard in CCC #1897 - CCC #1927 which covers all the moral duties of the state and see if you can find anything in there that says a government must not interfere with a person’s right to own a weapon.

It is definitely more than tomato / tomahto.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

At the time, they were afraid of war with England, France, and Spain. Since we had a weak continental army, we needed militia men. But that is not the case today. We spend more on our defense budge than more than several dozen different countries combined.

 

[Nihilo]

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

If all five conditions are met (such as e.g., arguably during the American Revolution), how exactly are people to resist through taking up arms, if their right to bear arms is not first protected, by said political authority?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

If all five conditions are met (such as e.g., arguably during the American Revolution), how exactly are people to resist through taking up arms, if their right to bear arms is not first protected, by said political authority?

Since they are challenging the authority of the current government, they might as well break the rules of that current government and get themselves some guns and keep them hidden. It is irrational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow that government by force.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

If all five conditions are met (such as e.g., arguably during the American Revolution), how exactly are people to resist through taking up arms, if their right to bear arms is not first protected, by said political authority?

Since they are challenging the authority of the current government, they might as well break the rules of that current government and get themselves some guns and keep them hidden. It is irrational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow that government by force.

Either you didn’t answer the question, or your answer is to, preemptively I guess, break the law to accumulate arms in anticipation of the current government going rogue?

If so, that’s the right to bear arms.

And returning to Text 2243, I argue that it is basically meaningless, Unless the right to bear arms is both real, and defended by the current government. Unless the right to bear arms is real, Text 2243 is basically meaningless.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Gun violence has nothing to do with abortion.

I have to disagree with this. Legalized abortion (and euthanasia) has a lot to do with gun violence. We have told 3 generations of young people that life is now a “choice”.

Add to that video games were killing people and committing other acts of violence get you points (think Grand Theft Auto) and we have a couple of generations of people who think that life is like a video game, and you just hit “reset” to start over.

Then there is the general lack of common decency and respect for anyone other than self.

Guns are just the easiest tool to use, in part because we spend far too much time going after legal gun owners and do not hold those who use illegal guns accountable for their crimes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Nihilo:

2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

If all five conditions are met (such as e.g., arguably during the American Revolution), how exactly are people to resist through taking up arms, if their right to bear arms is not first protected, by said political authority?

Since they are challenging the authority of the current government, they might as well break the rules of that current government and get themselves some guns and keep them hidden. It is irrational to ask a government to protect your right to overthrow that government by force.

Either you didn’t answer the question, or your answer is to, preemptively I guess, break the law to accumulate arms in anticipation of the current government going rogue?

No, I didn’t say preemptively. First all 5 conditions need to be satisfied before you can break any law at all.

If so, that’s the right to bear arms.

And returning to Text 2243, I argue that it is basically meaningless, Unless the right to bear arms is both real, and defended by the current government. Unless the right to bear arms is real, Text 2243 is basically meaningless.

I don’t think any part of the Catechism is meaningless. I think it means exactly what it says. In this case 2243 is talking about actions God permits when considering violent overthrow of a government. God allows you to do it if all 5 conditions are satisfied. God does not promise you an AR-15 or any other weapon to do it. Sometimes revolutions are justified by 2243, but they still fail. This is not a contradiction. It is just a fact of life.

 

[Inquiry]

No more irrational than asking a government to protect your right to speak out against them, assemble, and protest. That’s the funny thing, between Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms, Speech is far, far more dangerous. We protect it anyways.

 

[Nihilo]

At the time, they were afraid of war with England, France, and Spain. Since we had a weak continental army, we needed militia men. But that is not the case today. We spend more on our defense budge than more than several dozen different countries combined.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the reason given in the Second Amendment for the well regulated militia. It is said there that the well regulated militia is necessary to the security of our free state. Nothing about war with England, France, and Spain in there, nor with defense budgets.

Nihilo:

Either you didn’t answer the question, or your answer is to, preemptively I guess, break the law to accumulate arms in anticipation of the current government going rogue?

No, I didn’t say preemptively. First all 5 conditions need to be satisfied before you can break any law at all.

Once all conditions are met, is exactly when you will not be able to accumulate and take up arms. It must be done before all conditions are met, or else “armed resistance” will become impossible.

If so, that’s the right to bear arms.

And returning to Text 2243, I argue that it is basically meaningless, Unless the right to bear arms is both real, and defended by the current government. Unless the right to bear arms is real, Text 2243 is basically meaningless.

I don’t think any part of the Catechism is meaningless.

Me either, which was my point.

I think it means exactly what it says. In this case 2243 is talking about actions God permits when considering violent overthrow of a government. God allows you to do it if all 5 conditions are satisfied. God does not promise you an AR-15 or any other weapon to do it. Sometimes revolutions are justified by 2243, but they still fail. This is not a contradiction. It is just a fact of life.

God permits “armed resistance” if five conditions are met, but He doesn’t promise you arms? What good is that permission?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No more irrational than asking a government to protect your right to speak out against them…

Ah, but they don’t protect your freedom to speak out against them if that speech is calling for the violent overthrow of the government. You will be thrown in jail. And that is what we are talking about here.

 

[Inquiry]

Inquiry:

No more irrational than asking a government to protect your right to speak out against them…

Ah, but they don’t protect your freedom to speak out against them if that speech is calling for the violent overthrow of the government. You will be thrown in jail. And that is what we are talking about here.

Yes. Yes they do. The limitations on free speech are incredibly strict. If you are not advocating for imminent lawless action your speech is protected. You can deliver blistering diatribes about the illegitimacy of the government. You can spend your entire life encouraging people to band together to overthrow everything. You can even tell people that the time to take up arms is sometime soon. All of that is protected. Until you start encouraging people to commit crimes in the immediate future, your speech is protected.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Inquiry:

No more irrational than asking a government to protect your right to speak out against them…

Ah, but they don’t protect your freedom to speak out against them if that speech is calling for the violent overthrow of the government. You will be thrown in jail. And that is what we are talking about here.

Yes. Yes they do. The limitations on free speech are incredibly strict. If you are not advocating for imminent lawless action your speech is protected. You can deliver blistering diatribes about the illegitimacy of the government. You can spend your entire life encouraging people to band together to overthrow everything. You can even tell people that the time to take up arms is sometime soon. All of that is protected. Until you start encouraging people to commit crimes in the immediate future, your speech is protected.

Yes, but remember, we were talking about violent overthrow of the government. Anything less than that does not make the point about getting guns for that purpose.

 

[Inquiry]

Yes, but remember, we were talking about violent overthrow of the government. Anything less than that does not make the point about getting guns for that purpose.

Sure it does. We don’t ban people for saying that the requirements for violent overthrow have been met. We don’t ban them from spreading word or gathering allies. As long as they don’t incite it to happen right now, the government can do nothing to stop them from encouraging its violent dissolution. They only cross that line when they make the actual call for imminent, lawless action.

When they pull the trigger, so to speak.