What does the bible say about guns and other weapons?

[tabycat]

How many people were killed on 9/11?

“Only” about 3000, but they do not 'count/ because they were living in the “Great Satan”. :shrug:

 

[benjohnson]

What do we do about scriptures that tell us to obey our governments?

My church interprets scripture, not me, and it teaches that our first obedience is to God, then church, then governemnt. I would think the Catholic church teaches something similar.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First, those of us who possess weapons do not live by them. We use them for the moral purpose of defending life (CCC 2263-2267). Placing further, or onerous conditions upon this will result in more evil done, not less. The Connecticut tragedy has everything to do with aberrant individuals whose hearts are bent upon murder. Cain used no firearm to slay Abel. Ted Bundy used no firearm to kill as many as 100 young women. Gary Ridgeway used no firearm to kill perhaps 100 women. The list goes back through the millennia to Cain and Abel.

If you think this is a gun problem, just Google “mass stabbing”

We are addressing the spiritual problem of evil.

We must pray to the Prince of Peace.

I see the line being crossed when we call for at large arming as a solution. That is not a call for a ban, or to say one does not have a right to defend. Defense can be provided in controls. In that concession, one is not living totally by dependence on a weapon.

I remember watching Bundy’s trial and Gary Gilmore’s execution, but we have come a long way since then, and the crimes being discussed are not ‘serial’ but mass one time killings.

Prayer is most important, and stronger than any weapon on this earth. We need more people doing it, and all of us doing it more often. Through the conversion of hearts, we also are defending.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My church interprets scripture, not me, and it teaches that our first obedience is to God, then church, then governemnt. I would think the Catholic church teaches something similar.

And where does the Church teach the only solution to combating evil is to call for the population to arm itself? There are many ways to defend, one of which is through our influences with our governments, for those lucky enough to be in a democracy. I have no qualms about more controls, as a law abiding Christian citizen. Controls do not take away from law abiding citizens.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying that we have the RIGHT to tell people in the Middle East and China that they cannot have, not just guns, but box cutters?

Our government uses it’s influence on other countries, but we do not have a direct impact on what they do. We do have those influences in our country. While gun owners have a right, according to our secular government, others have a right to the pursuit of happiness. That’s something that is being cut short on some of our citizens. Again, no bans, but controls; what is the sacrifice to accountability on our ownerships, to save as many lives as possible?

 

[tabycat]

Our government uses it’s influence on other countries, but we do not have a direct impact on what they do. We do have those influences in our country. While gun owners have a right, according to our secular government, others have a right to the pursuit of happiness. That’s something that is being cut short on some of our citizens. Again, no bans, but controls; what is the sacrifice to accountability on our ownerships, to save as many lives as possible?

Are you forgeting that the 19 hijackers were NOT Americans and did NOT care able about what controls we had on guns or any other weapons? All they wanted to do as much damage to us in their attack, which was an Act of War. Or are you also forgeting that ‘little fact’? Maybe if someone on those two planes had a gun, 3000 people may not have died on 911.

 

[po18guy]

I see the line being crossed when we call for at large arming as a solution. That is not a call for a ban, or to say one does not have a right to defend. Defense can be provided in controls. In that concession, one is not living totally by dependence on a weapon.

I remember watching Bundy’s trial and Gary Gilmore’s execution, but we have come a long way since then, and the crimes being discussed are not ‘serial’ but mass one time killings.

Prayer is most important, and stronger than any weapon on this earth. We need more people doing it, and all of us doing it more often. Through the conversion of hearts, we also are defending.

Do you have car insurance? Is it because you intend to crash? Because you plan on crashing? No! You have it in case you crash. Those who choose to own weapons, whether a baseball bat, tire iron, kitchen knife, box cutter, or firearm, have a lawful purpose in mind. Yet, the human heart can also use, and has used, each for a criminal purpose. In the city where I worked the streets, we needed baseball bat control. What would that have solved?

I can post innumerable examples of those who have lawfully used firearms for defense (as insurance) and have saved their own lives, those of others, and stopped crimes. These occur daily, yet rarely if ever does one of these ever make the news, as they do not fit the media’s agenda. If they do make the news, the last sentence seems always to be that the prosecutor has not decided on criminal charges against the armed victim!

I don’t think anyone is suggesting an armed state - yet neither is that something which, used with adult responsibility, is something to fear. In the US, there are probably 100,000 rounds fired daily by civilians involved in the shooting sports. Where are the 100,000 daily deaths or injuries? They are often already licensed. Except for tax revenue, what does that do?

Maybe we need to license and control “troubled loners.”

Do we allow the knee to jerk each time an individual is allowed to deviate from normal behavior until such time as they cause mayhem? If so, the proper target of attention is those identifiable individuals - with the purpose of prevention. They can march into any store and buy as many knives as they want. As many baseball bats. As many box cutters. The murderous heart will find a way.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you forgeting that the 19 hijackers were NOT Americans and did NOT care able about what controls we had on guns or any other weapons? All they wanted to do as much damage to us in their attack, which was an Act of War. Or are you also forgeting that ‘little fact’? Maybe if someone on those two planes had a gun, 3000 people may not have died on 911.

I’m forgetting nothing, and fail to see the importance of adding that to the discussion. It doesn’t add, or subtract, validity to anything that’s been stated so far.

Since the 9/11 attacks, how many hijacking have we observed in the US? Seems controls might be working.

Maybe if someone had a gun on all four of those planes highjacked… The same can be said for gun controls in this instance. If there had been stricter securing laws for weapons, under penalty of law, maybe this gunman’s mother would have had those guns secured, and we’d never be having this discussion.

Increasing the amount of gun owners in this country may, or may not, be a solution. I don’t think it would.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you have car insurance? Is it because you intend to crash? Because you plan on crashing? No! You have it in case you crash. Those who choose to own weapons, whether a baseball bat, tire iron, kitchen knife, box cutter, or firearm, have a lawful purpose in mind. Yet, the human heart can also use, and has used, each for a criminal purpose. In the city where I worked the streets, we needed baseball bat control. What would that have solved?

I can post innumerable examples of those who have lawfully used firearms for defense (as insurance) and have saved their own lives, those of others, and stopped crimes. These occur daily, yet rarely if ever does one of these ever make the news, as they do not fit the media’s agenda. If they do make the news, the last sentence seems always to be that the prosecutor has not decided on criminal charges against the armed victim!

I don’t think anyone is suggesting an armed state - yet neither is that something which, used with adult responsibility, is something to fear. In the US, there are probably 100,000 rounds fired daily by civilians involved in the shooting sports. Where are the 100,000 daily deaths or injuries? They are often already licensed. Except for tax revenue, what does that do?

Maybe we need to license and control “troubled loners.”

Do we allow the knee to jerk each time an individual is allowed to deviate from normal behavior until such time as they cause mayhem? If so, the proper target of attention is those identifiable individuals - with the purpose of prevention. They can march into any store and buy as many knives as they want. As many baseball bats. As many box cutters. The murderous heart will find a way.

License and control ‘troubled loners’, but don’t affect my gun rights? I’m sorry, I’ve expressed my view of that and how it applies to the scripture being discussed. For me, I cannot think that way. We all are to pray, and follow our consciences and my conscience leads me to think that is wrong.

Troubled loners are the same as people with mental illness, and the problem is, mental illness can be undetectable until the person shows signs. Unfortunately, the signs are usually too late. I cannot justify a body count by doing nothing, or sacrificing anything through controls.

People continue to bring up the ‘possibilities’. They can get knives, baseball bats, or box cutters, and with the exception of 9/11, will be minimal attacks. Even after 9/11, life changed. We see a lot of controls on air travel now, and we haven’t see any hijackings since.

 

[po18guy]

License and control ‘troubled loners’, but don’t affect my gun rights? I’m sorry, I’ve expressed my view of that and how it applies to the scripture being discussed. For me, I cannot think that way. We all are to pray, and follow our consciences and my conscience leads me to think that is wrong.

Troubled loners are the same as people with mental illness, and the problem is, mental illness can be undetectable until the person shows signs. Unfortunately, the signs are usually too late. I cannot justify a body count by doing nothing, or sacrificing anything through controls.

People continue to bring up the ‘possibilities’. They can get knives, baseball bats, or box cutters, and with the exception of 9/11, will be minimal attacks. Even after 9/11, life changed. We see a lot of controls on air travel now, and we haven’t see any hijackings since.

Read the catechism on the fifth commandment. Very informative. The more you restrict physical objects, the more you restrict the ability to defend life. The ability to take life has always been and will always be there. And, once you give up a right, it is generally not reclaimed without bloodshed. Oftentimes, it has lead to bloodshed - counterintuitive.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read the catechism on the fifth commandment. Very informative. The more you restrict physical objects, the more you restrict the ability to defend life. The ability to take life has always been and will always be there. And, once you give up a right, it is generally not reclaimed without bloodshed. Oftentimes, it has lead to bloodshed - counterintuitive.

You’re wrong, in my opinion. I have not denied anyone defending, but offered my opinion of other things that could be done to also defend. I have not strictly put all my trust in guns.

 

[benjohnson]

You’re wrong, in my opinion. I have not denied anyone defending, but offered my opinion of other things that could be done to also defend. I have not strictly put all my trust in guns.

Given the Catholic church interprets scripture and has indicated that we have duty to defend the innocent. Combined with the catholic teaching of subsidiarity, best defense of a family would be that same family with a weapon fit for purpose. Therefore the Catholic church would allow for a family to have a weapon in order to fulfill their duty to protect themselves.

So here’s my question of logic - If your interpretation of this is different, and given the Catholic grounding in Scripture, would the error be in the Church or could it be in your interpretation?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Given the Catholic church interprets scripture and has indicated that we have duty to defend the innocent. Combined with the catholic teaching of subsidiarity, best defense of a family would be that same family with a weapon fit for purpose. Therefore the Catholic church would allow for a family to have a weapon in order to fulfill their duty to protect themselves.

So here’s my question of logic - If your interpretation of this is different, and given the Catholic grounding in Scripture, would the error be in the Church or could it be in your interpretation?

Again, I’m not denying the necessity to defend and wonder why it keeps being pointed out.

When it comes to ‘subsidiarity’, I see it mentioned when people speak against government assistance through some social programs and I also see the Church state the necessity of government and private working together on that goal.

Also, would you please point out the specific tools, or methods, of defense as defined by the Church? I didn’t realize Church teaching required all Catholics to own guns.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Given the Catholic church interprets scripture

Did you miss the commentaries, and excerpts on scriptures, I posted?

Am I wrong to assume Cornelius Lapide, and the early Church fathers are correct in their interpretation of Luke 22? I thought that was ‘Church’ interpretation. Please explain how they are wrong and enlighten me.

 

[benjohnson]

Again, I’m denying the necessity to defend and wonder why it keeps being pointed out.

When it comes to ‘subsidiarity’, I see it mentioned when people speak against government assistance through some social programs and I also see the Church state the necessity of government and private w

Also, would you please point out the specific tools, or methods, of defense as defined by the Church? I didn’t realize Church teaching required all Catholics to own guns.

From what I see, Catholic teaching doesn’t say that one can has to have a gun because of an American ‘right’ to own one, only that we have the proportional weaponry necessary to fulfill the duty to defend the innocent. For some, that would be no weapon as they lack the ability, means, or necessity. For some, that would be pepper spray and for others, that could be small arms.

Subsidiarity has nothing to do with being contrary to social programs, it only states that the program should be administered by the lowest viable unit - for example ‘social security’ could be handled by local communities that could use the funding for homes, food, and care for the elderly.

In the case of defending the family, given that police and other public defenders prudently use weapons to defend the innocent, so too should some families be able to do so as - the family can be a much better unit for defense than a security officer who is not with the family at all times especially if the family lives in a area of crime.

 

[po18guy]

You’re wrong, in my opinion. I have not denied anyone defending, but offered my opinion of other things that could be done to also defend. I have not strictly put all my trust in guns.

Slow down! You are over-reacting! No one who believes in God puts “all their trust in guns”! Neither do we test our Lord by entering into dangerous situations which approach us, without using the prudence that God gave us. Peter carried a sword at the last supoper! Did Jesus rebuke him? No. He told him not to live by the sword so as not to die by the sword. Armed robbers and gangertrs live by the gun. The rest of us defend ourselves from them with equal force, which is sanctioned by the Church. None of us is required to do any of this. You are not forced to do anything - but think of the long range consequences of your responses which, at this time, appear to be fueled more by emotion rather than reason. Reason must triumph over emotion when formulating public policy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

From what I see, Catholic teaching doesn’t say that one can has to have a gun because of an American ‘right’ to own one, only that we have the proportional weaponry necessary to fulfill the duty to defend the innocent. For some, that would be no weapon as they lack the ability, means, or necessity. For some, that would be pepper spray and for others, that could be small arms.

Subsidiarity has nothing to do with being contrary to social programs, it only states that the program should be administered by the lowest viable unit - for example ‘social security’ could be handled by local communities that could use the funding for homes, food, and care for the elderly.

In the case of defending the family, given that police and other public defenders prudently use weapons to defend the innocent, so too should some families be able to do so as - the family can be a much better unit for defense than a security officer who is not with the family at all times especially if the family lives in a area of crime.

I’ve seen the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops call on nations to provide social assistance. I don’t think the smallest form of government fits. I live in a rural area that is economically depressed and can assure you the community could not support the elderly, sick, or poverty stricken.

As for defense, it is possible to utilize laws as defense, just as ‘pepper spray’. We are defending in many ways, food banks, social assistance, medicines, etc. It’s not all about violence.

We have teachings in the Catechism, that refer to, ‘those who legitimately hold authority’. This wouldn’t exclude anyone that could stop an aggressor, but does seem to indicate it’s a primary explanation for people to serve government as law enforcement, or military. I also see distinctions in, ‘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. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.’

It seems some take the teaching strictly personal, and that’s not the way it reads. It seems to apply to the state primarily, and individuals of the public secondly. After all, men are responsible for the welfare of their families, which is included under self defense. Police, military, prison guards, EMS, Fire, etc. are responsible lives of others. They are ‘those who legitimately hold authority’.

This would also cover the state’s responsibility in legislation of laws to protect the public. As I said, it’s not all about violence. To be honest, I kind of think gun rights advocates are ‘over reading’ the passage to justify beyond it’s purpose. I do not see it as a blessing for the public to own assault weapons.

 

[benjohnson]

I’ve seen the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops call on nations to provide social assistance. I don’t think the smallest form of government fits. I live in a rural area that is economically depressed and can assure you the community could not support the elderly, sick, or poverty stricken. .

Certainly we have an obligation to provide assistance, and Catholic leaders are good to point that out. And our nation should fund it if we determine if that is the best way, but even if the nation funded it, that doesn’t nesessarily mean that the nation has to administer it - that role could be pased down to a smaller unit if it would be more beneficial.

Your rural community would know best on how to use the funds for example, even though the funds were collected by the nation. The adminstrators would then be closer to the need, therefore all things being equal - more responsive, more compassionate, and more frugal,

If I may, I’ll leave the discussion about weapon bans - I just ask that you consider that there’s a balance there that would give the most benifit to the most people. And with anything that requires balance, the answer it closer to the middle than toward the edges.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Certainly we have an obligation to provide assistance, and Catholic leaders are good to point that out. And our nation should fund it if we determine if that is the best way, but even if the nation funded it, that doesn’t nesessarily mean that the nation has to administer it - that role could be pased down to a smaller unit if it would be more beneficial.

Your rural community would know best on how to use the funds for example, even though the funds were collected by the nation. The adminstrators would then be closer to the need, therefore all things being equal - more responsive, more compassionate, and more frugal,

If I may, I’ll leave the discussion about weapon bans - I just ask that you consider that there’s a balance there that would give the most benifit to the most people. And with anything that requires balance, the answer it closer to the middle than toward the edges.

Your proposal is government providing the assistance. The revenue is the same.

In Florida, our governor has placed requirements before some aid, and I see no problem with that.

And again, a gun rights advocates take the discussion back to ‘bans’. I have repeatedly stated ‘controls’ and not bans. It really appears people are using the most strictest possible action to keep others ‘up in arms’. Controls are closer to the middle, but gun rights activists avoid the discussion. That’s fine on a public forum, where we have no direct authority, but with our politicians it’s a different story. If they hear ban enough, even from those who oppose it, they could be pushed to think it is the topic of discussion. At the very least, it pushes those who influence the politicians to convey the topic is banning. I prefer to discuss possible solutions in the form of controls, even though the ban on certain weapons would have no effect on my use of guns. When the time comes that I need a 30 round clip to hunt, I think I’ll start fishing more.

 

[aicirt]

I cannot agree. Promoting a society that all carried guns seems to be living by the gun to me. It does not address seeking a conversion of hearts to Him, who we are to live by, and seems to place something before Him, in my opinion.

You want all the guns put down? Start with the Swiss Guard. Apparently, even the Pope is aware that a discussion of the Bible when a madman is coming at you is not an option.