What does the bible say about guns and other weapons?

[superamazingman]

For me, it seems rather simple. The catechism says we can act in self defense, and if there are people in your care, you have an obligation to act in their self defense.

Relying on the police is not adequate. When seconds count, they’re minutes away.

Therefore, it seems rather simple. You have a clear right, or even duty (if you think so), to carry a gun.

You can go quoting the bible passages all you want. But the church is the one charged with actually interpreting scripture, and she has said quite clearly that we can and/or should act in self defense. It’s that simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Please provide me the post where I have called for all guns put down.

Controls for the interest of society is a sacrifice I would make, as a law abiding citizen I don’t see a great inconvenience. Controls are not necessarily bans. But keep using that argument. Those that make the decision may have it drummed into their heads enough that they start to think that is their only option.

The Pope is the head of a state, and our Church. It has been proven he has a direct threat against his position. An assassination of a head of state can have great consequences in the world. It’s not the same thing as what we’re are proposing for the safety of people at large.

 

[aicirt]

Please provide me the post where I have called for all guns put down.

Controls for the interest of society is a sacrifice I would make, as a law abiding citizen I don’t see a great inconvenience. Controls are not necessarily bans. But keep using that argument. Those that make the decision may have it drummed into their heads enough that they start to think that is their only option.

The Pope is the head of a state, and our Church. It has been proven he has a direct threat against his position. An assassination of a head of state can have great consequences in the world. It’s not the same thing as what we’re are proposing for the safety of people at large.

The concern is not about YOU, the law abiding citizen. The concern is about the crazies who don’t care about laws, the Bible or anything else.

You are absolutely saying who can and cannot protect themselves. A 1995 audio has Diane Feinstein reporting how she carried a concealed weapon after having bomb threats to her home and family. Ditto for Rosie O’Donnell. Both want more laws against arms except, obviously, for their protection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The concern is not about YOU, the law abiding citizen. The concern is about the crazies who don’t care about laws, the Bible or anything else.

You are absolutely saying who can and cannot protect themselves. A 1995 audio has Diane Feinstein reporting how she carried a concealed weapon after having bomb threats to her home and family. Ditto for Rosie O’Donnell. Both want more laws against arms except, obviously, for their protection.

I have not excluded people from legally having a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have pointed out, and it’s evident on these threads, that people own multiple weapons, some not covered by the permit. How many guns can a person carry. What would be wrong with requiring a gun safe for the other weapons? What is wrong with stricter registration controls?

Any solution offered is immediately dismissed and no other solutions are offered. The right to own any type of gun has infringed on the rights of several people, who cannot speak for themselves because they were killed.

There are people who have guns and would not mind added controls. It’s not to much to sacrifice a little to prevent the death of a single person. Those who do not offer any control seem to insinuate there is an acceptable body count to maintain their own rights, free from an inconvenience to themselves. Guns are not ‘sacred’. Responsibility is not too much to ask.

 

[A_G]

“…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Matt 26:52

Those who live by the sword will surely perish sooner or later. Those who live by the sword are big sinners (gangsters, criminals, opressors, etc…). It is not the sword that kills but the person who uses the sword to kill. So owning the sword is ok. It depends on your intentions and what you do. If you choose a life where you live by the sword, then you are in grave danger of sinning.

Yes, you may own and use firearms for self defense. The Catechism allows for self-defense, and so does scripture.

**“If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. But if he did this when the sun is risen, he hath committed murder, and he shall die. If he have not wherewith to make restitution for the theft, he shall be sold.” ***Exodus 22:2-3 *

"But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword." Luke 22:36

The sword is not to be used for revenge, only for self defense and protection. You can’t live by the sword, as criminals do for example.

**“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?” **Matthew 26:52-54

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place” He clearly did not say get rid of it. Jesus did not contradict Himself from a few hours earlier in Luke 22:36.

Through the years the Church always had protection. Even to this day, the Pope has protection. The Vatican Swiss Guards are trained in a wide range of weaponry and advanced tactics.

Owning firearms for protection and self defense for yourself and your family is allowed. You have a right to defend yourself and your family. It is a right AND a duty.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Those who live by the sword will surely perish sooner or later. Those who live by the sword are big sinners (gangsters, criminals, opressors, etc…). It is not the sword that kills but the person who uses the sword to kill. So owning the sword is ok. It depends on your intentions and what you do. If you choose a life where you live by the sword, then you are in grave danger of sinning.

Yes, you may own and use firearms for self defense. The Catechism allows for self-defense, and so does scripture.

**“If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. But if he did this when the sun is risen, he hath committed murder, and he shall die. If he have not wherewith to make restitution for the theft, he shall be sold.” ***Exodus 22:2-3 *

"But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword." Luke 22:36

The sword is not to be used for revenge, only for self defense and protection. You can’t live by the sword, as criminals do for example.

**“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done?” **Matthew 26:52-54

While Christ told Peter to “put your sword in its place” He clearly did not say get rid of it. Jesus did not contradict Himself from a few hours earlier in Luke 22:36.

Through the years the Church always had protection. Even to this day, the Pope has protection. The Vatican Swiss Guards are trained in a wide range of weaponry and advanced tactics.

Owning firearms for protection and self defense for yourself and your family is allowed. You have a right to defend yourself and your family. It is a right AND a duty.

Did any of the great, modern-day saints use weapons? I can’t imagine Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta carrying a weapon for protection. Nor can I imagine priests, monks and hermits needing a gun to protect themselves! Bottom line is that we can live fruitful, religious lives without having to carry a weapon!

 

[aicirt]

I have not excluded people from legally having a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have pointed out, and it’s evident on these threads, that people own multiple weapons, some not covered by the permit. How many guns can a person carry. What would be wrong with requiring a gun safe for the other weapons? What is wrong with stricter registration controls?

Any solution offered is immediately dismissed and no other solutions are offered. The right to own any type of gun has infringed on the rights of several people, who cannot speak for themselves because they were killed.

There are people who have guns and would not mind added controls. It’s not to much to sacrifice a little to prevent the death of a single person. Those who do not offer any control seem to insinuate there is an acceptable body count to maintain their own rights, free from an inconvenience to themselves. Guns are not ‘sacred’. Responsibility is not too much to ask.

How would you determine if a person had such a safe if a gun safe were required? Would you set up a patrol to go into homes on a monthly, weekly, or yearly basis to discover such?

Adam was not the owner of the guns. His mother was the owner. His mother had the permit, not Adam. Certainly, I do agree that Mom should not have had these weapons in the home considering her son’s mental state. But since Adam had never shown any inclination to be a threat to society or to himself, how could that be legally accomplished?

How about the responsibility of the federal government to do its job e.g. secure our borders so that ranchers and those living on the edge don’t find it necessary to protect themselves against the thugs that are crossing over? We have laws about that why aren’t they enforced?

 

[superamazingman]

How about the responsibility of the federal government to do its job e.g. secure our borders so that ranchers and those living on the edge don’t find it necessary to protect themselves against the thugs that are crossing over? We have laws about that why aren’t they enforced?

Exactly. If the government did a better job of keeping the country safer, people might not be so worried about wanting to carry a gun.

 

[superamazingman]

Did any of the great, modern-day saints use weapons? I can’t imagine Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta carrying a weapon for protection. Nor can I imagine priests, monks and hermits needing a gun to protect themselves! Bottom line is that we can live fruitful, religious lives without having to carry a weapon!

none of them had a family to protect. If you ask me, how can you expect to defend your family without a gun

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.

 

[Robert_Sock]

none of them had a family to protect. If you ask me, how can you expect to defend your family without a gun

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.

The great modern-day saints have themselves and their community to protect, but they choose not to. Prayer is the best method of protecting one’s loved ones. Aim toward sainthood!

 

[superamazingman]

The great modern-day saints have themselves and their community to protect, but they choose not to. Prayer is the best method of protecting one’s loved ones. Aim toward sainthood!

did you just not read that quote from the catechism? We have a grave duty to defend others under our care. Anecdotes from scripture or the saints doesn’t allow us to put that aside.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How would you determine if a person had such a safe if a gun safe were required? Would you set up a patrol to go into homes on a monthly, weekly, or yearly basis to discover such?

Adam was not the owner of the guns. His mother was the owner. His mother had the permit, not Adam. Certainly, I do agree that Mom should not have had these weapons in the home considering her son’s mental state. But since Adam had never shown any inclination to be a threat to society or to himself, how could that be legally accomplished?

How about the responsibility of the federal government to do its job e.g. secure our borders so that ranchers and those living on the edge don’t find it necessary to protect themselves against the thugs that are crossing over? We have laws about that why aren’t they enforced?

Liability would be placed on the person whose guns were used in a crime, for improper security. That’s how you’d tell.

The mother was a law abiding gun owner. What good did her guns do her?

Another topic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

did you just not read that quote from the catechism? We have a grave duty to defend others under our care. Anecdotes from scripture or the saints doesn’t allow us to put that aside.

We? In all instances?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Exactly. If the government did a better job of keeping the country safer, people might not be so worried about wanting to carry a gun.

We are the government of this country. We are the influence on what laws are acceptable, or not.

 

[aicirt]

Liability would be placed on the person whose guns were used in a crime, for improper security. That’s how you’d tell.

The mother was a law abiding gun owner. What good did her guns do her?

Another topic.

No, it is not another topic. We have laws to protect our citizens and the federal government does nothing to enforce them. It is the federal government’s job to protect our borders.

Liability is already placed on a person whose guns are used in a crime.

He shot her while she slept. Do you really think guns don’t deter criminals? Do you have guards at your hospital carrying guns?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, it is not another topic. We have laws to protect our citizens and the federal government does nothing to enforce them. It is the federal government’s job to protect our borders.

Liability is already placed on a person whose guns are used in a crime.

He shot her while she slept. Do you really think guns don’t deter criminals? Do you have guards at your hospital carrying guns?

No guns at the hospital, or the ambulances that I work on.

What if a gun safe had been required of this woman, would her son have had access to the safe?

Illegal immigration is off topic, but similar, in that some people are trying to stop all immigrants, and not just the criminally inclined.

Liability could be changed to have stiffer fines/imprisonment.

Edited to add: If she was asleep, it has not officially been released that I can see.

 

[superamazingman]

We? In all instances?

Is that a reteorical question? The CCC is pretty clear:

“Legitimate defense [is] a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Is that a reteorical question? The CCC is pretty clear:

“Legitimate defense [is] a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

Are you a policeman, or soldier?

Men are responsible for their families, but we are not responsible in the sense of “others” as the Catechism speaks of. This is evident by the further explanation of, ‘those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.’ We can’t take a piece and understand the context.

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.

 

[Robert_Sock]

did you just not read that quote from the catechism? We have a grave duty to defend others under our care. Anecdotes from scripture or the saints doesn’t allow us to put that aside.

Statistics in Public Health has shown that guns ownership is more likely to result in the death of family members than it is to protect one from an intruder threatening one’s life. How can gun ownership be associated with protecting one’s family?

 

[PoorKnight]

But people kill too easily with guns!

The Knife has killed more people in history than the gun could ever dream…

A knife wound is also more deadly.

There have also been numerous knife attacks of schools and the public in China, the Middle East (where whole school districts have been closed due to Islamic sword attacks of children) and Japan.

As someone in the Warrior proffession, the “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” is a a definate possibility, not to, necesarily, to be avoided but to be take into consideration.

To a “civi” that sounds insane. To a Warrior it’s par for the course.