What is your stand on gun ownership?

[hazrat]

Well, it’s getting close to Christmas time again. Each year it seems like Christmas sneaks up faster than it did the year before. Although the saying is usually true that “Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year”, for many of us it is also the most costly.
As we all know, this can be an extremely stressful time. If you are one of those scraping by each month just to pay your bills, the added pressure to earn extra money for Christmas can be a little much to handle.
Making extra money is something a lot of us are worried about this time of year. With a combination of the economy, and job instability… you may be among the many searching for ways to make money this holiday season.
www.personalsecuritystore.net

 

[chipeto]

I tell you, if everybody could have a tank, a missile, an miniature atomic bomb and a drone, the crime rate would equal 0 (zero).

For once, we agree.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

I live in the USA, but am a Citizen of both the USA and of Canada.

I own firearms, both rifles and pistols. I have, in the past, owned more than 100 pistols at a time (I used to shoot on the 7th Army Pistol Team in Europe). I have owned up to 5 rifles, and 3 shotguns at any one time.

I personally do not hunt animals, I shoot at targets. I keep a loaded 12 gauge, 5 shot pump shotgun, without a choke, as a personal defense weapon. I keep it loaded with shells with #2 shot. I would not hesitate to use it on anyone that ever broke into my home.

Anyone that has no criminal or mental health record may legally own any weapon (other than automatic weapons, and certain highly modified weapons). You do not require any type of permit to own them, unless you want to carry a concealed weapon. You are however required to undergo a background check, each and every time you purchase a weapon from any store, to make certain that you are legally entitled to purchase it (meaning you have no criminal records, etc.)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, and our Supreme Court recently held that this does apply to the right of the individual citizen to own weapons.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

For once, we agree.

I tell you, the USA and Russia are just dumb and stupid as the have all it takes and are talking disarmment.

There is a rule of thumb: the hawks are those who never experienced war, the doves are the experienced soldiers, who saw what a gun can do. But people do not like peace. People like war and guns and kill each other. It is easier to go into war than to have a consensus on peace.

Jesus Christ came for peace and it is not the gun who make peace, it is Christ. People hate peace and love war. Rabin and Sadat were killed because they made a peace treaty. Ghandi was killed for being peaceful too. Luther King too, for he wanted a peaceful revolution. Jesus Christ was killed for He came for peace. He could have used all the power of Heaven.

In a Catholic forum to defend guns and armament, does not seem to me very Christian. To Rely on the 2nd amendment instead of relying in Christ, it is a bit strange.

As UNESCO says in its constitutional char: “War begins in the heart of man and only in the heart of man can be solved”.

But then the USA refused to belong to UNESCO for a long time (strange, no? No, it does not belong to the International Tribunal of Hague, with some rogue countries, an exceptions among civilized nations).

The is the the force of the guns and the force of Christ. John Paul II made the implosion of Russia without any gun.

Those who rely on guns, perish with guns, Chirst said.

And let us not forget the hard truth: many who defend irrationally guns, have a personal interest on selling them. Wars in Africa, like the Nigeria and Liberia were powered by American guns. The arguments are just puffs of sandust to blind the oponent.

 

[chipeto]

I tell you, the USA and Russia are just dumb and stupid as the have all it takes and are talking disarmment.

There is a rule of thumb: the hawks are those who never experienced war, the doves are the experienced soldiers, who saw what a gun can do. But people do not like peace. People like war and guns and kill each other. It is easier to go into war than to have a consensus on peace.

Jesus Christ came for peace and it is not the gun who make peace, it is Christ. People hate peace and love war. Rabin and Sadat were killed because they made a peace treaty. Ghandi was killed for being peaceful too. Luther King too, for he wanted a peaceful revolution. Jesus Christ was killed for He came for peace. He could have used all the power of Heaven.

In a Catholic forum to defend guns and armament, does not seem to me very Christian. To Rely on the 2nd amendment instead of relying in Christ, it is a bit strange.

As UNESCO says in its constitutional char: “War begins in the heart of man and only in the heart of man can be solved”.

But then the USA refused to belong to UNESCO for a long time (strange, no? No, it does not belong to the International Tribunal of Hague, with some rogue countries, an exceptions among civilized nations).

The is the the force of the guns and the force of Christ. John Paul II made the implosion of Russia without any gun.

Those who rely on guns, perish with guns, Chirst said.

And let us not forget the hard truth: many who defend irrationally guns, have a personal interest on selling them. Wars in Africa, like the Nigeria and Liberia were powered by American guns. The arguments are just puffs of sandust to blind the oponent.

Oh, where to even start with all of this?

 

[jwinch2]

I cannot see anything.

The key is to look at the trend for crime in the state in question as compared to the national average. When one changes faster then the other then it is worth noting. You can also look at trends over time for both local and national response.

For example, if the national average of murders is going down while it is staying the same or even going sightly up in a particular city, that is worth noting. Of course, there are statistical anomalies which affect things on a short term basis which is why researchers look for trends over time. It is also why the field of statistics exists, to help us find significance in data when it is not readily apparent to the naked eye. For example, I can look at the trend of the lines and the area under the curve for both the national average and local city plot and derive total changes over a particular length of time to provide context for the information.

You can argue about it all you like, it is there nonetheless.

 

[jwinch2]

I tell you, the USA and Russia are just dumb and stupid as the have all it takes and are talking disarmament.

There is a rule of thumb: the hawks are those who never experienced war, the doves are the experienced soldiers, who saw what a gun can do. But people do not like peace. People like war and guns and kill each other. It is easier to go into war than to have a consensus on peace.

I’m an ex soldier and have unfortunately seen what guns can do. Yes, I would love to see an end to war in fact, I pray for it regularly. But your rule is wrong. Perhaps you should raise your right hand and serve and find out for yourself?

Either way, this has nothing to do with a private citizen owning a gun, which is what the thread is about. If you want to start a thread on the horrors of war, I will be happy to agree that war is lousy and should be avoided.

Jesus Christ came for peace and it is not the gun who make peace, it is Christ. People hate peace and love war. Rabin and Sadat were killed because they made a peace treaty. Ghandi was killed for being peaceful too. Luther King too, for he wanted a peaceful revolution. Jesus Christ was killed for He came for peace. He could have used all the power of Heaven.

Yes, Christ did come in peace but the Church also teaches that we are entitled to self defense and the defense of other innocents, even through violent means if necessary. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong in her teaching?

Oh, and Gandhi thought the ability of a nation to defend itself through the force of arms was pretty important. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Gandhi

In a Catholic forum to defend guns and armament, does not seem to me very Christian. To Rely on the 2nd amendment instead of relying in Christ, it is a bit strange.

I must be weird because what seems not very Christian to me is calling people dumb and stupid. because you disagree with them. I also find the act of resorting to attacks on others rather than being able to refute their argument to be rather pathetic.

Those who rely on guns, perish with guns, Chirst said.

Our Blessed Lord was quoted on guns? Oh, you discovered a new book in the Bible? Certainly you will be submitting your findings to the Holy See any day now so that we can all benefit from your amazing discovery? And here I was thinking that the Canon of Sacred Scripture had closed years ago.

And let us not forget the hard truth: many who defend irrationally guns, have a personal interest on selling them. Wars in Africa, like the Nigeria and Liberia were powered by American guns.

So if I roll into Africa, I will find a bunch of American guns? Or, will I find AK’s and other Russian derivatives?

Oh, and this has exactly what to do with private gun ownership?

 

[po18guy]

Gun ownership is not a social justice issue any more than vehicle ownership, kitchen knife, or rock ownership is. Social justice is affected when any physical object is misused in a criminal manner.

From the catechism:

2264 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.

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.

 

[Publisher]

Believe it or not I own two guns…a very nice Ruger .22 target pistol and a nice Smith and Wesson .38…also used for target practice…I’m a pretty good shot…especially with a scope.

 

[promethius]

Believe it or not I own two guns…a very nice Ruger .22 target pistol and a nice Smith and Wesson .38…also used for target practice…I’m a pretty good shot…especially with a scope.

Why do you have a scope…? you only mentioned two pistols… I’m confused

 

[Newbie2]

In Michigan, legislation is under consideration to allow a civilain version of a Tazer to be carried like a concealed firearm.

 

[Newbie2]

I much prefer to trust God to help me aim.

 

[vz71]

In Michigan, legislation is under consideration to allow a civilain version of a Tazer to be carried like a concealed firearm.

They can’t now?
At what point did we have to enact laws to specify what we can do?
I thought it was a basic in this country that we can unless the law disallowed it.

 

[promethius]

I tell you, the USA and Russia are just dumb and stupid as the have all it takes and are talking disarmment.

I won’t report your post, but making generalizations and attacks like this almost certainly violate the charity rule of this forum.

There is a rule of thumb: the hawks are those who never experienced war, the doves are the experienced soldiers, who saw what a gun can do. But people do not like peace. People like war and guns and kill each other. It is easier to go into war than to have a consensus on peace.

First, I’m a veteran. I’ve been to Afghanistan and seen what war does. I’m neither a hawk nor a dove.

Second, this point has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of private citizens to self-defense (or the right to own the means of self-defense, including firearms)

Jesus Christ came for peace and it is not the gun who make peace, it is Christ.

“I came not to bring peace, but the sword”
~Jesus Christ (circa 30-33 AD)

Great guy, you should read his stuff some time

People hate peace and love war. Rabin and Sadat were killed because they made a peace treaty. Ghandi was killed for being peaceful too. Luther King too, for he wanted a peaceful revolution. Jesus Christ was killed for He came for peace. He could have used all the power of Heaven.

Again, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand of whether or not private citizens should have the right to own the means of self-defense.

In point of doctrine, Jesus was not killed because He came for peace. The people crucified Him because they thought He was blaspheming, Satan jumped on board because he saw a chance to “kill God”, aka, end whatever Jesus was up to at the time. Neither action was done because Jesus loved peace and others loved war.

In a Catholic forum to defend guns and armament, does not seem to me very Christian. To Rely on the 2nd amendment instead of relying in Christ, it is a bit strange

Here’s the question: What in particular about the simple act of owning a firearm is immoral?

As UNESCO says in its constitutional char: “War begins in the heart of man and only in the heart of man can be solved”.

But then the USA refused to belong to UNESCO for a long time (strange, no? No, it does not belong to the International Tribunal of Hague, with some rogue countries, an exceptions among civilized nations).

The same peace loving UNESCO that contains Afghanistan (since 1948, Taliban and all), Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and more???

I’m sorry, this is not the source and summit of world peace we’re talking about here. It doesn’t appear that membership in UNESCO has any effect whatsoever on human rights issues, non-violence, education, or… well… anything.

The is the the force of the guns and the force of Christ. John Paul II made the implosion of Russia without any gun.

Blessed John Paul II also had assistance in the form of Kennedy, Reagan, and the like… who happened to not only have guns, but thousands of nuclear weapons.

Again, what relevance does this have to whether or not a private citizen should be allowed to own the legitimate means of self-defense?

Those who rely on guns, perish with guns, Chirst said.

Actually, what He said was “those who LIVE by the sword will die by the sword”.

Completely different meaning.

And let us not forget the hard truth: many who defend irrationally guns, have a personal interest on selling them. Wars in Africa, like the Nigeria and Liberia were powered by American guns. The arguments are just puffs of sandust to blind the oponent.

First and foremost, almost no one in the NRA, or who is just an american citizen who believes in their right to own guns, is an international arms dealer.

Second, if you want to look to who sells africa their weapons, just look at what’s being used… soviet and communist weapons abound (such as the AK-47), and many of those were sold to them by former soviet Eastern European nations, many of which have gun control, not the United States.

 

[po18guy]

Seriously?

It has been national law in Switzerland since at least the past century. Certainly helped inn 1939.

 

[jwinch2]

Berkeley Electronic Press: Legal Series. pp. 1564Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.

Something to take a look at.

 

[Newbie2]

They can’t now?
At what point did we have to enact laws to specify what we can do?
I thought it was a basic in this country that we can unless the law disallowed it.

Tazers are illegal for citizens to carry in Michigan right now; I think the law changes that.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I won’t report your post, but making generalizations and attacks like this almost certainly violate the charity rule of this forum.

Please report! do not tell me that you would report but for your great kindness you wont report. I think it is a duty for you to report. Meawhile, where am am attacking? where do you see the attack? It is an irony…What I am saying is that the USA and Russia are smart to do disarmement. If they are smart to desarm, why are not smart? Or are we smarter than 2 nations? Where am I attacking? when I attack I attack directly not indirectly.

(…)I’ve been to Afghanistan and seen what war does. I’m neither a hawk nor a dove.

I do not think you have seen enough. I have seen much more, on the amount of hundreds of thousands, so I am a dove. I am only a hawk to defend the doves.

Second, this point has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of private citizens to self-defense (…)

Yes, there is. There are people who like to shoot. For sheer pleasure. Kill for sheer pleasure. they are sadistic. they never suffered in their skin what they make others to suffer.

“I came not to bring peace, but the sword”
~Jesus Christ (circa 30-33 AD)

So how do you interpret that? the sentence is there, OK! But how do you interpret it? As if Jesus was foreseeing the 2nd amendment? As that Jesus wants to kill everybody? the sentence alone does not mean anything. You know that it is up to Protestants “sola scriptura”, interpretations according to owns conscience. So, what does it mean?

(…)

Again, totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand of whether or not private citizens should have the right to own the means of self-defense.

In point of doctrine, Jesus was not killed because He came for peace. The people crucified Him because they thought He was blaspheming, Satan jumped on board because he saw a chance to “kill God”, aka, end whatever Jesus was up to at the time. Neither action was done because Jesus loved peace and others loved war.

I would not say that it is irrelevant. People naturally have a tendency to war, as i proved to you: everybody who wants peace is killed (some exageration). So, putting a gun on the hands of people is like giving a matches and petrol to a pyromaniac. so, if it is each person who defends himself, what is police for? And what are the Armed Forces for? Disband them, each one for himself.

Here’s the question: What in particular about the simple act of owning a firearm is immoral?

Not immoral. But It is easier to kill. that is why some products have the warning “dangerous fluids”; “dangerous powder, oil, electricity”. If 1000000 people (group A) own 1 knife each and another same number own machine-guns one each (group B), I tell you, within 1 year there will be much more deaths bu murder in group B than in group A.

The same peace loving UNESCO that contains Afghanistan (since 1948, Taliban and all), Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and more???

I’m sorry, this is not the source and summit of world peace we’re talking about here. It doesn’t appear that membership in UNESCO has any effect whatsoever on human rights issues, non-violence, education, or… well… anything.

From what you are saying, you are completely out of the subject. Sorry, you do not what UNESCO is, what stand for, where is seaded, and so on. No wonder…The USA did not belong to it. So you think that the USA are the smart guys who do not belong to UNESCO and UK, France, Spain, Geermany, Norway, Sweden are cray for they belong to UNESCO. Opinions…

Blessed John Paul II also had assistance in the form of Kennedy, Reagan, and the like… who happened to not only have guns, but thousands of nuclear weapons.

That is not the opinion of Brezezinsky and Kissinger. How come Regan and the other did one little bit? Did they shoot any atomic bomb? I did not see the Russians were much afraid of the USA for they had thousands of atomic bombs that would obliterate all the cities of the USA. Nuclear weapons did NOTHING. zero. Nil.

Again, what relevance does this have to whether or not a private citizen should be allowed to own the legitimate means of self-defense?

If the Pope John Paul II could make Russia implode with its thousand atomic bombs, why cant love defend the individual more than guns? Eye for an eye makes everybody blind !!! If everybody with a gun in the states started to do justice by his own hands, all Americans would be dead. Love will defend you, not war.

Actually, what He said was “those who LIVE by the sword will die by the sword”.

Completely different meaning.

The same meaning.

First and foremost, almost no one in the NRA, or who is just an american citizen who believes in their right to own guns, is an international arms dealer.

Second, if you want to look to who sells africa their weapons, just look at what’s being used… soviet and communist weapons abound (such as the AK-47), and many of those were sold to them by former soviet Eastern European nations, many of which have gun control, not the United States.

I agree with you. You are not an arms dealer. But with such laws, the gun proliferation will prosper, factories produce guns which have to be sold and to be sold there must be wars and if there are no wars, wars must be invented. What a beatiful place to invent wars than in Africa with its multiple ethnic groups.
You must understand that because you are Catholic and a just man, not everybody is like you. If laws facilitate, the bad guys profit from them and just men like you suffer…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Oh, where to even start with all of this?

Easy, very easy. It takes only a pen and a rubber: erase the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The key is to look at the trend for crime in the state in question as compared to the national average. When one changes faster then the other then it is worth noting. You can also look at trends over time for both local and national response.

For example, if the national average of murders is going down while it is staying the same or even going sightly up in a particular city, that is worth noting. Of course, there are statistical anomalies which affect things on a short term basis which is why researchers look for trends over time. It is also why the field of statistics exists, to help us find significance in data when it is not readily apparent to the naked eye. For example, I can look at the trend of the lines and the area under the curve for both the national average and local city plot and derive total changes over a particular length of time to provide context for the information.

You can argue about it all you like, it is there nonetheless.

Please, those are USA statistics and the USA is 5% of the world population. Besides we see only guns there: and the other factors? hate, religion, race, age, region, and so on…?
Be reasonable: take 1 million ferocious discussions. Group A has got knives. Group B has got machine guns. Where there is more probability of deaths: in Group A or B?