What types of "gun control" would actually be effective? What sort of "gun control" would I actually support?

[o_mlly]

… you may have a moral obligation.

The moral issue of self-defense as permit and, at times, obligation is settled. From the Catechism:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. …

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:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

Those who have opinions on the role of guns in this regard are free to espouse them but not impose them on others.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The moral issue of self-defense as permit and, at times, obligation is settled. From the Catechism:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. …

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:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

The right of an individual to exercise self defense does not imply the right to own any specific weapon. This is also settled from the Catechism, 2316:

The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

 

[o_mlly]

The right of an individual to exercise self defense does not imply the right to own any specific weapon. This is also settled from the Catechism, 2316:

What is your point? The subheading for 2316 is “Avoiding War.” No one has argued that illegal gun-runners are moral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The right of an individual to exercise self defense does not imply the right to own any specific weapon. This is also settled from the Catechism, 2316:

What is your point? The subheading for 2316 is “Avoiding War.” No one has argued that illegal gun-runners are moral.

But is does say “public authorities have the right and the duty to regulate the production and sale of weapons.” Such regulation would necessarily affect everyone. Plus you still have not shown that the right to exercise self-defense implies the right to own an AR-15.

To make that last point clearer, note that the right to exercise self-defense applies everywhere - not just on your private property. If someone attacks you or your family while flying in a passenger jet, the Catechism still give you the right to fight off that attack by any means at your disposal. But no reasonable person would conclude that the Catechism implies the right to carry an AR-15 aboard a passenger jet. So the paragraphs you quoted from the Catechism could not possibly mean what you implied they mean.

 

[o_mlly]

… Plus you still have not shown that the right to exercise self-defense implies the right to own an AR-15. … But no reasonable person would conclude that the Catechism implies the right to carry an AR-15 aboard a passenger jet.

What is your point? 2316 is about avoiding war. Citing 2316 is a reach too far as instructive on the permit or prohibition to sell or own any particular weapon. The Church is just not in that business. Unless, of course, she states policy for the armaments of the Swiss Guard.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Sig 552 is standard issue with the Swiss Guards (for when swords alone will not do).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have not answered my objection over the fact that the paragraphs you cited apply everywhere, so why is it OK to ban AR-15s from carry-on luggage? Or do you claim it is immoral to ban those weapons there too?

 

[o_mlly]

You have not answered my objection over the fact that the paragraphs you cited apply everywhere, so why is it OK to ban AR-15s from carry-on luggage? Or do you claim it is immoral to ban those weapons there too?

Paragraphs about avoiding war apply everywhere. Paragraphs that do not apply to particular gun ownership apply nowhere.

Again, what Is your point / question? If it is: Does the U.S. governments have the power to control the sale and ownership of firearms?

Yes. No one has argued that that is not true.

Does the U.S. governments have unlimited power to control the sale and ownership of firearms? That is a legal, not moral, question and the answer is, No. The second amendment limits that power.

Does my luggage have a right to self-defense? No. The government may ban that luggage from containing an AR-15 just as legally it can ban that luggage from containing a Samsung Smart phone or a mentally impaired person from buying an AR-15 or you carrying an AR-15 into a courtroom. Why the obsession about the AR-15?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have not answered my objection over the fact that the paragraphs you cited apply everywhere, so why is it OK to ban AR-15s from carry-on luggage? Or do you claim it is immoral to ban those weapons there too?

Paragraphs about avoiding war apply everywhere. Paragraphs that do not apply to particular gun ownership apply nowhere.

Again, what Is your point / question? If it is: Does the U.S. governments have the power to control the sale and ownership of firearms?

Yes. No one has argued that that is not true.

OK, sounds good so far…

Does the U.S. governments have unlimited power to control the sale and ownership of firearms? That is a legal, not moral, question and the answer is, No. The second amendment limits that power.

OK, it looks like I misinterpreted your purpose in quoting the Catechism. I will have to go back and re-read what you wrote to see where I went wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

You have not yet supported the one claim I challenged you on. That claim is that the paragraphs you cited imply the right to own a gun. Can you support that claim? Or is that not what you meant?

Can you refer to the post # where you infer such a claim?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have not yet supported the one claim I challenged you on. That claim is that the paragraphs you cited imply the right to own a gun. Can you support that claim? Or is that not what you meant?

Can you refer to the post # where you infer such a claim?

OK, I see where I got that idea. In your post #142 you wrote:

Those who have opinions on the role of guns in this regard are free to espouse them but not impose them on others.

I misunderstood who was espousing what in that quote. I now see that it can go both ways, and I assumed the wrong way.

 

[Lovinglight]

Putting the Christian God back into schools would be a very effective law in preventing gun violence.