P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, it would be immoral, though the two are not comparable, except to those whose guns are comparable to their God.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Actually Leaf, that is incorrect. If the foreseeable balance of all consequences of an act is the causing of more harm than good, that is sufficient to make the act immoral (quite apart from whether the act was well-intentioned, and quite apart form the moral object). However, people may disagree in their assessment of the balance of consequences - it is by its nature a matter for prudential judgement - which plainly is the case in this debate. I hold that the culture and practice of widespread availability of weapons has on balance negative consequences. That state of affairs unavoidable leads to and accentuates the problems of guns getting in the wrong hands, guns being used inappropriately, confusion and mistake during law enforcement actions, etc. This observation has nothing to do with Jon’s observation that he is a good and careful gun owner and that his personal possession of firearms hurts no one.
R
Rau
Guest
You are channelling me pnewton!
This would be theft. There is no justice in taking what I have an inherent right to own.
At Christ’s arrest, He told the man to put his sword away. He didn’t tell him to turn it in to authorities, even after the act of violence. Clearly owning arms is not immoral.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Although it is widely abused, eminent domain is a valid moral principle for legitimate authority. If the community decides a highway should be built, land must be acquired. Some people may decide not to sell their property. It is not theft when the government takes their land by force. It may be immoral for other reasons (such as inequitable compensation, or land taken for private interests rather than for the public good), and I am all for placing strict limits on eminent domain. But eminent domain cannot be completely disregarded as a potentially valid and moral act of government.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why?
Would it not be easier for a priest to celebrate mass without a building than it would be for me to defend my wife and I from armed intruders without arms? Would it not also be safer?
Jon
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not going to argue this obvious point. If you want to compar worship of God with owning a gun, that is your prerogative. Just do not expect to use that comparison in a convincing manner on a Catholic thread.
I’m comparing owning a building to owning a firearm. Read what my post asked. Would holding mass without a building be easier than defending my wife from armed intruders without a gun?
Jon
If you think for a moment that holding mass is even a tiny bit more important to you as a Catholic than it is to me, you are way wrong.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Confiscating church buildings is not intrinsically evil, although it can be evil in practice. Let me explain.
Suppose there was a church building that was standing in the way of a proposed expressway. And because if its unique geography, there is no reasonable alternative siting of the expressway. After being offered generous compensation, that particular parish decided to refuse all offers, regardless of how high they were. Then the government, under this very unusual circumstance, comes in a confiscates the building by force. That would not be immoral.
However, if, as a matter of policy, all church buildings were confiscated just because they were houses of worship, that would be immoral for practical reasons. The practical reason is that such confiscation imposes an unjust burden on the worshipers.
To draw a parallel with guns, the confiscation of a surface-to-air missile from the backyard of someone living directly under the approach to runway 31R at JFK airport would not be immoral. But the confiscation of all guns belonging to hunters in Wyoming would be immoral because it places an unnecessary burden on those gun owners.
In short, you have to look at the details of the confiscation to determine whether or not it is immoral.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
No, it would be authority voted on by you, Rau and pnewton to take my weapons. I am apparently not part of the common good and I do not recognize the legitimacy of that authority. Remember, government needs consent of the people, but having that still does not justify any action taken by the government.
That is a non sequitur. The authorities are individuals acting on behalf of other individuals. They are not magically granted more powers just because they have a fancy title.
I have seen plenty of immoral things justified by appeals to the common good. While is may have some moral value, the concept is ill-defined and can be used to justify anything.
Correct. Thanks for posting it.
We need to start first with what the Court has said:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
** Held:
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. **
IOW, the right exists whether or not one is in the militia, regardless of how one defines militia, even the one you posted here.
The reason for the militia, however, was not because a standing army was somehow burdensome but because they viewed it as a threat to individual liberty.
- On this you are entirely incorrect, and the Court is clear that the prefatory cause neither limits nor extends the objective clause
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English
as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is
unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the
founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of
state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement
of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace
Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause (“The separation of church and state
being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall
have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes
clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of
interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. **
continued
All the first clause does is give a reason for the protection extended in the second clause. It doesn’t limit it. While the main purpose of the protection extended in the Second Amendment is to secure a free state, it also applies to defense, hunting, collecting, anything else we want.
** 1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body. **
This is an individual right, not dependent upon being part of any group or militia.
One can read the document, but the Court found:
** c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. **
The term pre-existing is in italics, but not by me. These enumerated rights are pre-existing.
If we are beciming comfortable with erosion of basic rights, we are indeed in danger of tyranny.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Jon
** 1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body. **
This is an individual right, not dependent upon being part of any group or militia.
One can read the document, but the Court found:
** c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. **
The term pre-existing is in italics, but not by me. These enumerated rights are pre-existing.
I am always taken aback a little when those of us who agree with the founders regarding the issues of rights are referred to as “fringe right”, or something to that effect. If being fringe right means one believes in the rights protected in the constitution, then by all means, I am proudly fringe right. I wouldn’t have it any other way. OTOH, the claim that some (many?) in the progressive movement do not want to disarm law-abiding citizens has already been addressed. They do.
And here is the slippery slope regarding due process. While I am dubious about the practice of restricting constitutional rights without a conviction, even these restraining orders for potential domestic abusers, etc., have at least some adjudication. A restraining order is always issued by a judge, AFAIK. The no-fly list (even the terror watch list in some cases) does not provide this constitutional requirement.
If we are beciming comfortable with erosion of basic rights, we are indeed in danger of tyranny.
Background checks do not interfere with the constitutionally protected inherent right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Jon
P
pnewton
Guest
First, you too would be voting on who has authority to legislate. Second, the common good, is part of Catholic Social Doctrine. It is not a vague concept. On a Catholic forum such as this, many who use the term do understand it specifically, even is all do not. Not all have studied, or understand, Catholic teaching in this area.
What about the gun owner in Chicago? Let’s give him a name, say, Otis McDonald.
An elderly African-American. lives in a high crime neighborhood. His efforts in alternative policing has him targeted by the street thugs. The city says he can’t have a handgun for protection. Why? Because he is just a law-abiding citizen, and they’re banned from having them! This ain’t Wyoming, and he doesn’t want a SAM launcher.
Is it immoral of the city of Chicago to keep him disarmed?
As to your circumstances of eminent domain, those circumstances aren’t all that unusual. What if it was intended, instead of for a highway, for a Planned Parenthood center? How about a shopping mall? High rise condominiums?
That’s all rhetorical, but one can see recently that where government is given a power - eminent domain - they tend to take it and abuse it.
Jon
P
Peccavi
Guest
A gun toting Christian is an oxymoron
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If it were only us three voting, we would not win.
It does not sound like you recognize any civil authority. But the Church does, and teaches that recognition in the catechism.
There are some actions for which that would be true. But no all actions. There are some actions are are justified by the consent of the people.
It sounds like you are disputing the legitimacy of all civil authority. That is what we call anarchy, and it is not a Christian position.
Yes, but not justly.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
All you are pointing out is the general difficulty of deciding hard cases. I never said every case would be easy to decide. I merely pointed out the easy extreme cases.
As for your other eminent domain questions, I already addressed them as being an improper use of eminent domain.
- Status