P
Peccavi
Guest
As Gandhi observed everyone knows Christianity is a pacifist religion except Christians.
- Status
And yet they are allowed, because of the drift toward ever stronger government power at the expense of rights.
But the case of Otis McDonald, or any other law-abiding citizen, is not difficult if we just follow the essentially moral protection of individual rights as extended in the Constitution. #People have the inherent human and civil right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, others, their liberty.
#This is not a right to use a gun in an immoral way.
#Government can run background checks in order to prevent those who have been adjudicated as ineligible to have guns from getting them.
This right does not include, necessarily, those types of weapons typically used in a military setting: automatic weapons, SAM’s, etc.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you are implying that it is sufficient to prohibit immoral uses of guns, I submit that it not sufficient. There are some acts that are best prohibited by prohibiting the means to those acts, even when there are other, more moral, uses of those means. So, getting back to my example of a SAM in the backyard of someone in Woodmere (by JFK), it is not sufficient to say “You better not shoot down any passenger jets with your SAM!”. It is moral and prudent to say “We are not going to allow you to have a SAM as long as you are living there.”
P
pnewton
Guest
Ghandi was wrong. There are some pacifistic tendencies, but the right to legitimate self-defense has always been part of Catholic doctrine, meaning the idea of complete pacifism, a relatively new idea held only among a minority of smaller denominations.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Really? I have heard it argued quite vigorously by some (not necessarily you) that any restrictions that allow only “non-military” weapons is arbitrary and prone to abuse by the government, leading to the eventual banning of all guns. But really, if this right is so fundamental, how can it exclude some classes of weapons just because they “look military”? That sounds like the beginning of a practical argument. If you admit to the validity of practical arguments, then be prepared for various practical arguments on why guns with more than X number of rounds should be banned from dense city environments.
And I’ve heard some say it only covers muskets. The fact is the Court has already given guidance on the issue.
It isn’t a practical argument that certain guns should be banned because they "look military ", anymore than some speech should be banned because it "sounds offensive ". Both are nonsense arguments. An AR15 is a semiautomatic rifle, just like many hunting rifles. It is not a military weapon. The density of an urban area has nothing to do with the number of rounds a magazine or a clip holds. I can take a gun with a large capacity clip into a densely populated city and it will never hurt a soul. Again, not a practical argument. It’s nonsense.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
And, of course, if the black rifle is too scary/military looking, you can get it primarily in soothing pink.
G
GKC
Guest
Tastes differ, of course, and in a free country, protected by the 2nd amendments safeguards, I know folk who are proudly pink.Well, that wouldn’t be my first choice.
But neither would I want it banned.
Jon
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Please answer the question of how any restrictions at all can be placed on the type of weapon if the right to own weapons is a fundamental right, and not a practical right that can be negotiated through man-made law.
P
Peccavi
Guest
reason
P
Peccavi
Guest
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but I can’t abuse that right. The are practicalities to very right, including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Jon
A pacifist does not practice violence. Firearms are not necessarily used in a violent way. It is unreasonable to apply human characteristics, such as violent or evil, to an inanimate object. When one of Jesus’ followers (Peter) drew his sword and cut off a man’s ear, Christ admonished his violence, not is ownership of a sword. He didn’t even require him to get rid of it: “Put up thy sword into the scabbard .”
Ownership of arms is not a violation of Christian principles.
Jon
P
Peccavi
Guest
No point having a weapon if you are not prepared to use it. A sheathed sword or a holstered gun with no intent to use is no deterrent. Once drawn and used the weapon become a counter to the commandment not to kill and to Jesus demand we that we love one another and keep our weapons unused
The use of a weapon to defend myself and my family, and my fellow countrymen is only in violation of God’s commandment if Davd’s use of a slingshot is, or Joshua’s destruction of Jericho with God’s help.
Now, to be sure, it should never be used if there is no threat, and that is when it is holstered.
But a “holstered” weapon during the Cold War did deter evil, and it was not used.
Jon
PS. You didn’t answer my question: do you follow Jesus’ command that you have a sword in a scabbard? Or do you interpret that differently?
G
GKC
Guest
For which, in the last case, I am grateful. Also grateful it was there.
- Status