P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
I’m talking about ordinary citizens,
Nothing to do with Military or Law enforcement agencies
Nothing to do with Military or Law enforcement agencies
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, if society were not broken there would be no need of either military or police, as citizens and countries would be interacting in a uniformly peaceful and rational way without need for armed/forcible intervention.
So in that sense, yes they are indeed victims, required to spend their time and energy in mopping up the messes society creates rather than doing something more constructive and productive.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
That’s what’s so unique about the United States.
Millions of people risk everything to come here.
Millions of people risk everything to come here.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Try living in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I am not a law enforcement officer. I was honorably discharged from the military a long time ago.
Where I go fishing there are a lot of rattlesnakes. I carry a .38 on my belt when I go fishing.
Which one does that make me, in your estimation? Am I an “insecure soul” or am I a “victim of a broken society”???
Which is it?
G
Genesis315
Guest
There’s a natural right to defend oneself, but not to own or carry a gun at all times (neither is owning or carrying a gun contrary to the natural law in and of itself).
Catholic societies and Churches have long had regulations on the carrying of weaponry, from the banning of swords within city walls during medieval times to forbidding the use of crossbows (the latter an ecumenical council dealt with). That a particular Church would prohibit guns on the premises, which are far more deadly than swords and crossbows, does not seem beyond the pale to me. Whether it is a good policy in a particular set of circumstances is something people of good faith can disagree about, but ultimately it belongs to the bishop to rule his diocese and govern the his particular Church’s property.
Catholic societies and Churches have long had regulations on the carrying of weaponry, from the banning of swords within city walls during medieval times to forbidding the use of crossbows (the latter an ecumenical council dealt with). That a particular Church would prohibit guns on the premises, which are far more deadly than swords and crossbows, does not seem beyond the pale to me. Whether it is a good policy in a particular set of circumstances is something people of good faith can disagree about, but ultimately it belongs to the bishop to rule his diocese and govern the his particular Church’s property.
Last edited:
2
2towers
Guest
Our AD banned guns, I would imagine most have. I believe the likelihood of a gun going off accidentally in church is far more likely than one being used in a church as a defensive weapon. Even now.
U
upant
Guest
will the church do?
catechism 2264 (bold is mine)
catechism 2264 (bold is mine)
2
2towers
Guest
I responded first and then later read all the posts. I stand by what I wrote, and that is that I feel it is far more likely that there would be an accidental discharge during Mass then an armed attack against it, so I am not in favor of carrying guns to Mass. It seems however that the thread is also about carry laws in general, so I wanted to add my thoughts on that.
I own a gun, but I don’t like them. I feel though that it is a prudent precaution though. I don’t live in Kennesaw Georgia, but I live about five miles from it in the same county, all considered Metro Atlanta. I believe that are ongoing statistics that demonstrate that our overall crime rate in this area dropped since the carry and ownership laws were enacted here. Not the city of Atlanta.
I do not believe at all that strict gun laws can keep us safe from gun crime. I think you most certainly have to bear in mind a bigger picture part of which is:
-The spirit of the right to bear arms, which includes:
-Deterring an oppressive “October revolution style” or ultra fascist government
-Deterring foreign takeover of the US mainland
-Defending ones home and family
-Feeding ones family in the event of socio-economic collapse.
In this most recent case, sadly the USAF fell down on the job, but this guy still could have laid his hands on some sort of weapon in spite of this. We may never know.
I own a gun, but I don’t like them. I feel though that it is a prudent precaution though. I don’t live in Kennesaw Georgia, but I live about five miles from it in the same county, all considered Metro Atlanta. I believe that are ongoing statistics that demonstrate that our overall crime rate in this area dropped since the carry and ownership laws were enacted here. Not the city of Atlanta.
I do not believe at all that strict gun laws can keep us safe from gun crime. I think you most certainly have to bear in mind a bigger picture part of which is:
-The spirit of the right to bear arms, which includes:
-Deterring an oppressive “October revolution style” or ultra fascist government
-Deterring foreign takeover of the US mainland
-Defending ones home and family
-Feeding ones family in the event of socio-economic collapse.
In this most recent case, sadly the USAF fell down on the job, but this guy still could have laid his hands on some sort of weapon in spite of this. We may never know.
I
IrishCoffee
Guest
Guns are banned at my parish. There’s a sign on the door so criminals will know that there are unarmed people inside. The sign might as well say come shoot us!
Guns are not to be trusted and must be controlled.
Guns are not to be trusted and must be controlled.
U
upant
Guest
this is the way it is written in the catechism.
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
It all gets very difficult to judge who should or should not carry a gun,
I guess only when it’s to late can we decide
I guess only when it’s to late can we decide
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
Well we will be there in 12. Months , doing the New England Cruise.
P
pnewton
Guest
Snake shot. It does wonders. My experience is mostly copperheads, but hey, a snake is a snake.
The sign prohibits those with license to carry from bringing in a gun. Off duty officers may still be armed, and most usually are.
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
Look. I like shooting. I’m actually an NRA-certified Expert Marksman. One thing that’s stuck with me from my shooting days was the instructor telling the students not to take caffeine or sugar before practice, because it would upset our aim. If too much coffee in an otherwise calm environment can affect how you shoot, imagine how much worse it’s going to be when you’re in a life-or-death situation, with a moving target, and you’ve worked up an ungodly amount of adrenaline. You might get lucky and take down the gunman, but you’ll just as likely end up killing an innocent rando, especially when you’re operating in an enclosed space like a church.
U
upant
Guest
are the signs legal? does your state allow the business owner to restrict your right? are the signs legally enforceable? some states require specific wording. what are the penalties for violating the sign? some business owners just request you to leave others will have you arrested for trespassing since you are where you are not supposed to be. is it an offense that if convicted will you lose your right to own a gun?
but at the end of the day, if you are properly carrying concealed no one knows but you.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, the signs are legal. They restrict no one’s rights, but are part of the law. They are legally enforceable. They are a reflection of the right of property owners not to have armed gunmen enter.
J
JHC
Guest
And the thing is it wasn’t an issue until open carry. I wouldn’t mind open carry being prohibited but concealed was always allowed until last year.
T
twf
Guest
I have often said that some on these forums seem to conflate Catholicism and American Conservative values… one aspect of that seems to include treating the US constitution as an almost inspired document.
I personally am much more partial to the Westminster system (as used here in Canada) which evolved organically over a period of centuries in England… as opposed to a system arbitrarily created by radical anti-Catholic 18th century progressives behind closed doors
I personally am much more partial to the Westminster system (as used here in Canada) which evolved organically over a period of centuries in England… as opposed to a system arbitrarily created by radical anti-Catholic 18th century progressives behind closed doors
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I think that’s exactly what the thread is about.upant:
Yes, the signs are legal. They restrict no one’s rights, but are part of the law. They are legally enforceable. They are a reflection of the right of property owners not to have armed gunmen enter.
State laws vary on this topic.
In some states (apparently) laws are either being enforced, or new laws being enacted, to say that if a business is “open to the public” then the business owner cannot prohibit concealed carry. As I see it, that’s exactly why this issue is now being discussed with regard to churches.
Some states say the “firearms prohibited” signs are legal, some states are now saying they are not.
- Status