Why did my diocese ban guns?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JHC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know it’s legal. I just don’t get why they would do it. They basically posted a sign that says this place full of Catholic Christians are defenseless sitting ducks.
 
Maybe the believe it to be safer to have fewer guns going off. Not everyone believes in the power of the bullet, you know. Maybe they deem it sacrilegious, or at least contrary to the Gospel, to bring such an instrument into the sanctuary.
 
Last edited:
Most Americans aren’t familiar with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights
is modeled on or has similarities to the English Magna Carta.

Surely, Canada must have some type of Magna Carta style legal document.

I am not convinced that either the Declaration of Independence or The US
Constitution are inspired.

The Boston Tea Party had to have been a Masonic Scheme.

Other than that, the right to practice our religion, as Catholics, is nice
in that the US Constitution guarantees it to the extent the religious
organizations follow the non-profit tax laws and regs.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Maybe the believe it to be safer to have fewer guns going off.
Click to expand...
had any guns gone off prior to the posting? are they going off now? do you really think a sign will stop someone from bringing in a gun for good or bad? yes, it will stop some but not all. you may still be sitting next to someone packing heat.

if carrying properly, no one knows.
 
Last edited:
which the CCC is clear on legitimate self defence and the criteria required for it, i do not think your diocese will implement such a bann unless there is good reason for it. so try to find out from your diocesan office what lead to the decision; it might help you understand better and ever be more receptive to it. but i still think the major motive is for the common good.
 
There are signs like this at schools.
The sign froze me the first time I saw it…it was junior high and I was leaving one of our children on his first day.New school,new country.
A school…Lord,I thought. Who would even think of bringing a gun to school?
That was about 11 years ago…
One gets used to the weirdest of things…
 
Last edited:
I think you live in a haven and you do not realize.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information. This seems a reasonable way to do things.
 
… as opposed to a system arbitrarily created by radical anti-Catholic 18th century progressives behind closed doors
Click to expand...
I am glad at least we can agree that being ‘Progressive’ and being anti-Catholic are related.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, it is silly to be banning guns. As long as the firearms are kept responsibly and used for self defense (which the catechism approves of) your fine.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. I think the whole evolutionary point of adrenalin is to heighten the senses. Perhaps adrenalin works differently in men than women. I honestly don’t know. Since you are a trained marksman (inclusive use) if you were in the situation of a church being attacked and people were diving for cover against an upright shooter, would you be just as likely to hit an innocent?

I am not a trained marksman. I don’t like guns, but in the very unlikely scenario of me holding a gun in such a situation, I don’t think even I would be ‘just as likely’ to kill a random innocent.
 
Last edited:
Progressives in every generation are anti-Catholic? I assure you that you would be a radical progressive on multiple fronts a couple centuries ago.
 
Adrenaline does heighten your senses, but it also makes your hands unsteady. Active shooter situations tend to be chaotic when the shooting first commences, and it can be hard to identify the gunman at first, especially in a densely crowded area like a church. I’ve only ever handled a gun in calm environments, so I don’t know how my aim would be if I were in a crowded area with someone trying to kill me. I wasn’t trained to be a sniper.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
I think you live in a haven and you do not realize.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen people here that even think some musical instruments are sacrilegious in the sanctuary, much less guns. I don’t think so, but I can see where some might. But the part about more bullets flying is quite legitimate. On another thread there was a discussion about how hand gun owners need high capacity and extra clips because sometimes it might take a lot of shots to stop someone. There is an assumption that they cannot hit their target most of the time.
 
Progressives in every generation are anti-Catholic? I assure you that you would be a radical progressive on multiple fronts a couple centuries ago.
Click to expand...
You are moving the goalposts.

And you are confusing those professing Progressiveness with modernity and subjective progress.

Progressives themselves might believe this but no one else thinks this of them.
 
How do you define a progressive? I assume you’re speaking only for a 21st century American perspective?
A guy in Saudi Arabia who advocates for the right to publicly worship as a Christian and cast a vote in democratic elections is a radical progressive…and will likely be imprisoned for such.
 
Now you ask how I define a progressive. Really there is confusion in your question. Progressives (with a capital ‘P’) are a group of people calling themselves (and others) as such in a way which really makes little sense when investigated.

Being progressive (with a lower case ‘p’ ) is a subjective term that everyone (except maybe an nihilist) would claim for themselves. They believe through their actions that they are progressing the world to a better place. The most conservative Pope for example would consider himself progressive but not Progressive. In your example a Muslim may think he is being progressive for stopping the Christian worshipping in Saudi Arabia or say stopping Christians in Indonesia where they do have a civil right to worship.

The problem of why people calling themselves Progressive is incoherent is twofold

(1) because they are conflating a group of people calling themselves Progressive today with other’s actions in the past who didn’t call themselves Progressive and
(2) also they bar people that did themselves Progressive in the past if they turned out to be obviously evil.

This incoherent definition by Progressives means that Progressives and progressivism are conflated and Progressivism can never be bad which is why it is attractive, especially to the young.

So those calling themselves Progressive today in the United State would agree that slavery is wrong and that segregation of negroes was wrong. Because of this they think that the people who fought against slavery and segregation must be Progressive (even if they didn’t call themselves that). So in their minds Republicans were Progressive and the Black Conservative Churches were Progressive even if both groups today, though proud of their history would detest being called a Progressive.

The Progressives today think these things are good so they include it in what it means to be a Progressive and claim ownership of the people who stood for these values. A little like the Muslims thinking all good people before Muhammad were Muslims and some American groups retroactively baptising dead people into their faith and claiming them as being of their religion.

In the future perhaps our science may advance to show the horror of life being killed in the womb and it may be universally seen that abortion is wrong. If this happens then Progressives will retrospectively call the Pro-life group Progressive and the Pro-choice group as anti-Progressive. So the Progressive view of who is a Progressive is self serving and irrational.

We have many such examples where Progressives of today reject people in the past whose deeds were shown to be evil from the Progressive tag even if they called themselves Progressive and/or championed what Progressives today believe.

Progressive to the Progressive seems to be a fairy tale tag that must be seen as always and only goodness.
 
Last edited:
Part 2)

So the Fascist Manifesto of Mussolini and Gentile were among the first to demand a minimum wage, a progressive taxation system, voting rights for women, voting rights for the poor. nationalisation of arms companies et cetera all of what Progressives agree with but they cannot receive the tag Progressive from Progressives today, even if they agree with the dogma, and even though they themselves thought themselves as Progressive because everyone knows their evil sins today and Progressives must be good people.

Same with Hitler who called himself Socialist, who implemented gun control, nationalised the health service, worked against the churches, encouraged abortion (for non Aryans), wanted state free education for all citizens, created and increased social pensions and benefits and created full employment through massive government spending et cetera. He also thought of himself as Progressive but those calling themselves Progressive today don’t want him labelled Progressive for the same reason - his past sins.

This also can be applied to communists when we hear about their sins. Che Vera is a Progressive if you forget he mass killed children and homosexuals, Castro can be a Progressive if you ignore his sins, Hugo Chavis was a Progressive until people realised the misery his policies created.

So basically a Progressive lives in a fairy tale land where they can retrospectively claim people for doing good things who wouldn’t want to be called Progressive and retrospectively bar people from being called Progressive because people now realise they were evil.

So basically what a Progressive thinks about who is a Progressive is incoherent, self serving and makes no sense.

Calling oneself a Progressive means you can always hide the bad consequences of your Progressivism and think of yourself as good even if Progressives have done so much evil in the past and been opposed by anti-Progressives. It is a way that allows the swapping of roles so that you are always on the good side even if you really aren’t.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top