Your thoughts about owning firearms as a Catholic in the USA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
Hello, I’m curious about how my fellow Catholics here in the United States feel with regard to firearms ownership by private citizens? Do you fully support the Second Amendment to the US Constitution – thus essentially no restriction on firearms ownership by US citizens not convicted of a felony?

Or do you support the National Firearms Act of 1934 which made obtaining machine guns and other firearms more difficult?

Do you support other sorts of gun control like universal background checks?

Do you support the draconian and ineffective gun control laws of states like California?

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
 
Ownership of guns either for collecting, hunting, target shooting (hobby), or self defense is fine in states where it is legal.
Ownership of guns whose sole purpose is to kill another human being, such as the aforementioned machine guns, combat assault rifles, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. should be banned. If allowed by law, they should be rendered in a condition that they cannot be fired, thus allowed for collectors only.
As to places like Washington, D.C., California, etc., well the statement “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” has a significant ring of truth to it.
 
It’s very wrong to have individual state laws which contravene the Bill of Rights.

It’s also ridiculous to suggest that some guns’ only purpose “is to kill another human being” – particularly when you note in the above sentence that owning a firearms for collecting purposes is OK. This is prime rhetoric used by the gun-banners.

It’s further ridiculous to suggest that suppressors (“silencers”) should be banned. They are actually mandatory in many European countries. Making them illegal or highly taxing them is ludicrous.
 
Second amendment supporter. In favor of background checks. If passed, I have no problem with guns. I know it sounds trite and overused, but guns don’t kill. People do.

It doesn’t take a machine gun to kill people. People kill with knives, poison, and cars. We are still able to obtain all.

Killing is a people problem. If there were no guns, people could still kill, and have in the past, so there goes that excuse.
 
Yup, we Irish are smarter than the average bear…@Irishmom2 hit the bullseye. Background checks are smart, none needs a personal machine gun or howitzers.

There are a significant number of peoplexwho believe they need a gun, yhen believe yhey need to use it regularly. Not cool.
 
Last edited:
It’s also ridiculous to suggest that some guns’ only purpose “is to kill another human being” – particularly when you note in the above sentence that owning a firearms for collecting purposes is OK. This is prime rhetoric used by the gun-banners.

Have to disagree. As someone who was considered an expert marksman with an M-16 during the Vietnam War, I can tell you that there are guns that are designed solely for the purpose of killing another human being. If not, why do deer hunters use a shotgun or a 30-30 to hunt, and not an M-4 or (maybe more sporting) and M-16.

I’m not for banning guns, simply that some common sense must apply to the 2nd amendment.
 
While I am a Canadian, getting a PAL let me understand firearms better, and I will say it was tied to an “approval of lifestyle”

What is a gun used for? In a benevolent thought, it’s for 3 things
  1. self defense
  2. better state defense (in case of conscription)
  3. Hunting
Target shooting, citizen arrest, etc, all derived from one of these three end goal

The one thing I noticed is that it is a two directional street, so if you consider one of the three points wrong and must be removed, then gun can and must be consider illegal.

So if you make the act of hunting bad, you can easily make gun illegal, as there is no point to have any weapon.
So if you make the act of citizen arrest bad, you can easily make gun illegal, as there is no point to have any weapon.
So if you make it so citizens must go with a Police, or say that these thieves are okay, you can easily make gun illegal, as there is no point to have any weapon.

Just my two cents, observing from Canada.
 
It’s also ridiculous to suggest that some guns’ only purpose “is to kill another human being” – particularly when you note in the above sentence that owning a firearms for collecting purposes is OK. This is prime rhetoric used by the gun-banners.

Have to disagree. As someone who was considered an expert marksman with an M-16 during the Vietnam War, I can tell you that there are guns that are designed solely for the purpose of killing another human being. If not, why do deer hunters use a shotgun or a 30-30 to hunt, and not an M-4 or (maybe more sporting) and M-16.

I’m not for banning guns, simply that some common sense must apply to the 2nd amendment.
The single most commonly purchased rifles today in the USA are based on the AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the M-16.) They are purchased from home defense, marksmanship competition, hunting (I took a deer with one this year), etc. It’s because it is a superb, ergonomic, inexpensive design.

Shotguns (with slugs) and 30/30’s are used for deer hunting due to laws (shotgun only) or tradition. In many cases there are even special seasons for muzzle-loading back powder firearms.

Suggesting that some firearms have no other use than to kill other humans is not only false, it’s used by the anti-2nd Amendment camp.

I’m very weary when you mention “common sense.” Whose “common sense” exactly? Politicians’ “common sense”?
 
Last edited:
What is a gun used for? In a benevolent thought, it’s for 3 things

self defense
better state defense (in case of conscription)
Hunting
Nope. A gun can be used for competitive shooting (recreation) which does not derive from your list. Guns are often collected (not on your list.) Guns are retained as family heirlooms – even if the stewards aren’t collections. Guns can simply be used for plinking or tinkering – in other words as hobbies. I know some people that invest in firearms because they have proven to be good financial investments. I’m sure there are other very legitimate reasons that do not stem from your list of three.
 
Suggesting that some firearms have no other use than to kill other humans is not only false, it’s used by the anti-2nd Amendment camp.

The M-16 is a combat assault rifle. its ownership is prohibited outside the military. Its only purpose is use in a lethal combat situation. Whether or not you want to believe it, there are weapons whose only use is a combat application. And I am not in the anti second amendment camp.
 
The M-16 is a combat assault rifle. its ownership is prohibited outside the military. Its only purpose is use in a lethal combat situation. Whether or not you want to believe it, there are weapons whose only use is a combat application. And I am not in the anti second amendment camp.
The question is whether or not we have a right to own these weapons, not whether or not they are military.
 
A gun can be used for competitive shooting (recreation) which does not derive from your list. Guns are often collected (not on your list.) Guns are retained as family heirlooms – even if the stewards aren’t collections. Guns can simply be used for plinking or tinkering – in other words as hobbies. I know some people that invest in firearms because they have proven to be good financial investments. I’m sure there are other very legitimate reasons that do not stem from your list of three.
The reason I limited myself to those three is that these are all considered “changeable” (ie Hobby, recreational), “trival”, “replaceable”, etc. I should know since before I was a Christian, I am a left, and that is how I used to think – your thoughts, along with hobbies, CAN be changed. So by limiting to those points, I can at least restricted myself to the so-called practical realm, but as we see, even those points can be made impractical.

Or more simply: when they take away your guns, they are also trying to control your history, your thoughts, your lifestyle.

Good luck, USA.
 
Last edited:
I’m very weary when you mention “common sense.” Whose “common sense” exactly? Politicians’ “common sense”?

No, the “common sense” that might have kept Adam Lanza out of the Shady Hook elementary school in Connecticut with his arsenal and his intent.
 
The question is whether or not we have a right to own these weapons, not whether or not they are military.

Couldn’t agree more Brother. I guess that is why we elect lawmakers to decide these things. As I said before, I don’t object to a collector owning a military assault rifle, so long as it has been rendered permanantly unable to be used as initially intended.
 
Nope. A gun can be used for competitive shooting (recreation) which does not derive from your list. Guns are often collected (not on your list.) Guns are retained as family heirlooms – even if the stewards aren’t collections. Guns can simply be used for plinking or tinkering – in other words as hobbies. I know some people that invest in firearms because they have proven to be good financial investments. I’m sure there are other very legitimate reasons that do not stem from your list of three.

Right Dusenberg. Sounds like you are agreeing with my first post here that guns may be allowed for collectors so long as they are rendered incapable of being used as originally designed - to kill another human being.
 
The question is whether or not we have a right to own these weapons, not whether or not they are military.

Couldn’t agree more Brother. I guess that is why we elect lawmakers to decide these things. As I said before, I don’t object to a collector owning a military assault rifle, so long as it has been rendered permanantly unable to be used as initially intended.
I would suggest using the quote function. Sometimes one cannot tell what you are responding to, or where a quoted text ends and your remarks begin.

Anyway, there should not be any prohibition on a working weapon. There is no reason for this. Such laws effects only law-biding citizens. Criminals can easily convert the weapons to full working order.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest using the quote function. Sometimes one cannot tell what you are responding to, or where a quoted text ends and your remarks begin.

Agreed. Except you are talking to someone who is not very computer savvy. I’d be happy to hear someone explain where the quote function is and how to use it. It was easy on the old forum. Not so here. And there are no instructions. The designers of this forum show us older people who didn’t grow up with damn new fangled technology no respect. I really think today’s computer designers have the attitude that “oh well, the old farts will soon die off and we won’t have to worry about them.”

Peace
 
Last edited:
Anyway, there should not be any prohibition on a working weapon. There is no reason for this. Such laws effects only law-biding citizens. Criminals can easily convert the weapons to full working order.

Not if you spike the barrell and deform the firing mechanism. Then if you restore the weapon to working order, you have committed a felony (if that is what state law mandates) My response about keeping these weapons out of the hands of the Adam Lanza’s of the world still stands.

(oh and for those of you who will tell me that Lanza would just use something else,) I stand by my assertion that a “puff the magic dragon” gattling gun that can fire 250 rounds a second is a lot more lethal in a crowd than an AR-15 semi automatic. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of the Lanza’s, the kids at Columbine, the moron at Virginia Tech, would be to ban gun ownership completely. And I’m not against the second amendment.
 
I can’t figure it out either. Just put quote marks around the quote. That makes it clear enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top