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

[joeybaggz]

”?
So you are advocating for “common sense gun control”? Lanza killed his own mother to get at secured weapons…

Didn’t see this post. Are you arguing that you want the Adam Lanza’s of the world to own a weapon that fires 250 rounds per second?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Didn’t see this post. Are you arguing that you want the Adam Lanza’s of the world to own a weapon that fires 250 rounds per second?

The most common weapon used in crimes is a handgun. More people are killed every year by blunt force melee weapons than rifles.

 

[Duesenberg]

To answer your curiosity, the voters of this country.

Drugs are not rights??? Tell that to the guys who sells me aspirin at Wal-Mart. I have the right to buy aspirin, I don’t have the right to buy heroin. There are many other fine distinctions I could cite, but I’m pretty sure I would be wasting my breath.

And no, I’m not against the 2nd amendment. I am against the misuse of the 2nd amendment, and the paranoid members who won’t live in the real world.

The voters of this country are free to approve a repeal of the Second Amendment. I would definitely support their right to do that – not that it would ever happen. Anything else is wrong.

No, we don’t have the RIGHT to buy/use drugs, alcohol, drive a car, etc. We DO have the right to keep and bear firearms however.

Your comments are very anti-2A. Particuarly the part about only firearms for “legitimate purposes.” Whew…

 

[Duesenberg]

Didn’t see this post. Are you arguing that you want the Adam Lanza’s of the world to own a weapon that fires 250 rounds per second?

An M16 in fully automatic mode fires about 13 rounds/second. Your 250 rounds/second is pure fantasy for anything short of GE Mini-gun.

No, I was answering to your posting which inferred that Lanza’s Mother should not have owned firearms.

 

[BroIgnatius]

And please don’t respond with some version of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Guns do kill people.

When is the last time you saw, or heard about, a gun walking down the street and shooting people? Or a gun pointing itself at someone and firing?

I think there is a human being shooting the gun, the gun us just along for the ride forced to do what its master desires.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

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?

Yes, I’m supportive of the 2nd Amendment, though maybe the restrictions on some firearms such as machine guns are not unreasonable.

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

I’m not sure what “universal” means. If all mental illness is precluded than I’m not in favor since I feel I could handle a hand gun and I’m diagnosed depressive with anxiety. Those who suffer delusions and paranoia, however, may be more dangerous if allowed access.

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

Certainly not.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Legitimate self defense is not only a right but a grave duty. I therefore support the rights of all citizens to use firearms to carry out that duty.

 

[christofirst]

Legitimate self defense is not only a right but a grave duty

The Catechism (CCC # 2265) says, “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family, or of the state.” (emphasis mine on the word “can”) If you were using this section of the Catechism as the basis for your statement, you added the word “self” and made it sound to me like an absolute necessity for all by leaving out that word “can.” The example of recent martyrs like Archbishop Romero and those revered by the Church who have renounced recourse to violence certainly shows that self defense is not necessarily a Christian duty.

 

[joeybaggz]

All great, intelligent, well thought out posts supporting the right to an unlimited, anything goes right to own any kind of firearm available.

Tell that to the people in Las Vegas!

Nuff said…

 

[Duesenberg]

All great, intelligent, well thought out posts supporting the right to an unlimited, anything goes right to own any kind of firearm available.

Tell that to the people in Las Vegas!

Nuff said…

No, not “nuff said.”

Tell the people in Las Vegas that instead of really taking on this issue and tackling extremely difficult issues like mental health and the harsh prosecution of people who commit crimes with firearms or break existing federal firearms laws, the politicos are yammering for more “gun control” that wouldn’t have done a darned thing other than act as a wedge issue that might bring them more votes the next election.

Tell them the truth.

 

[Duesenberg]

Yes, I’m supportive of the 2nd Amendment, though maybe the restrictions on some firearms such as machine guns are not unreasonable.

Strict control of machine guns has been in place since 1934. They were further toughened in 1986.

I’m not sure what “universal” means. If all mental illness is precluded than I’m not in favor since I feel I could handle a hand gun and I’m diagnosed depressive with anxiety. Those who suffer delusions and paranoia, however, may be more dangerous if allowed access.

“Universal” means ALL guns. That includes the 1908 .22 rifle that was first purchased by your g-g-uncle that you’ve owned for many years and hope to pass down to one of your children once day.

 

[joeybaggz]

Tell them the truth.

I’ve said this before to you in this thread and I’ll say it again, Your argument for unfettered, unlimited access to any type of firearm is the same argument the pro-choic/pro-abortion crowd uses for unlimited and unfettered access to abortion at any time during a pregnancy. You may say is isn’t the same issue, but your basic logic of “no restrictions of any kind” is the same old tired song.

I’m tired of you and your arguments. You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. Please, bother someone else.

 

[Duesenberg]

I’ve said this before to you in this thread and I’ll say it again, Your argument for unfettered, unlimited access to any type of firearm is the same argument the pro-choic/pro-abortion crowd uses for unlimited and unfettered access to abortion at any time during a pregnancy. You may say is isn’t the same issue, but your basic logic of “no restrictions of any kind” is the same old tired song.

I’m tired of you and your arguments. You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. Please, bother someone else.

You’re “tired” because what you bring to the table won’t make any difference whatsoever. It might make you and others feel good – as if you were actually doing something but in reality it’s nothing more than noise. That noise is not only tiresome, it also prevents real progress from being made.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

“Universal” means ALL guns. That includes the 1908 .22 rifle that was first purchased by your g-g-uncle that you’ve owned for many years and hope to pass down to one of your children once day.

Thanks, D, for your clarification. In that case, I am not in favor of “universal” gun control.

For heaven’s sake, an unarmed populace is easily overtaken by an armed government. Don’t tread on me.

 

[joeybaggz]

You’re “tired” because what you bring to the table won’t make any difference whatsoever. It might make you and others feel good – as if you were actually doing something but in reality it’s nothing more than noise. That noise is not only tiresome, it also prevents real progress from being made.

The noise that is tiresome is the sound of gunshots and lead tearing through human flesh. What else is tiresome is the sight of pictures on the internet of beautiful young women, children, soldiers, and common decent good people who are victims of the carnage that guns kill.

I am not for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I want hunters to have their rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes, I want single women, the elderly, and all others to have their legally owned and registered firearms for personal protection, and I don’t mind collectors having any kind of firearm for collecting purposes, assuming it is rendered inoperable.

But know one thing. Constitutional amendments can be repealed. It has been done before. The desperate arguments of the lunatic fringe of the NRA and 2nd amendment supporters isn’t going to hold up much longer as more and more pictures of children and innocent victims of the NRA supported crazies like Paddock, Lanza, the moron at VA Tech, and the two kids at Columbine add more and more victims of their insanity to the internet photo albums of the dead and dying.

Read the comments. Many NRA members and supporters are saying that they would support restrictions on certain types of firearms. If the sensible members of the NRA realize the need to keep combat assault rifles out of the hands of the public, image what those against firearms completely feel.

You have the freedom to drive a car. Your freedom to do 125mph in a school zone is restricted. Why don’t you rail against that?

Guns kill people, don’t deny it. What came from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay was not knives, baseball bats, tire irons, chains, or piano wire. 500 wounded, and you are still arguing for the unfettered proliferation of any type of firearm? Ponderous man, ponderous.

 

[Duesenberg]

The noise that is tiresome is the sound of gunshots and lead tearing through human flesh. What else is tiresome is the sight of pictures on the internet of beautiful young women, children, soldiers, and common decent good people who are victims of the carnage that guns kill.

Wrong. People kill. Someone pulled the triggers.

I am not for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I want hunters to have their rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes…

That’s good because it’s not going to happen. That would be the honorable way to control guns, rather than the hideous, highly ineffective, piecemeal, state-by-state gun control we have now.

But know one thing. Constitutional amendments can be repealed. It has been done before…

Just how are you going to amend the 2A? You’re simply not telling the truth when you post “the NRA supported crazies like Paddock, Lanza, the moron at VA Tech, and the two kids at Columbine.” The NRA has become the boogieman scapegoat for people like you desperate to blame someone or something.

Read the comments. Many NRA members and supporters are saying that they would support restrictions on certain types of firearms…

Like what exactly? We have tons of “gun control” here in California and in many other states and it doesn’t do squat. “Combat assault rifles” are select fire machine guns by definition. They have been under very tight federal control since 1934. The shooter in LV didn’t use any. Just exactly what do you propose?

You have the freedom to drive a car. Your freedom to do 125mph in a school zone is restricted…

Because in the USA it’s a privilege to own and operate a motor vehicle and no one is about to ban that privilege unless the driver actually does something illegal. Keeping and bearing firearms on the other hand is a God-given, constitutionally-protected right and there are plenty of people (including politicos) salivating at the chance to take that right away.

Guns kill people, don’t deny it. What came from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay was not knives, baseball bats, tire irons, chains, or piano wire…

You’re flat-out wrong. People kill people and they use a variety of means. From their bare hands, to trucks, to gun, to knives, etc.

There’s one thing you clearly don’t grasp. Gun control does not work! There is already tons on the books. There is also a mountain of hard evidence that shows without a doubt that it does not work! California has a boatload of both ridiculous and draconian gun control. It does nothing except except citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[joeybaggz]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/3bc359/40.png[/IMG] joeybaggz:

Guns kill people, don’t deny it. What came from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay was not knives, baseball bats, tire irons, chains, or piano wire…

You’re flat-out wrong. People kill people and they use a variety of means. From their bare hands, to trucks, to gun, to knives, etc.

There’s one thing you clearly don’t grasp. Gun control does not work! There is already tons on the books. There is also a mountain of hard evidence that shows without a doubt that it does not work! California has a boatload of both ridiculous and draconian gun control. It does nothing except except citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

As usual, you just don’t get it. First, the right to own a firearm has nothing to do with God. It isn’t a God given right. It is a law made by men and can be repealed by men.

Second, guns do kill people. How can anybody deny that fact? Personally, I think there are a lot of people who wish Paddock had used knives or baseball bats FROM THE 32nd FLOOR!!!. (of Mandalay Bay) I don’t think the body count would have been as high. Do you?\

Though you don’t want to face reality, a few more of these incidents where the body count is even greater, or maybe just another first grade class in another elementary school, and there isn’t goiing to be a lawmaker who will stay in office fighting for the 2nd amendment right to own any kind of automatic combat assault rifle, full auto, or modified semi made to kill en masse. The groundswell against the 2nd amendment is growing, whether you like it or not.

I own a 9mm. I keep it in the house for protection against home invasion. I want the right to keep that gun, but I see it being taken away by the authorities if this mass killing continues. You can argue all you want for the right to own anything you want, it won’t matter because politicians want to keep their jobs, and a few more of these incidents and they will either vote for far more Draconian measure than you have now, or they will be out of office.

 

[Duesenberg]

As usual, you just don’t get it. First, the right to own a firearm has nothing to do with God. It isn’t a God given right. It is a law made by men and can be repealed by men.

Sure it does. We all have a God-given right to self-protection. That means (among other things) the right to keep and bear arms. The Fathers of the US felt it necessary (thanks be to God!) to give this God-given right constitutional protection.

Like it or not, additional gun control measures aren’t going to do one darned thing to prevent gun violence in the USA other than to allow some politicians to score political points with their supporters. You loathe to face that face, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed a fact.

All talks of gun control do are take the spotlight off the real reasons behind mass shootings.

 

[BeautifulLife17]

Thank you for that Duesenburg! Your version of “common sense” is the kind worth having and the kind that most people need a lot more of.

 

[BeautifulLife17]

joeybaggz, would a ban on guns have kept Paddock from killing that night? He obviously wasn’t afraid of breaking the law, as evidenced by the fact that he shot hundreds of people. Since he wanted to kill and injure, he would have found a way to get guns. Criminals always do. The only thing that would change with a gun ban/heavy gun restriction would be that law-abiding citizens would largely or completely lose the ability to defend themselves. Criminals are such because they break the law; they will not stop breaking the law because there are more laws than before. A ban on automatic weapons (there are already huge restrictions) is not going to stop someone bent on obtaining one from doing so, especially if they are already planning on breaking the law. Again, a gun ban and heavy gun restrictions negatively impact only the law-abiding citizens. Criminals are still criminals, and law-abiding citizens need a way to defend themselves.