Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right

[gilliam]

Zimbabwe Changed My Mind: Guns Are A Human Right

by Joe Katzman on June 10, 2005 11:48 AM

As many of you know, I’m from Canada. We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car.

Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right. A month ago in Yalta, Freedom & The Future, I wrote:

“Frankly, if “stopping… societies from becoming the homicidal hells Mr. Bush described in his Latvia speech” is our goal, I’m becoming more sympathetic to the Right to Bear Arms as a universal human right on par with freedom of speech and religion. U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice’s personal experience as a child in Birmingham [Alabama] adds an interesting dimension; I hope she talks about this abroad.”

This week, I took the last step. You can thank Robert Mugabe, too, because it was his campaign to starve his political/tribal opponents and Pol-Pot style “ruralization” effort (200,000 left homeless recently in a population of 12.6 million) that finally convinced me. Here’s the crux, the argument before which all other arguments pale into insignificance:

The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.

And Zimbabwe is the poster child for that proposition. So let’s start with what’s going on:

• Zimbabwe’s Slo-Mo Genocide
• Bystanders of the World
• The Dynamics of (In)Action
• Or Else Get Weapons: The Right to Bear Arms

[read the rest! »

](http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006986.php#006986)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve carried a gun all my life – and never committed a crime. But I’ve prevented at least two crimes.

The right to self defense is inherent in the right to life. If you are deprived of the means of self defense, that right becomes meaningless – and hence the right to life itself becomes null.

 

[Isidore_AK]

When no one else will defend you, the right to bear arms allows you to defend yourself.

I know its usually taken as a joke,
But I’d rather have a gun in my hand, then a cop on the phone.

People don’t realize that the police are not there to protect you, they are there to preserve civil order. They only respond after a crime is commited, and until that point, can do nothing to prevent it from happening. And if the ‘powers that be’ are decidedly against you…

 

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

I’ve carried a gun all my life – and never committed a crime. But I’ve prevented at least two crimes.

The right to self defense is inherent in the right to life. If you are deprived of the means of self defense, that right becomes meaningless – and hence the right to life itself becomes null.

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

---

---

Hummm…

 

[mlchance]

walstan:

Hummm…

Indeed.

35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Hummm…

Luke 22, 36

**36 ****He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. **Hummm…

As I have pointed out before, Jesus said if someone slaps you on one cheek you should turn the other. He did NOT say if someone rapes and murders your wife, you should stand by while he does likewise with your daughter.

In fact, the Church agrees with me. From the Catechism:

**2263 **The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

**2264 **Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

 

[walstan]

mlchance:

Indeed.

35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

– Mark L. Chance.

Try the expositor’s biblical commentary from Zondervan before placing too much interpretation on these types of comments.

**

35-38

This short passage is difficult to interpret. The difficulties lie in (1) the syntax of v. 36 (cf. Notes); (2) the problem of Jesus’ apparent support for using weapons, which is hard to reconcile with his word to Peter when the latter used the sword (Matt 26:52); and (3) the seeming reversal of the instructions Jesus gave the Twelve and the seventy-two on their missions (9:1-3; 10:1-3). Thus there is a question as to which principle regarding the use of force is normative for the church.
It is common to solve difficulties (2) and (3) by taking Jesus’ words as ironical. But if that were so, v. 38b–“That is enough”–would be hard to understand; for it would seem to continue the irony when one would have expected a correction of the disciples’ misunderstanding of it. Any approach to a solution must take into account the fact that later, when the disciples were armed with these swords, Jesus opposed their use (vv. 49-51). Moreover, the tone of v. 52 is nonmilitant. Verse 36 clearly refers back to 10:4, the sending of the seventy-two; both passages mention the “purse” (ballantion) and the “bag” (pera). (See also the sending of the Twelve in 9:1-6, where the bag is mentioned, but not the purse.) Here in v. 35 there seems to be an affirmation of those principles in the question “Did you lack anything?” Yet a contrast is also clearly intended. That contrast may imply that Jesus’ earlier instructions were a radical statement applicable only to discipleship during his lifetime. On the other hand, however, it more likely indicates, not a reversal of normal rules for the church’s mission, but an exception in a time of crisis (cf. “but now,” alla nyn). Jesus is not being ironic but thoroughly serious. Since he told them not to buy more swords than they had (v. 38), and since two were hardly enough to defend the group, the swords may simply be a vivid symbol of impending crisis, not intended for actual use.
**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

walstan:

Try the expositor’s biblical commentary from Zondervan before placing too much interpretation on these types of comments.

---

Zondervan is a Protestant publishing house. Last time I checked, Catholics usually do not consult Protestants as to what Catholics are supposed to believe or may believe. I’m not being arrogant or triumphalistic. I just wouldn’t cite Zondervan.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

vern humphrey:

As I have pointed out before, Jesus said if someone slaps you on one cheek you should turn the other. He did NOT say if someone rapes and murders your wife, you should stand by while he does likewise with your daughter.

.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A gun is an inanimated object. It can be used for good or evil. It can be used to take a life or to save a life. Jesus, Himself, instructed His followers to protect themselves when He encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27 – a plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a handgun is today.

St. Thomas Aquinas was quoted as saying “And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; (ST II, 40)”

I, also, refer you to Part 3, Section II, Chapter 2, Article V, Paragraphs 2264-2265 of the “Official Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church” which says that “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. 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 community.”

St. Gabriel Possenti used a pistol to defend the village his seminary was located in from marauding Garibaldi soldiers (he was a noted marksman prior to entering the seminary). As such, he is OFFICIALLY recognized by the Catholic Church as the Patron Saint of those who use handguns.

Based on the words of the Holy Father in the Catholic Catechism, the words of scripture, and the example of the saints, it is clear to me that Catholics not only have a right but a DUTY to be able to defend & protest themselves and their families. The use of force is a holy thing in defense of the innocent and/or the helpless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sir Knight:

Based on the words of the Holy Father in the Catholic Catechism, the words of scripture, and the example of the saints, it is clear to me that Catholics not only have a right but a DUTY to be able to defend & protest themselves and their families. The use of force is a holy thing in defense of the innocent and/or the helpless.

And he who is unequipped to defend himself and his family fails in his Catholic duty.

 

[catsrus]

it is clear to me that Catholics not only have a right but a DUTY to be able to defend & protest themselves and their families. The use of force is a holy thing

So now it’s my DUTY as a Catholic to to use force because it’s a “holy” thing to do so? Well, off I go to Confession for not doing my DUTY to protect me and mine because I refuse to have WMDs under my roof.
And, BTW, owning a gun is NOT a “human right”. Last I understood, it’s an American right by way of the 2nd ammendment.

 

[gilliam]

catsrus:

So now it’s my DUTY as a Catholic to to use force because it’s a “holy” thing to do so? Well, off I go to Confession for not doing my DUTY to protect me and mine because I refuse to have WMDs under my roof.
And, BTW, owning a gun is NOT a “human right”. Last I understood, it’s an American right by way of the 2nd ammendment.

If you are in a position of responsibility for the protection of life, it is your duty to protect that life. If your only choice is to use force to protect that life, than yes it is your DUTY as a Catholic to use force. From the Catechism.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

catsrus:

So now it’s my DUTY as a Catholic to to use force because it’s a “holy” thing to do so?

You do indeed have a duty to protect yourself and your family.

catsrus:

Well, off I go to Confession for not doing my DUTY to protect me and mine because I refuse to have WMDs under my roof.

The downside of playing the fool is that people may think you’re not playing.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

catsrus:

And, BTW, owning a gun is NOT a “human right”. Last I understood, it’s an American right by way of the 2nd ammendment.

The Bill of Rights recognizes (it doesn’t “grant”) human rights. The right to life is a fundamental right, that accrues to ALL humans, not just Americans.

The right to self-defense (and the duty to defend oneself and family) is inherent in the right to life.

 

[HagiaSophia]

51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

---

---

Hummm…

Where does that leave St. Michael do you think? Constantine after all conquered by the sign of the cross and as I recall the freeing of Europe from the Moorish invaders was done in battle under the sign of OL of Guadalupe. Our Lady of Victory and rosary devotions were promulgated as a result.

 

[Shinobu]

Isidore_AK:

When no one else will defend you, the right to bear arms allows you to defend yourself.

I know its usually taken as a joke,
But I’d rather have a gun in my hand, then a cop on the phone.

People don’t realize that the police are not there to protect you, they are there to preserve civil order. They only respond after a crime is commited, and until that point, can do nothing to prevent it from happening. And if the ‘powers that be’ are decidedly against you…

but isn’t their motto “To serve and protect”?. I don’t want to carry a gun and I don’t want anyone else to either. If I really fear for myself I can carry mace or something. Why can’t we just carry tazer guns or whatever, things that won’t kill people, but just immobilize them for a good bit. Besides it doesn’t really matter, if some guy is heavily on drugs he may not even feel a gun shot or even care.

I don’t want to kill a person, even if it is to save my life. I just couldn’t live with that.

 

[gilliam]

Shinobu:

I don’t want to kill a person, even if it is to save my life. I just couldn’t live with that.

What about to save your kid’s life?

 

[Shinobu]

gilliam:

What about to save your kid’s life?

Use a tazer or use mace. Why do you guys assume that we must kill the person? There is a myriad of tools we can use that DON’T kill a person.

People in Japan aren’t allowed to own guns. They have the safest streets in the world. (Though I’m not saying they are a model nation)

 

[gilliam]

Shinobu:

Use a tazer or use mace. Why do you guys assume that we must kill the person? There is a myriad of tools we can use that DON’T kill a person.

People in Japan aren’t allowed to own guns. They have the safest streets in the world. (Though I’m not saying they are a model nation)

Have you ever used a tazer against a squad of soldiers? You need to read the article.

 

[Shinobu]

gilliam:

Have you ever used a tazer against a squad of soldiers? You need to read the article.

If I’m up against a squad of soldiers I don’t think a gun is going to take them all out. Should we all own semi-automatic rifles?

Zimbabwe has alot more problems then that.