Do you support the second amendment?


Please lay off the red herrings.
The Justine Ruszczyk story has zero relevance to the scenario offered by Cath13, which I responded to.


The relevance is that using guns for self defense runs a big risk of shooting an innocent victim.


Cath13 was referencing homeowners protecting their property,
How is that remotely related to the police executing a routine engagement with a citizen?
Your example might be good in a BLM discussion, depending on her color.


My example could not have anything to do with color. The police didn’t even get a look at her. The relevance to Cath13’s objection is that if the police, who are supposed to be well trained, could make such a mistake, surely a private gun owner could make a mistake and shoot someone who did not need to be shot.


So really, anyone who get’s hurt by any device works for you as a broad example of the need for increased mandatory training on said device.

In your example you are saying the police shot at someone they didn’t even see??? That breaks the basic rules of gun safety taught to every 12yr old learning to shoot. The cop had had that training.


So what makes you think that all gun owners are going to be better trained than cops? Training in a nice safe environment like a classroom or a gun range is one thing. How someone behaves when they feel fear is quite another.


That is a sad story, but the circumstances are abnormal and don’t indicate an increased risk to people canvassing their parish, using the front door and doorbell (not a basement window)


Nobody is saying there will be perfection, and it’s ridiculous to compare the work of a cop with what a homeowner experiences.

Your line of reason only indicates cops shouldn’t be armed because they occasionally make mistakes that result in death. I could apply the same reasoning to EMTs, Firemen, Doctors etc. They have all made mistakes that are contrary to their training. We don’t thus take away the tools of their profession.


It is not ridiculous to draw the conclusion I did from the comparison.

There are several points that make the cops experience and the private citizen experience different. One is that the cop has lots more formal training. The Justine Ruszczyk case notwithstanding, cops on average make few mistakes like that. Private citizens without that level training are likely to err more often. If we eliminated all armed police, crime would have nothing standing in its way. The same cannot be said of arming private citizens. Even without help from private citizens, there would still be the police to stand in the way of crime.

The analogies are too different to apply the same conclusion. And my logic does not take guns away from cops either. Although I will note that many of the tools Doctors use are not permitted for average citizens.



(in a sampling from just the past several posts of hers (his?) beginning with post 1954 . . . .)

They have medication for Paranoia.

And . . .

NRA guys need to take a double dose of that.


And . . .

trying to have a debate with you is, “as much fun as throwing cow (dung) at the village idiot”!


And . . .

. . . Jeez, I know the 14 year old was not a church volunteer and it was a black family–so that may not count as much . . .


To readers of this thread.

Please remember the way some of these people think, that want to TAKE AWAY YOUR Constitutional Rights.

They think THEY know better than you what is correct for you.

Just read the responses and draw your own conclusions.


In post 1746 I suggested creative judges or DA’s, if the laws are loosely worded enough, will RE-DEFINE Dad’s who get their 12 year old son his first shotgun which is a venerable American tradition, as a . . . “straw-purchaser” (that’d be a manufactured non-criminal [before] new “FELON” to all interested).

In post 1879 I talked about the malignant potential of people in Government RE-DEFINING laws after passage of those laws were pushed through using benign rhetoric as the proverbial carrot.

I talked about politicians and creative judges are in a unique situation to pull this stunt.

I gave a REAL EXAMPLE and QUOTED an actual California Legislative bill that ADMITS wanting to CHANGE the definition of a High Capacity Magazine and an “ASSAULT RIFLE”!

I was derided, and told of the virtual zero likelihood that this would occur, along with a big serving-up of personal insults against me. Paranoid and all that. (despite me quoting from the Legislative text itself proving what I said).

Well what do you know?!

Now Senator Feinstein wants to criminalize anyone who even wants to borrow your rifle as a FELON!

  • Your buddy using your gun at the range because he/she is thinking of getting one . . .

  • You son who wants to use Dad’s gun to dispatch another day-time (suggests rabid) skunk in the yard . . .

  • Your brother-in-law using your Remington 870 on in AM duck hunt because he cannot get the part he needs from Benelli to use his own shotgun in time.


Now they CAN’T even borrow your firearms (At least “some” of them if this Feinstein Bill passes).

People who want to loan their firearm to their brother, friend, etc. CAN get around this “infringement” against their rights with an expensive NICS background check.

NICS checks frequently are drawn out ten days for no good reason to the permitted purchaser (who often already owns other firearms).

When the Government began this NICS monstrosity; we were promised this check and “OK” for law-abiding citizens would be virtually instantaneous.

That’s even what the “I” in “NICS” stands for—“instantaneous”.

Bill Clinton’s administration frequently drew an “instantaneous” check out . . . . . TEN DAYS! (Obama did some of this too)

And remember, YOU PAY money for this NICS check for a gun borrower (just like you do now when purchasing a fire arm from a gun dealer).

I predicted these issues and abuses out and said they would expand. (But even I did not expect my prophecy to be fulfilled quite so soon)


I warned that this sort of thing would happen.

(But even I did not expect my warning to be showcased by the gun-grabbers quite so soon)

How did the gun control fanatics take my warning in earlier posts?

(And how do you think they will respond now?)

Did they say: “Well THAT will be prescient Cathoholic!”
Did they opine: “Maybe, maybe not.”
Did they assert: “Yeah true. Cathoholic you already gave at least one explicit legislative example so I guess you are right.”

OR. . . .

Or do you think they will give a smattering of more phony assurances, or maybe a little name-calling because after all, why stop now?

Or perhaps utter denial (nothing is really going to happen).

Or possibly silence.

(I’d be embarrassed too if I ripped Cathoholic and others here yet these proposals that the gun-grabbers summarily dismissed several days ago came about only a week later (at least in its attempt)!


HOW will they NOW respond?

With derision and personal attacks? More reassurances? Silence?

Again . . .

Now Diane Feinstein wants to RE-DEFINE brothers and sisters and friends and parents who borrow a gun as . . . FELONS.

Felons UNLESS they go through an “instant” background check that the gun owner who onerously pays for unnecessary NICS checks in this paradigm (often about $40.00 per NIC check possibly more or less depending upon your location).

Now this DID happen at least by proposal this time (with delicious timing by Senator Feinstein) . . .

Now HOW are the gun-grabbers going to respond?

How are the gun-grabbers going to respond now that Senator Feinstein has thrown off the mask and jumped out of the proverbial jack-in-the-box with yet another attack against good, honest law abiding gun owning US Citizens?

An action they said just days ago was pie in the sky.
An attack on law-abiding citizens that the gun-grabbers here said was “paranoia” mere several dozens of posts ago?
An attack and a smattering of other name-calling against people who hold fast their Constitutional Rights (and correctly saw this coming).

Do you think the gun-grabbers are going to say . . . .

  1. Well I am so sorry Cathoholic. You were clearly right and I was wrong. They DID introduce just what you said they PROBABLY WOULD. I will no longer trust these dishonest politicians and will take a refreshed look at our venerable Constitution.
  2. No comment and continue down the gun-grab path and also continue to (falsely) re-assure voters that they think the Second Amendment is in good hands.
  3. EVEN MORE derision and EVEN MORE name-calling even though they knew or at least now know that I was correct.

I guess we will have to see.


I predicted these issues and abuses and said they would expand (at least if the gun-grabbers get their way).

Here is Senator Feinstein introducing MORE onerous gun legislation (that I referred to in my 2 prior posts) meant to incrementally do away with the definition of the Second Amendment . . . yet again.

Dianne Feinstein’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: Prison Time for Loaning AR-15 to a Friend

by AWR Hawkins14 Nov 2017

The “assault weapons” ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and about two dozen other Democrats could mean prison time for anyone who loans an AR-15 rifle to a friend.
She introduced her ban on November 8. . . .

As is typical for gun control introduced by Feinstein, her “assault weapons” ban does much more than ban assault weapons.
It also bans “high capacity” magazines and bump stocks, and creates a punitive system whereby AR-15 owners could face prison time for loaning their rifle to a friend.
According to the NRA-ILA, owners of “grandfathered” AR-15s would have to seek out a Federal Firearms License holder (FFL) and have their friend undergo a background check in order to legally loan the gun…
Data of the transaction would be recorded on the backside of that transaction, thereby contributing to the compilation of a gun owner’s database.
. . . .It should be noted that the Texas church attacker did not acquire his guns by borrowing them from a friend but by passing background checks.

One commenter said:

Feinstein is over 80 years old and still trying to tell people how to live their lives.


Feinstein removed one of her assignments from her resume. Because she funneled military contracts to her husband.


Without evidence that this is likely, that is a straw man argument. You are supposing something terrible may happen and then arguing how terrible that would be.




Without evidence that this is likely, that is a straw man argument.

Thanks for the reassurances LeafbyNiggle.

Supporters of the Constitution everywhere can now be at ease.


You’ve all misinterpreted what the founders meant by the right to “bear arms”.

Allow me to clarify;


laugh out loud…


Another supporter of the Constitution here was also derided on this thread when he (she?) warned about the potential for gun confiscation. (If I recall correctly it was this thread)

One of our Constitutional supporters here immediately pointed out that the issue is real and mentioned forced gun confiscation against Americans of Japanese heritage as well as against American Indians.

Now it seems MORE gun-confiscation ideas are surfacing.

This time, ABC NEWS is pushing the idea . . .

ABC News: Firearm Confiscation Orders Part of Solution to Mass Public Attacks

AWR HAWKINS 11 Nov. 2017 Breitbart News Service

Senate Democrats pushed nine different gun controls during the past six weeks, and ABC News has now emerged with a tenth gun law which they suggest may be the ringer.

That law would legalize firearm confiscation orders like those in Washington state. Such orders allow a judge to issue an ex parte order for the confiscation of an American’s firearms. This means the order can be issued without the firearm owner even being present for the process. His or her first knowledge of the order would come when police knocked on their door to sweep the house for firearms. . . .

How a temporary restraining order for guns could help stop mass shootings

By ANDY FIES Nov 9, 2017, 1:11 PM ET ABC NEWS

One relatively unknown tool for stopping gun violence may soon get a lot more attention.

An Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) empowers family members and police to take guns away from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. The person’s access to firearms is blocked until they can demonstrate that the risk is over. Essentially, ERPOs are a temporary restraining order for guns. . . .
. . . “There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step (emphasis mine) we should be taking . .
. . . These measures, said Alfred, have “overcome a lot the Second Amendment legal and political concerns.” . . .

I also see ABC News changed the link title (“The tool that could help stop mass shootings”) from the article title ("How a temporary restraining order for guns could help stop mass shootings").


This is nothing more than an end run around due process and the presumption of innocence.
For those who look for fascism under every rock, this is it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit