Well said. It reveals the political deceit in the term “assault rifles”.
There is no specific firearm that a person has a God-given right to have.
There is no God-given right for the general population to own firearms for the purpose of national or family defense.
The CC has had redundant opportunities to speak about gun buyback being an intrinsic evil. It has a grave moral obligation to do so if it is the case. That has never happened in the many countries that reduced or removed firearms from the population pool. Differences of opinion exist on this, but generally, Catholics and Catholic clergy support at minimum moderate gun restrictions. Only 3 countries in the world have armaments written in their constitution; if there was a God-given right to it, the CC would be throwing red flags up all over the place.
It is not caving under secular pressure to an intrinsic evil. That is metaphysically impossible. If it didn’t cave to contraception, it’s not going to cave to anything else. I think we’ve seen in action the immunity of the Church to public whims.
I’m going to unsubscribe from the thread now. Thank you to all who have talked with me.
The BEST gun control is the well formed conscience of the residents.
The CATHOLIC CHURCH (and other churches) need to constantly reinforce among their congregants the need for a developed conscience.
You just don’t go around killing your fellow residents.
If you do not believe I need a firearm for family defense, who should I rely on to protect me?
I have spent DECADES begging my pastors to TEACH Catholic doctrine on respecting life, on behaving well, on Jesus’ words.
They have all said that they are not permitted to teach.
If the Catholic Church emphasized the basics, people would have some idea … but now the people in the pews are clueless.
Antifa was endorsed by the left? The whole left? Everyone? I didn’t know “the left” was that monolithic, but ok.
As to what “resistance group” Hillary Clinton is supporting, I have no idea.
Why are you asking me? I didn’t bring Clinton into this conversation.
Oh, my goodness, just google obama resistance … many articles … many many articles.
Do the reading … my goodness … how can anyone deny what is going on with Hillary and Obama funding and organizing the resistance.
30,000 people organized to resist.
Read FrDavid96’s proposal. It involved target shooting.
The argument over gun rights is an argument for specific firearms, otherwise everyone would be satisfied with an air rifle. But no, they want the Series Four De-atomizer.
Join the NRA and learn what they really teach and preach. Attend some of their functions. Otherwise, you are dealing with second hand information.
[I assume you realize that the Series Four De-atomizer is so yesterday.]
Actually, it is not. Not in the long run. Last year Secretary Clinton invoked the Australian model, which was a confiscation. So the issue is much broader than specific arms. Additionally, the arms being targeted are semi-automatics. Just go back and read this, other threads, and the national debate. A huge percentage of firearms owned by civilians are semi-automatic.
Yes, but that movie was so much better than the sequels.
That’s the problem … our anti-gun people are living in fantasy land.
God gave us free will and the ability to get together for mutual protection instead of railing at the moon and wishing for some sci-fi movie to be real.
God is real, but you have to pray to Him.
The generic right to defense would include the ability to amount a successful defense against those who are intending evil.
An example would be the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943. The Jews obtained and used machine guns. That was contrary to the civil law, that denied them arms at all. But all would call that a legitimate defense. If they obtained tanks, that too would have been legitimate self defense.
So, yes, the natural right of self defense can include the possession and use of machine guns, if that is what is reasonably necessary to defend against that attacker.
The right to defense can include having more ‘firepower’ than your attacker. A 90 year old lady could legitimately use a handgun, rifle or shotgun to oppose a 20 year old, 220 lbs attacker with a baseball bat. Or an adult male could legitimately use a semi automatic rifle against a group of knife wielding attackers.
The natural right of defense includes all of that. Any reasonable person would agree that criminals in the US are well armed. Ergo, the natural right of defense would include firearms, firearms capable of deterring or countering the types of attacks that one might encounter.
The AR-15 is the perfect home defense gun for women. Virtually no recoil, very little sound … so no startle factor, short stock and easy to handle in a home hallway, large magazine so plenty of ammo with which to confront a home invader.
How about “sweeping machete control measures”? The problem is not the choice of weapon but the hate in the one who wills to employ it.
See Mat 5:21-22.
In the lead-up to the genocide the number of machetes imported into Rwanda increased.
(The Machete". Imaging Genocide. Michigan State University. 2 October 2016.)
That example does not prove your point. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was justified under a different provision of the Catechism, namely section 2243. In fact the legitimacy of gun control is affirmed in section 2316, which I quote here (bolding mine):
The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
I don’t want government telling me what healthcare I should have, when and if I should have, and taking my money for the "privilege ".
I do want schools to teach fire safety, how to safely buckle up in a car, to sit while on the bus, safe bicycle practices, and safety around firearms.
I don’t want schools teaching that firearms shouldn’t be a right,or that guns are bad, or that a pastry nibbled into the shape of a gun is an offense at all, much less one worthy of suspending a seven year old.
It is a problem when hate is employed, but the size of the ensuing problem is affected by the weapon in hand. A person with hate and an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a person with hate and a machete. Also our nation is not flooded with machetes.