Nice bit of generalisation and Brit bashing there presumably because my opinion is different from yours.
Most British people would say the same thing about guns and the US.
I am speaking in the code words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which defines a unique role for legitimate authority (i.e. Government) to do some things which individuals may not morally do on their own.
Only a reaction to your generalization and Yank bashing and a reaction to your unfounded opinion. And OBW, what I said is provably historically true, which I think is why Brits get their backs up when it gets mentioned. Brits seem to feel free to bash America, but if an American criticizes them it is not “politically correct.” I get tired of this “we are the master race of the English language” thing. Piers Morgan comes to mind. You guys will all be speaking Arabic soon anyway.
Thanks. You demonstrated my point perfectly. You admit you don’t know about something fundamental, but you are OK with that.
You mean like burning at the stake?
I do admire and respect her personally (not that I’ve met her). I respect her person but not the office she holds.
I think that a large part of the reason she still holds her position is exactly because of how she has handled it for the past 60+ years. Someone of lesser character would be living on some island somewhere and known as “the former and last queen of England before the monarchy was abolished.” I’m serious about that, it’s not an exaggeration. I think her strength of character has literally kept the monarchy in place, especially outside of Britain itself.
I realize that.
You don’t have our collective experience.
Not just the experience of fighting for independence 200 years ago, but also the present day experience of being raised around firearms as a normal part of our everyday lives.
Trust me, there’s a ton that non-Americans don’t grasp about your chosen form of government either. Limiting your head of government to eight years in office for one, which discourages any genuinely long-term thinking or planning. Having an elected and therefore partisam head of state for another.
What is your point? That government is dangerous and should not be given authority to punish? That is contrary to Catholic teaching, which holds that the authority of government comes ultimately from God.
Punish? or defend? or protect?
Progressives can’t even sleep at night knowing you have your freedom. The first thing they think about every morning is how they can control you. Lust for power is their lifeblood.
If you can’t get the point of my post, I doubt I can explain it to you. You’re not capable of understanding it.
I wrote “punish” and that is exactly what I meant.
Discuss the issues. Do not denigrate others on this forum.
Would that include the right to heavy armor and munitions, or does that too sound arbitrary? I think there is something said for the argument to the absurd when what is wanted is the right, not just to self-defense, but to have an equally absurd ability to release dozens, and even hundreds of rounds in what is called self-defense. The question is not whether any proposal is arbitrary, but is there a principle whereby individuals can defend themselves with less than the military carries.
Self-defense is a natural right. How that is defined is not, and really makes no sense to think in those terms when it comes to specifics. So in addition to this principle, the Catholic Church through her bishops is giving other principles, such as the safety of the common good, that must also be considered.
It is only my opinion, but I do not consider the limitation on firepower arbitrary. I can give a reason for it. Self-defense should be limited to what is likely to happen, and that in which the actions of self-defense is not going to call more evil than good. If a man shoots at you, or threatens, then you would have the right to shoot back. If he did so in a room full of children, you would not have the right to either toss a grenade, or spray the whole room with lead in self-defense.
Sure, prepare for defense, but to define this as the ability to repel an army or a zombie apocalypse is not reasonable, in my opinion.
I’m just telling it like it is and I just checked my list of people I take direction from. You weren’t on it.
Those really were the good old days when we had rules.
The better days were when people minded their own business and didn’t get their jollies out of controlling everyone else.
Yes,I think I get what you are saying.
If both were the same,those countries whose people have chosen to hand in the power of order and defense to our military,police etc, would mean we have been deprived of an individual" right" .if we do not all have access to guns.
And this isn t so…
Is this what you are saying,Leaf?