Should a catholic support GUN RIGHTS?


Turns out to be interesting thread (s).

There are two highly conflated threads. This one is titled "Should a catholic [small c] support GUN RIGHTS? [All caps]. My view has been subtly altered. My initial thoughts were, of course we Catholics [upper case] should support rights that uphold the dignity of life. Rights [lower case] are rights. But after a bunch of replies, what I see is those supporting control of some sort have provided reasonable responses, and those supporting no control have been wildly, in my opinion, unreasonable.

Since a question starting with Should a, implicitly asks for opinion, my opinion is now trending towards more control.



Yep. Control. Force. Violation of natural rights. A lot of people would agree with you, unfortunately. You can’t be happy unless you’re controlling the lives of other people.


I rest my case.


How so? For those supporting control, what specifically has been offered by them that would be considered reasonable responses? And what specifically have those who support the 2nd Amendment said that have been “wildly unreasonable”?


For one, equating any form of additional control identical with not supporting the 2nd smmendment.


Things like a $50 million dollar mansion and doctoral degrees are nowhere near rights - even if you have the money or scholastic aptitude, owners have every right to refuse to sell to you, and universities have every right to refuse to admit you as a student, subject to certain quite limited criteria such as laws against racial or gender discrimination and the like.


Yes, you can support gun rights. Supporting gun rights is not the same as supporting someone killing people with guns. We obviously don’t support the murderers.

It’s okay to have a gun. It is not okay to use that gun in certain ways.


which response provided from the gun control group do you think will stop the next killer?


Sorry, but I don’t do fortune telling.


What model of gun did Adam carry?
If you mean the right to self-defends, you are correct. If you think that the second amendment of the US constitution or the right to carry the very modern weapon of a gun is somehow a divine right, you’ll need to provide a bit more evidence.
The right to defend oneself as per natural law has been interpreted in different ways by different people and cultures. Do I have a right to drive down main street in a tank? One interpretation of your statement would suggest yes… I have the right to defend myself and I could argue that I don’t feel safe unless I drive a tank. Yet society places limits on that right.


Really? If I have $50 million burning my pocket and someone has a house they want to sell me for $50 million, I don’t have the right to buy it? If the university wants to accept me, I have to get permission from the government to go there?

Having a right means that I don’t have to get permission from the government to do it. It has nothing to do with a contract between two consenting parties. Certainly, if both don’t agree, there’s no deal.


I don’t know. What brand of cell phone did he carry?

No, actually that right exists. That’s why I exercise it. That’s why the second amendment is based on the presumption that it already existed and it’s purpose is to protect it. You’ll have to prove to me that it doesn’t.

The second amendment is not a right. It’s a restriction on government from infringing upon that right.

Exactly. Society places restrictions on people’s natural rights all the time. For some reason, so many people get their jollies by trying to control everyone else. It’s a sickness that for whatever reason, people accept as normal.


Should you not first justify that extraordinary presumption? Where did the guys who drafted that amendment get their info ? They were just men were they not? Living long ago in other circumstances than our modern cities.

But regardless, shouldn’t we still ask the question whether wide availability of guns and a well armed community is a good thing?


So do you believe that all men should have absolutely no legal restrictions on their personal interpretation of this right? It’s only radical liberals who prevent you from driving down the highway in a tank?
You may think that’s an absurd example, but I think it’s a valid point. To much of the world your desire to go everywhere armed is just as absurd.


Yeah. Read the second amendment. It says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s pretty obvious that the right already existed or they wouldn’t have referred to it as a right.

No. It’s not for you or I to decide. If I like the idea of having a gun, I’ll have one. If you don’t, then don’t. But don’t force your attitude towards gun ownership upon me.


i was just curious what the control group said that convinced you to look at it differently?

supporting control of some sort have provided reasonable responses

my opposition is that there are hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books that haven’t worked and what is currently pushed as the next best idea would not have stopped any previous killer.

for example background checks on private sales at gun shows. the states that have written these types of laws have so confused the issue that you can’t loan a gun to someone without possibly violating the law. the study from the DOJ(?) shows only 0.7 of convicted criminals bought guns this way.

if you are selling to criminal do you think he will submit to a background check that he knows he will fail? the stats show the criminal usually will go to the black market or to family and friends



If my driving down the highway in a tank was not violating anyone else’s rights, then certainly, I would see no problem with it. But for various reasons, I don’t think that would be possible. It is a nonsense argument and goes into too many different areas to even address here.


Carrying a loaded gun into the supermarket is a nonsense argument in many Western countries. It’s all relative…


If a supermarket has a policy of no loaded guns, then you are duty bound and legally bound not to carry one. This has nothing at all to do with gun ownership. That’s a private property issue.


What if I’m a billionaire who doesn’t feel safe as long as Russia and China have nukes and thus use my own money to stockpile nukes on my own property? Every country in the world would take, if necessary, violent action to limit my right to defend myself in this manner. Doesn’t that demonstrate that the right to bear arms does have limits? We can argue as to what those limits are but they exist.

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