I have rights to vote, drive, marry and whatnot - but I do still actually have to apply to the government in some shape or form to do most of them, ie registering to vote or getting a drivers’ or marriage licence.
warning! prager u is not a real university
this is just a sound bite that makes sense.
If supply controls are the answer, describe precisely the full program of supply-side policies you propose to stop the gun crimes that we all abhor. And then tell us how those policies will also allow lawful gun owners to keep and protect themselves with firearms.
This is just wishful thinking on your part. Try it and see. Use your individual authority to change the speed limit on a highway and then drive at that speed. When you get stopped by the police, just explain to them this “uniquely American perspective” and see it that avoids your punishment.
Actually that worked for me once. Long time ago. Pulled over for speeding and told the officer I try to stay over the speed limit, since the signs never said whether it was an upper limit or a lower limit and I was pretty sure I was over the limit and therefore legal. Thought he was going to haul me off, then asked me if I was kidding him. Got off with a warning.
When it requires a license it’s no longer a right. Government has reduced it to a privilege. Rights do not require permission.
No we don’t. I don’t claim to know what is good for you. That’s for you to decide. I claim to know what’s good for me. Unfortunately so do a lot of other control freaks.
A previous poster said that the bishops have prohibited “assault weapons”.
Question: is there an accepted definition of an “assault weapon”?
I believe the context shows you to be wrong. I am not saying you are wrong in carrying a gun, only in trying to shoehorn the universal catechism into an “Americanistic” mindset. The Church teaching on social justice is one that recognized specific structural authority for the good of all society.
Having argued for the general right to own and use guns, one may argue the particular right to do so in the USA as follows:
- Citizens are obliged to submit to authority in all things not immoral (CCC#2238-2240).
- The common good is defined by that authority.
- The USA authority has determined that the individual right to own and bear arms is in the interest of the common good.
- The right to own and bear arms (guns) is not immoral (as shown in the general case above).
- Catholics are morally obliged to support the gun rights of the people in the USA.
Your concluding point needs some analysis. In what sense are Catholics morally obliged to support the gun rights of the people in the USA? Does it mean we may not lobby for gun control laws consistent with the Constitution? No. Does it mean we may not lobby for the repealing of the 2nd amendment? No. Does it mean we may not take it upon ourselves to forcibly take people’s guns away? Yes. That’s what it means. That’s all it means.
And when what is deemed good for one group, by that group, is deemed bad for another group by the latter, the question of the common good arises. It routinely does so when people choose to live in communities as opposed to in isolation.
The wide availability of guns is one such example.
No, that conclusion is so simplistic to be meaningless. Depending upon one’s station in life (citizen, law enforcer, judicial administrator, executive, legislator), it means different things.
The community laws (which are moral) bind all parties until those laws are changed with due process. Until successful, those who advocate change are still bound to support those same laws even as they lobby for changes.
In this context, “support” would appear to mean:
- acknowledge the fact (of the law);
- obey the law
- respect the right of others to act in accord with the law
I imagine opponents to the US gun laws don’t quibble with the above, though they would not describe themselves as “supporting” the law.
All citizens must acknowledge, obey and respect the laws. Others, depending upon their station, must also uphold, defend, and enforce the laws. I don’t think opponents of the law are relieved of their obligation to support the laws in accordance with their station.
Gun control advocates generally do “support” the current law in the sense you mean. (yawn.)
No, it routinely does when people can’t mind their own business and need to feel superior by sticking their noses into everyone else’s lives.
Who says? I don’t respect a lot of laws. I have zero respect for late-term abortion laws, for example. Nor will I ever.
Go back to sleep. Sorry I woke you up.
“Respect” does not mean “approve.” Respect means to see a thing as it is. Latin, res - thing, specto to see
If the one who shot the shooter hadn’t had a gun how many more deaths would there have been?