Food for thought there, eh
I did not say that it did. But if I were sitting on a jury and had to judge someone according to the law, and if I had respect for that law, I would have to make my finding in defense of, or in upholding that law. I can think of a lot of laws that I would not respect. For instance, if I were sitting on a jury and a person was found in violation of a gun law, such as carrying without a license, I would not respect the law. I would most likely find him not guilty.
Juries are the finders of fact. The judge’s instructions to the jury on the law would be something like, “If you find it a fact that the defendant carried a gun without a license then you must return a guilty verdict.” If you would “most likely” ignore the law and the judge then one would say you did not respect either.
Exactly! Thank you!
This is the correct answer. Thread over.
Don’t think so. The thread is not closed.
When and where did the United States extend the right to bear arms?
This is what I think. We have the right to self-defense, according to the Church. What is needed for self-defense changes. It also varies according to one’s situation.
Because the function of the police in the US is not to protect us, some of us may need guns for self-defense. This is a prudential issue that should be taken care of at the lowest level. People who live next door to a police station may have a different take than those who live in the country where police presence is sparse.
Though not by “any means”. The right to self defence also is not ordinarily understood to mean a right to equip oneself with weaponry as one sees fit in case one comes under threat. It is a right exercisable within boundaries.
How nit picky do you want to get?
Guns don’t have rights. They’re just tools. No different from a hammer or ice tongs.
If you mean we the people having the right to bear arms, the of course! We must have a way to defend ourselves, our neighbor, and our great country. In fact, I’d say we should be obliged to have a gun and be trained to use it so we could defend our neighbor if need be.
I disagree. Freedom to own a gun includes the freedom not to own a gun.
Gun is a tool, if you use it to commit a sin it is bad, if you use it for something else (self defense or something) it is not a sin
And, a failure to respect the law is immoral. Same moral standards apply for advocates of gun rights and gun control.
Yes, I agree the decision needs to be proportionate.
If failure to respect immoral laws is immoral then I’m proudly immoral.
I would not have respected laws in Germany that made it illegal to harbor Jews either. I’ll gladly stand before God at judgment and answer for my immorality.
There is no "either’ between our gun control laws and German anti-Semitic laws. We are only required to obey moral laws.
I totally agree! I’m glad you changed your mind on this.
Gun control laws are not immoral laws according to Catholic morality.
Laws that violate my God given rights are immoral.