America And Guns

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 November 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1257736482' post='1998611']everyone has the right to self-defense.[/quote]
I agree. And that's just my point. Christianity is not a philosophy; rather, it is a supernatural vocation. Philosophy is concerned with natural [i]rights[/i]. Christianity is concerned with supernatural [i]vocation[/i]. The Apostles did not go to their deaths because they were unable to secure their [i]rights[/i]. They went to their deaths because they ultimately did not care about their [i]rights[/i]. They ultimately cared about following the supernatural [i]vocation[/i] that Christ revealed and invited them to.

I stand by my criticism that Christians have become so fixated on the natural [i]rights[/i] of this world, that we have forgotten that Our Lord's Kingdom is not of this world, and that he has invited us to bear witness to his Kingdom even while we remain in this world.

Can Christians have recourse to the Second Amendment? Yes. What saddens me is that we overwhelmingly choose to do so, because I believe that when Christians are overwhelmingly fixated on this world and its [i]rights[/i], we compromise the Christian [i]vocation[/i]:

[quote]"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

--1Corinthians 10:23-24[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

For what it's worth, significant gun control really doesn't decrease the amount of gun crimes. Canada proves this. Private citizens only rarely own guns, even more rarely non-hunting guns, and the restrictions on transport and storage are enormous.

Of course, the criminals don't care about that, and why would they? The gun crime comes from the career criminals and the gang bangers. Think they're going to listen to gun laws?



I kinda like what Ann Coulter said; carrying a concealed weapon should be mandatory. What petty criminal in their right mind is going to mug someone when that person legally has to be armed?

[homeschoolmom]

Interesting conversation.

[mommas_boy]

Here's a question, and one that I've struggled with quite a bit.

As has been mentioned by others in this thread, one of the originally intended purposes of the second amendment is to provide society with the means to protect itself from it's own government, in the case that it has become despotic.

However, in the age of the modern military, the following truths are self-evident:

[list]
[*]Tank beats minivan.
[*]Assault rifle beats hunting rifle.
[*]F-22 Raptor beats Cessna 172 (those are both planes; the first being a fighter jet).
[*]Special Forces training beats [i]posse comitatus[/i].
[/list]

I think that the second amendment is still relevant in its purpose of defending ourselves from other citizens, and potentially from foreign aggressors (but not so much, as they're likely to have at the very least tanks and assault rifles, too). But, is it still relevant in defending ourselves from our own government in the event that it becomes despotic?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='08 November 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1257737209' post='1998616']As for me, I believe that it is critical to maintain an ability to protect my home and family from intruders, and though I wish no harm on any person, if my family is threatened I will kill without question. I do own guns. It is not, as Era mentioned, a knee-jerk reaction against being robbed, or a lack of Christian charity. In a world full of Satan's minions, it is not unreasonable to believe that there will be a good possibility that someone would attempt to harm my child. I myself have been robbed at gunpoint. To stand by defenseless while someone harmed my family would not only be a dereliction of duty, it would go against what even the CCC has to say about self defense (see 2264).[/quote]
I completely understand the complexity of these issues, especially for people who have families. What bothers me is not so much the recourse to moderate self-defense; rather, what bothers me is when we use Christianity to justify it. I think we have to recognize that the Christian vocation is eschatological. Maybe we sometimes have to live in this world, and so we cannot always perfectly follow the eschatological vocation. I completely understand that. But I think it's important that we not compromise the eschatological vocation by trying to reconcile it to this world. Someone posted a story a while back about a congregation of American Christians who were invited to bring their guns to church. That's the kind of thing that I think reflects a seriously compromised Christian identity among American Christians. Our Lord told us to turn the other cheek. Maybe we cannot always turn the other cheek. Okay. But let's not try to soften Our Lord's words. Let his words remain what they are, and let us recognize that when we do not turn the other cheek, then we are failing to live up to his words. Let's not try to soften Our Lord's words, and thereby justify our failures and imperfections and compromises as we live with the tensions between this world and the eschatological Kingdom to which Christ has invited us.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='09 November 2009 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1257740529' post='1998635']
Here's a question, and one that I've struggled with quite a bit.

As has been mentioned by others in this thread, one of the originally intended purposes of the second amendment is to provide society with the means to protect itself from it's own government, in the case that it has become despotic.

However, in the age of the modern military, the following truths are self-evident:

[list][*]Tank beats minivan.[*]Assault rifle beats hunting rifle.[*]F-22 Raptor beats Cessna 172 (those are both planes; the first being a fighter jet).[*]Special Forces training beats [i]posse comitatus[/i].[/quote][/list]And a bunch of illiterate North Vietnamese and Afghanis defeated phenomenally more technologically advanced armies, with minimal supplies, many of which the Vietnamese "borrowed" from the aggressors, right off the docks.

Tanks and jets need funding to get maintained and repaired. Many a State has ceased war due to bankruptcy. You don't fight with modern militaries on their own terms.


[quote]I think that the second amendment is still relevant in its purpose of defending ourselves from other citizens, and potentially from foreign aggressors (but not so much, as they're likely to have at the very least tanks and assault rifles, too). But, is it still relevant in defending ourselves from our own government in the event that it becomes despotic?
[/quote]

Yes. The mightiest military on the face of the earth is having its resources bled dry by uneducated shopkeepers and shepherds. The State can't fund war if A) The people refuse to pay for the killing of their neighbors, B) No other State wants to lend the warring State any money, and C) in order to fund its war, the State debases its currency so much that it becomes worthless, and the loyalty of the soldiers goes to the highest bidder.

Ultimately, you don't win a war with technology. You win it with popular support. Actions are based on ideas. As a friend often says, "The best way to stop a war is to convince the guy fighting it not to pull the trigger."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sternhauser

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='08 November 2009 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1257741174' post='1998642']
[/list]And a bunch of illiterate North Vietnamese and Afghanis defeated phenomenally more technologically advanced armies, with minimal supplies, many of which the Vietnamese "borrowed" from the aggressors, right off the docks.

Tanks and jets need funding to get maintained and repaired. Many a State has ceased war due to bankruptcy. You don't fight with modern militaries on their own terms.




Yes. The mightiest military on the face of the earth is having its resources bled dry by uneducated shopkeepers and shepherds. The State can't fund war if A) The people refuse to pay for the killing of their neighbors, B) No other State wants to lend the warring State any money, and C) in order to fund its war, the State debases its currency so much that it becomes worthless, and the loyalty of the soldiers goes to the highest bidder.

Ultimately, you don't win a war with technology. You win it with popular support. Actions are based on ideas. As a friend often says, "The best way to stop a war is to convince the guy fighting it not to pull the trigger."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Interesting. Scary as hell (and I mean that quite literally in this case), but interesting.

Edited November 9, 2009 by mommas_boy

[jeffpugh]

Scary... I'll say...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='08 November 2009 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1257737252' post='1998617']
I agree. And that's just my point. Christianity is not a philosophy; rather, it is a supernatural vocation. Philosophy is concerned with natural [i]rights[/i]. Christianity is concerned with supernatural [i]vocation[/i]. The Apostles did not go to their deaths because they were unable to secure their [i]rights[/i]. They went to their deaths because they ultimately did not care about their [i]rights[/i]. They ultimately cared about following the supernatural [i]vocation[/i] that Christ revealed and invited them to.

I stand by my criticism that Christians have become so fixated on the natural [i]rights[/i] of this world, that we have forgotten that Our Lord's Kingdom is not of this world, and that he has invited us to bear witness to his Kingdom even while we remain in this world.

Can Christians have recourse to the Second Amendment? Yes. What saddens me is that we overwhelmingly choose to do so, because I believe that when Christians are overwhelmingly fixated on this world and its [i]rights[/i], we compromise the Christian [i]vocation[/i]:
[/quote]

Well I am not one of these persons. I do support fully the second amendment as a fundamental right. I still pray should the day come, to die for my Lord, I would indeed. And I am not alone. So I rebuke your criticism, it's a assumption that paints with a wide brush.

There is a problem in our society, one group of vocal persons on the left continuously attempts to rid the US citizens of the right to bare arms. This naturally causes a great need to defend the right.

[OraProMe]

Thanks for the answers guys, especially Marie-Therese, that really helped clear up a few questions I had. I still don't see how it's really needed though. KnighofChrist, I noticed you didn't address my objections either.

[JimR-OCDS]

I read a book about a year ago, called, "Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Kurlansky.

In the book, Kurlansky looks at the history of the world, and all the wars that have been fought, and how few times nations or groups, chose peaceful methods rather than violence, to achieve their goal.
From the evidence presented, when peaceful methods have been used, the results have been far better than when violence is used.

Anyway, he does quote Gandhi on non-violence and I think its important to note here.

Gandhi said that non-violence requires spiritual maturity, for a person to use wisdom to
curtail and aggressor. People who do not have this level of spiritual maturity, must use violence,
to defend themselves and their families.

The Spiritual Assistant that by OCDS group had, God rest his soul, addressed the use of violence when some one asked if it would be OK to use violence to defend oneself. Our spiritual assistant,
stated pretty much the something that is in line with Gandhi. Only those who have reached a higher level of love, will be able to avoid using violence.

Jesus is the prime example. He did not use violence to defend himself from being taken by the Romans, even though he had at his disposal, a legion of angels.

Of course, we are morally obligated to defend others, especially our families. How you defend them, makes the difference.

In our society, too many people have an disordered level of paranoia. Over the years there have been several cases of shootings, where a home owner felt he was defending his home. Turns out, the people that were shot, were not criminals, but innocent people who had approached the home
for purely innocent reasons, but were shot by a paranoid home owner who misread their intentions.

It speaks to how our society as a whole, is spiritually immature.

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 10:25 AM' timestamp='1257776750' post='1998748']
In our society, too many people have an disordered level of paranoia. Over the years there have been several cases of shootings, where a home owner felt he was defending his home. Turns out, the people that were shot, were not criminals, but innocent people who had approached the home
for purely innocent reasons, but were shot by a paranoid home owner who misread their intentions.
It speaks to how our society as a whole, is spiritually immature.
Jim
[/quote]

Many people Jim, live in areas where "paranoia" is quite justified. I no longer walk my dog alone because the last time I did, young kids pulled a gun on me. Most of my neighbors have security cameras in their yards, and some of them now have permits to carry and do so. Do you know how ridiculous it is to have to go with the neighbors carrying a gun to walk your dog down the street? Do you know how it feels to hear gunfire every week and know someone is dying within earshot? To walk past a house and see the steps covered in blood? Paranoia is defined by the environment, so many of us are not paranoid, we just want to protect and keep our own.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='09 November 2009 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1257777933' post='1998752']
Many people Jim, live in areas where "paranoia" is quite justified. I no longer walk my dog alone because the last time I did, young kids pulled a gun on me. Most of my neighbors have security cameras in their yards, and some of them now have permits to carry and do so. Do you know how ridiculous it is to have to go with the neighbors carrying a gun to walk your dog down the street? Do you know how it feels to hear gunfire every week and know someone is dying within earshot? To walk past a house and see the steps covered in blood? Paranoia is defined by the environment, so many of us are not paranoid, we just want to protect and keep our own.
[/quote]


Yeah I know about it. Its why I moved out of the city and out into the country. Ironically, when I was in the city, no one ever tried to break into my home.

Out in the country however, one evening my wife met a guy coming through the back door into our kitchen. He looked at her and she screamed. Back then I was a hunter, so I ran up stares, grabbed my shotgun and went outside with my dog to try and find the guy. Wrong move, should've stayed in the house.

Anyway, it turned out that the guy was a neighbor who had moved into the house down the street, just a couple months before. When my wife told the cop she thought it was him, but had only seen him a few times and couldn't identify him well enough to say positively, it registered with me, what happen. Exactly one week before on the same week night, I pulled this neighbors car out of a ditch. He had been drinking and drove himself off the road. Well, it turned out, the night he came to our back do, three summer homes were broken into. The person, merely kicked in the door, walked in and then walked out. My guess, as well as the cops, is that he was drunk and got lost. It may be his wife locked him out of the house before, and so, the houses that he broke into, were all similar to his. When he finally realized he was too lost to find his way home, he came to my house. When he saw my wife, he got scared, but also must've realized where he was. He ran home.

Anyway, I thought about it, and it scares me to think, what if I had met this guy with my gun? Would I have panicked and shot him, for merely be a lost drunk?

Sadly, about a year later he took his own life, with a gun.


Jim

[Sternhauser]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history willlook upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mohandas Gandhi, from his autobiography.

Self-defense requires efficacy.

Besides not being there when they come to visit, how does one defend one's family from street thugs intent upon raping one's family? Talk about it? They didn't come to talk. There's no explaining. There's no appeal to their humanity. They break in your door, and they're doing it. At that time, there are two ways to deal with it: pray for an instant miraculous conversion, or violence.

~Sternhauser

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1257778450' post='1998756']
Yeah I know about it. Its why I moved out of the city and out into the country. Ironically, when I was in the city, no one ever tried to break into my home.

Out in the country however, one evening my wife met a guy coming through the back door into our kitchen. He looked at her and she screamed. Back then I was a hunter, so I ran up stares, grabbed my shotgun and went outside with my dog to try and find the guy. Wrong move, should've stayed in the house.

Anyway, it turned out that the guy was a neighbor who had moved into the house down the street, just a couple months before. When my wife told the cop she thought it was him, but had only seen him a few times and couldn't identify him well enough to say positively, it registered with me, what happen. Exactly one week before on the same week night, I pulled this neighbors car out of a ditch. He had been drinking and drove himself off the road. Well, it turned out, the night he came to our back do, three summer homes were broken into. The person, merely kicked in the door, walked in and then walked out. My guess, as well as the cops, is that he was drunk and got lost. It may be his wife locked him out of the house before, and so, the houses that he broke into, were all similar to his. When he finally realized he was too lost to find his way home, he came to my house. When he saw my wife, he got scared, but also must've realized where he was. He ran home.

Anyway, I thought about it, and it scares me to think, what if I had met this guy with my gun? Would I have panicked and shot him, for merely be a lost drunk?

Sadly, about a year later he took his own life, with a gun.


Jim
[/quote]
What if you had panicked and hit him with a baseball bat? What if you had panicked and hit him with a fire iron? or anything?

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='09 November 2009 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1257778762' post='1998758']
What if you had panicked and hit him with a baseball bat? What if you had panicked and hit him with a fire iron? or anything?
[/quote]


Well, he would've been in close enough distance that I would've recognised who he was.

Also, I've come to realize, that a baseball bat is actually a faster weapon to grab, when surprised as I was. I certainly wouldn't have gone outside after him.

The mistake I made was going outside after him. Had I shot him outside of my house, I'd be posting this from a prison library computer.


Jim

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 November 2009 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1257739028' post='1998626']
For what it's worth, significant gun control really doesn't decrease the amount of gun crimes. Canada proves this. Private citizens only rarely own guns, even more rarely non-hunting guns, and the restrictions on transport and storage are enormous.

Of course, the criminals don't care about that, and why would they? The gun crime comes from the career criminals and the gang bangers. Think they're going to listen to gun laws?



I kinda like what Ann Coulter said; carrying a concealed weapon should be mandatory. What petty criminal in their right mind is going to mug someone when that person legally has to be armed?
[/quote]
The thug wannabes in my neighborhood can't afford guns so they stab each other. Still end up dead.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='09 November 2009 - 09:50 AM' timestamp='1257781833' post='1998771']
The thug wannabes in my neighborhood can't afford guns so they stab each other. Still end up dead.
[/quote]
That's true. Depends on the area.
Never used to be gun crime in Calgary, and it's still all knives in Saskatoon. Just depends on who comes in and how much money they have.

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='08 November 2009 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1257725405' post='1998487']
Why on earth was it put in the constitution? Why is it still in the constitution? I'm sure times must have changed...
[/quote]

Because our country was founded on the principle that the government should be subservient to the people. Our right to bear arms ensures that we will always be able to enforce our ideal of government serving teh people instead of the other way around. In other words, the idea is that the government exists at the will of the people.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Saint Therese

[Brother Adam]

The right to carry arms is not based on what if scenarios.