Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's illegal for me to carry around a knife longer than six inches in Kansas.

 

Whoever wrote that law was certifiably a moron.

[Winchester]

As somebody who has been attacked by somebody with a knife I would say that I would much rather be attacked with a knife than a gun.  

 

A wound from a knife can be more destructive to movement than a wound from a firearm.

[PhuturePriest]

Whoever wrote that law was certifiably a moron.

 

What they don't realize is my six inch knife is my small weapon I play with. I have a full-sized katana I can carry around in my hakama and karate gi if I so choose.

[Nihil Obstat]

What they don't realize is my six inch knife is my small weapon I play with. I have a full-sized katana I can carry around in my hakama and karate gi if I so choose.

 

The katana is probably knockoff mystery steel, so you would be better off with a good knife. :|

Or a nice thick bo.

 

 

Spyderco Tenacious: 8Cr13Mov steel, G10 scales with skeletonized liners, 3.39'' blade. Retails for around $30. Excellent quality on a budget.

Spyderco Manix 2 XL: CPM S30V steel, G10 scales with full steel liners, ball bearing lock, 3.85'' blade. Retails around $100. Very high quality steel, lock-up is superb.

[Ice_nine]

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

 

I'm sure you all will love this article

 

"According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community."

[Winchester]

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

 

I'm sure you all will love this article

 

"According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community."

 

Everyone has that authority. Nowhere has the Church indicated that authority manifests after a centralized state pops into being.

 

Then there's the whole subsidiarity thing. You know, me being a dad, and all.

 

And that's the US Bishops. Frankly, they're not terribly bright.

[Winchester]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/126325.html

 

The princes haven't yet learned that the rabid dog is not the guard dog they imagine. It's time for them to zip it in regards to their support for men with guns and costumes ruling over the costumeless as moral guides.

[4588686]

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

 

I'm sure you all will love this article

 

"According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community."

 

It's been years since I read the catechism but I believe it also says that the state has a right and duty to control firearms.  

[Winchester]

You should read the whole thing, sometime. No one ever explains exactly what a state is, or how it is formed, what constitutes 'legitimate authority', or how we tell. Nor is there an explanation about how a small group of people is exempted from the moral laws which allegedly bound the rest of humanity.

 

 

There's a good book on the subject. "Free is Beautiful", by Randy England.

[4588686]

I agree with the Vatican on something:
 

 

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

[Winchester]

I agree with the Vatican US Catholic's summation of a document from the USCCB on something:
 

 

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

 

fxd

[4588686]

fxd

 

http://www.news.va/en/news/vatican-intervention-on-un-arms-trade-treaty

[Winchester]

http://www.news.va/en/news/vatican-intervention-on-un-arms-trade-treaty

 

Letters to the UN aren't binding upon the Faithful. Especially when they're worshipful of the false god that is the State.

 

The illicit arms trade would include those who fight against unjust States. In other words, the idiots who support the UN (a murderous organization that has the starvation deaths of Iraqi children to its credit, among other atrocities of incessant war and problems thanks to the stupid meddling of Western imperialism) reject peaceful access to weapons unless someone dons a costume. It's a shame that so many clergy in the Church have become idolatrous as regards the modern centralized totalitarian State. I don't have to be idolatrous, though, and supporting the UN, or the alleged outcome of prohibition, is not a matter of faith or morals.

[Socrates]

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

 

I'm sure you all will love this article

 

"According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to "repel aggressors" or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for "those who legitimately hold authority" and have been given the duty of protecting the community."

 

That inane and dishonest article does not cite anything that is  binding moral teaching of the Church, but rather, something "almost hidden in a footnote" in a particular USCCB document (neither infallible nor binding), and the opinions of a certain Mr. Di Ruzza, who works at the Vatican, yet possesses no magisterial authority.

 

 

You gotta love how the author blatantly twists what the Catechism actually says in the sentence quoted above.

 

Let's look at what's actually written in the Catechism regarding use of lethal force in defense:

 

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:" (emphasis mine)

 

There's definitely nothing in there precluding using a firearm if it is necessary to defend one's life against an aggressor.

 

The Catechism goes on next to deal with use of force in defense of others:

 

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."

 

The first sentence here states that legitimate defense is not only a right but a duty for one responsible for the lives of others. (For instance, a man has the right and duty to use force if necessary to defend the lives of his wife and children.)  

The last sentence (cited by in the article) is specifically about armed defense against aggressors to the civil community (referring to police work and such).  There is absolutely nothing in that sentence stating or implying that private individuals cannot legitimately use arms to defend the lives of themselves or others. 

 

The Catechism is pretty straightforward:  You can use lethal force if necessary to defend your own life, it is a right and duty to use it to defend the lives of those you are responsible, and those in legitimate authority can use it to defend the civil community entrusted to them.

 

Nothing in there ruling out use of firearms in legitimate defense for anybody.  If it were immoral for private individuals to own firearms, or use them in defense, the Catechism would say so.  It does not.

 

The author of the article either lacks basic reading comprehension or logic skills, or else (as is more likely) is being deliberately dishonest in order to advance a political agenda, and is hoping readers will be too lazy to actually read the Catechism.

 

 

Good counter to the article here: http://www.catholicherald.com/stories/The-catechism-confirms-the-right-to-bear-arms,14872

It's been years since I read the catechism but I believe it also says that the state has a right and duty to control firearms.  

 

No, it does not.

[Groo the Wanderer]

It's been years since I read the catechism but I believe it also says that the state has a right and duty to control firearms.  

 

You believe wrongly, grasshopper.