The Church's Position On Defense Of Oneself And Family.

[PhuturePriest]

Only because I actually know what an assault "weapon" is.

 

An "assault rifle" is a full auto, and those have been restricted since 1934, and new production banned in 1986. The preban ones are available, but require nearly a year of govt paperwork and waiting, and then cost upwards of 20,000$ each. Mitt Romney might own a couple of thse, pretty much everyone else cant afford to spend 20 grand on a 30 year old rifle.

 

An "Assault Weapon" is an entirely made up political term, aimed primarily at semi automatics, that aside from their aesthetics, function primarily the same as the majority of guns in the USA and in many other countries, same as countless hunting and target shooting guns. The term "Assault Weapons" was made and is used to further confuse people who dont know that full auto guns are already essentially banned.

 

from the guy who coined the term, John Sugarmann "Assault Weapon's menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

 

For instance, since Im sure you are already shaking your head at how illogical I am to support such evil looking things, This gun here would be considered an Assault Weapon.

 

And this gun would not be considered an Assault Weapon.

 

Looks pretty reasonable, until you notice that both are actually the exact same model of gun. Same size, same magazine capacities, same semi automatic function, same accuracy, same caliber. Big difference is that one has some aesthetic and ergonomic differences from the other, one is scary looking black plastic and the other is made of wood, just like the gun grandpa shoots coyotes with. 

 

In actual fact, this is a common varmint shooting gun. Not powerful enough for deer hunting, and too powerful for squirrels, etc this one is very commonly used for wild boar/feral hogs, coyotes, cougars and other predator hunting. The wood one is called the Ranch Rifle for this reason, because it is great at shooting gophers and predators from much farther away than a .22 can.

 

 

Im sure you have many issues that you are angry most people take firm positions on without bothering to educate themselves on the details of(after all, you are Catholic, and many people who spew hate about the catholic church do it from a place of willing ignorance), but there is actually quite a lot of depth to this discussion. You cant just flip through a gun catalogue and circle the ones with scary looking stocks and pistol grips and ban them, and expect to be even remotely fair about it (even though Diane Feinstein, the writer of the Assault Weapons Ban, has admitted to doing exactly that).

 

If you go back through my posting history here, back a couple years, you will find I was quite anti gun, and passionate about it. Much of that changed as I learned more about how guns actually worked(in real life, not hollywood), what they were used for, and the laws around them.

 

These are military in appearance, but not in function. To be perfectly fair, every gun ever used for hunting or target shooting is in some way based off of, or actually are repurposed military guns. 99% of hunting rifles are based off of bolt actions and semi automatics used in WW1 and WW2.

 

You are officially my favorite non-Catholic person. Unless Hasan posts something really, really funny, you shall stay in that place for all eternity.

[eagle_eye222001]

...

 

In any event, it's not the place of government to determine exactly what kinds of weapons everyone needs for defense in every situation.  I'm for keeping, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  (But, like the founders, I'm an "extremist.")

 

+1

 

What.

 

You guys are actually for assault weapons.  

 

I am so done with this thread. 

 

You call it an assault weapon.  I call it a firearm.  We can play word-games all day.

 

The 2nd Amendment is a protection from both an overbearing government, and from those who wish to do you harm.  It is the best protection set in place for human life and liberty.

[Jesus_lol]

You are officially my favorite non-Catholic person. Unless Hasan posts something really, really funny, you shall stay in that place for all eternity.

 

 

Holy smokes!!! A talking Fetus!

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks ;)

[PhuturePriest]

Holy smokes!!! A talking Fetus!

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks ;)

 

That's not even all I can do. You should see me sing!

[Groo the Wanderer]

and poop.  he started a whole thread to tell us all about it

[Winchester]

What.

 

You guys are actually for assault weapons not in the hands of magical, pure government agents.  

 

I am so done with this thread. 

 

Yeah, I'm against a classed society.

 

Don't worry, your side will win. People will be thrown in cages for completely morally licit acts. Yay!

[Basilisa Marie]

Okay, okay.  Fine.  

 

Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much?  Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that.  I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit.  Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs.  I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead?  Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be?  Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me.  If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it. 

[4588686]

Okay, okay. Fine.

Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much? Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that. I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit. Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs. I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead? Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be? Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me. If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it.

Because gun companies have pumped a lot of money into organizations like the NRA that in turn push these ideas on the fringes so the can seep into the mainstream.

[Jesus_lol]

Or, more like, we like them because they are nice, modern designs. Same reason a lot of hunters and target shooters started using Mausers, Lee Enfields, and M1 Garands after WW2.

 

The same reason why I would rather own this bike

 

 

than this one

even though they both have about the same horsepower and top speed. I prefer the aesthetics and modern ergonomics of the newer bike.

 

They do all the same things just as well as other guns with different looks and styles, it is mostly just preference. Some people prefer the older styles and methods.

 

as for use in defending yourself, etc.(though this is not much of a concern for me)

As I heard someone else put it today, "modern police forces think an Ar15 with a 30 round magazine, and 9mm pistols with 15-17 round capacities are ideal at dealing with violent bad guys. I agree."

[eagle_eye222001]

Okay, okay.  Fine.  

 

Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much?  Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that.  I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit.  Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs.  I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead?  Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be?  Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me.  If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it. 

 

On a larger piece of property, it may be more practical to have an AK-style for protection around the large open spaces where you want the distance a pistol doesn't have.

 

In certain cases, you want the AK to inspire fear in the riot crowd so they don't storm your store and trash it and steal everything.  If chaos breaks out, you may not be able to count on the police as it happened in Louisiana and London.  The rich stores got priority protection, over the small ones.  The only thing that protected those poor small stores was the visible force the store owners and their friends showed.  Note the AK is not showed in either case, but having one would have an even better effect than a mere shotgun.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/28/shop-owners-say-police-abandoned-them-during-londo/?page=all

 

http://www.conservativecommune.com/2011/08/riot-responses-london-versus-los-angeles/

 

Here is my favorite video.  Note the attitude of the media with respect to these people defending their property.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRc_FlmW2Jc

 

In this case, people get fed up being victims and started fighting back.  I am not sure how accurate the scene was really described as it can be difficult to tell with the left media.  They say the store owners are firing randomly....but I don't put any stock in the truth of that statement.  I do not necessarily endores anything associated with this video as I chose it only for the footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ

 

In any case, sometimes a pistol just won't cut it against a huge riot and you'll want a lot more security in an AK-style with a 30 round clip against a riot group of 50+ armed with rocks, bricks, debris, and perhaps even guns too......with no cops in sight.

 

What happens when the government doesn't have enough ammo?  In happened in the Louisiana riots thanks to gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n75SIIGQ7uw

 

 

As someone else has already stated, I am an extremists....like the founders of the America who want a safety check against too much government.  In a way, if you think sprinkler systems need to be in schools in case of fire, you are paranoid too.  Why put sprinkler systems when there are virtually no fires in schools?  What are the chances?

[Winchester]

Okay, okay.  Fine.  
 
Can someone explain to me without fancy rhetoric exactly why you all like guns so much?  Do you really think you need a huge AK-47 thing to "protect your family"? I get owning hunting equipment, and a variety of guns for stuff like that.  I get owning something like a handgun, or even having a concealed carry permit.  Seems to me that it'd be prudent to regulate and track gun ownership at the state level, because it seems that different states (or even different areas within states) have different needs.  I don't understand why it's such a good idea to promote things like putting a huge gun in a woman's hand as "protection" - shouldn't we be educating our men to not assault people instead?  Is it really just about owning a ton of weapons to start a government uprising if need be?  Because that's a lot of the rhetoric I hear from you guys, and frankly that sounds really, really ridiculous to me.  If you guys could help me understand why, I'd appreciate it.

I was taught not to assault people and I own firearms. I've thrown exactly one unprovoked punch one time. In nursery school. Over a girl. Since that time, I have not started a single fight. But it's a matter of choice. You can't "educate" evil out of someone. It's a choice. You might be able to diminish things like robbery or burglary--those crimes honestly could be motivated by desperation born of some lack of knowledge. But there are other crimes. Educate, but also prepare. If you want to prepare. You don't want to carry a weapon, that's cool. I think it's a perfectly legitimate decision.

 

I don't think there's anything special about government. I don't think it's any different for my neighbor to own a weapon than it is for a weapon to be in the hands of a member of the government. They are just people, to me. I believe everyone has equal dignity and the same rights. I don't think government makes people virtuous. Yes, the right of a citizen to resist tyranny exists, and personal weapons may one day play a role in that. You think that's ridiculous. I think it's a lesson from history. I think it's unlikely in the near future, but I don't think the US is exempt.

 

[Anastasia13]

From the CCC:

 

 

"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."

 

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."

 

 

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

[Nihil Obstat]

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

Personally I think it is somewhat shortsighted. God does not work on our time. Everyone is offered precisely what they need in order to accept the Church.

[eagle_eye222001]

From the CCC:

 

 

"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."

 

"2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."

 

 

So how do you respond when someone says that they would not want to defend the lives of themselves (and possibly their family) (at least when death of the attacker is the only option) because they want to give the attacker more time to repent, whereas if they killed him during the attack, the attacker would be sent to hell for dying in a mortal sin?

 

What happens when you go to judgement and God asks why you failed to defend what was good?

 

Personally I think it is somewhat shortsighted. God does not work on our time. Everyone is offered precisely what they need in order to accept the Church.

 

Yes.  Everyone has their opportunity.  And if they don't...then that is for God to decide how to handle that situation (aborted babies...etc)

[Noel's angel]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Noel's angel

[KnightofChrist]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

Sometimes laying down ones life is the answer, sometimes it is not the answer. Should the Cristeros laid down their lives or fought as they did fight, in defense of the Faith, themselves and their families? Edited January 25, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm sure many of you have seen the film Of Gods and Men. I have one question regarding the Cistercians depicted in the film. Do you think the monks would have served God better had they armed themselves and fought the Islamic fundamentalists? Would you say that by staying and remaining unarmed that they let God down in some way by 'failing to defend what was good'?

A right to self-defense does not necessarily imply an obligation.

[Akalyte]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself. 

will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

[4588686]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself.


will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

That's not what you're doing. You're just glorifying violence and warfare. I've been watching your site and that is the constant theme. You're not defending anything. You're the quintessential 'Internet tough guy' who also goes to the shooting range.

[4588686]

Some catholics are labeling me and other "catholics for guns" as right wing extremists catholics" and they are pitting us against the vatican. Saying were wrong for loving our country, wrong for wanting guns. Accusing us of practicing the "Americanism heresy". Look i have to live in this country, i was born here, i have a family. What are we suppose to do? hate our country because its not vatican city?I love my faith and my allegiance is to the pope, but catholics have duties to their own countries as well. These same people who march to abortion clinics wont even do the same for the country itself.


will you not also march for your own rights and freedom?

That's not what you're doing. You're just glorifying violence and warfare. I've been watching your site and that is the constant theme. You're not defending anything. You're the quintessential 'Internet tough guy' who also goes to the shooting range.