Guns As A " God-given Right"

[Winchester]

Law-abiding people. Whether one is a citizen or not means exactly nothing. 

[Anomaly]

It is the right of every human being to get proper medical care. It is the right of a sick child to get a doctor.

CCC 2288
Suggests basic education and health care until you are an adult.

CCC 2247
Suggests humans have a responsibility to utilize their abilities to be productive participants in society. "If any will not work, let him not eat"

[Anomaly]

Law-abiding people. Whether one is a citizen or not means exactly nothing.

CCC 2241
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

[PhuturePriest]

CCC 2288
Suggests basic education and health care until you are an adult.

CCC 2247
Suggests humans have a responsibility to utilize their abilities to be productive participants in society. "If any will not work, let him not eat"

 

Bingo. Thanks for the help.

[NotreDame]

CCC 2288
Suggests basic education and health care until you are an adult.

CCC 2247
Suggests humans have a responsibility to utilize their abilities to be productive participants in society. "If any will not work, let him not eat"

 

CCC 2288 seems to imply that we have an obligation as a "society" to provide those things, not that people have a right to them.  It's not a subtle difference, especially in the context of "natural rights."

 

CCC 2247 I'm not making the connection.  Care to elaborate?
 

[Winchester]

CCC 2241
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

 

 

 

"Common" does not imply nationalism, which is always inspired by dividing people into citizen and non-citizen categories.

 

 

I've read all the social teachings in the catechism. I've never managed to find the detailed way in which the state becomes legitimate. Since the Church nowhere recognizes a right to initiate violence and in fact proscribes such activity for mankind, I am left to believe that the state is not exempt from the moral order and must therefore obtain consent of the ruled and only claim property in a moral fashion. It has not done this. When a demand is not unjust or is in a charitable spirit, I should follow it. My "should" does not mean someone has the right to force me to do it. I should help the poor. You should help the poor. If either you or I choose to not, that does not create in the other a right to use violence to make the other help. Nor do I have the right to force a doctor to provide healthcare. Slavery is proscribed, as well. 

Edited April 15, 2014 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

CCC 2288 seems to imply that we have an obligation as a "society" to provide those things, not that people have a right to them. It's not a subtle difference, especially in the context of "natural rights."

CCC 2247 I'm not making the connection. Care to elaborate?

I'm not desirous of getting deeply involved. I was pointing out the area that addressed FP's comment. It's up to him to read the entire section and get the context and nuance. The second part was pointing him to read about the duty of adult persons to first work for their needs, even food is not owed to ABLE persons.

[Anomaly]

"Common" does not imply nationalism, which is always inspired by dividing people into citizen and non-citizen categories.


I've read all the social teachings in the catechism. I've never managed to find the detailed way in which the state becomes legitimate. Since the Church nowhere recognizes a right to initiate violence and in fact proscribes such activity for mankind, I am left to believe that the state is not exempt from the moral order and must therefore obtain consent of the ruled and only claim property in a moral fashion. It has not done this. When a demand is not unjust or is in a charitable spirit, I should follow it. My "should" does not mean someone has the right to force me to do it. I should help the poor. You should help the poor. If either you or I choose to not, that does not create in the other a right to use violence to make the other help. Nor do I have the right to force a doctor to provide healthcare. Slavery is proscribed, as well.

1878 to 1885 pretty much describes the social construct of a state being part of human nature.

True, the CCC also makes points about limits of legitimate authority. Much is left open to interpretation. I would agree the CCC is not definitive unless you want it to be.

[Winchester]

1878 to 1885 pretty much describes the social construct of a state being part of human nature.

True, the CCC also makes points about limits of legitimate authority. Much is left open to interpretation. I would agree the CCC is not definitive unless you want it to be.

 

I don't see the modern nation-state as conforming to the catechism's use of the word 'state', which appears to me to be rather sloppy. I prefer Rothbard's use of the word, and that is how I use it. Which means my mockery often is matter of semantics, not the real substance of the catechism's claims.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Winchester

[NotreDame]

Why do you guys think some people are for gun control?  What do you think are the real motives and goals underlying support for gun restrictions? 

[Anomaly]

Why do you guys think some people are for gun control? What do you think are the real motives and goals underlying support for gun restrictions?

please be specific as to "some people".

Do you mean politicians, people of civil authority organizations, average citizen in urban or rural area? I would suspect politicians motives of probably being inherently manipulative.
A civil authority motivation may be self preservation based on experiences with criminal activities. The average citizen for gun control is most likely responding emotionally to a combination of perceived "greater good" with fear and ignorance.

[NotreDame]

please be specific as to "some people".

Do you mean politicians, people of civil authority organizations, average citizen in urban or rural area? I would suspect politicians motives of probably being inherently manipulative.
A civil authority motivation may be self preservation based on experiences with criminal activities. The average citizen for gun control is most likely responding emotionally to a combination of perceived "greater good" with fear and ignorance.

 

Thanks.... To clarify I guess I'm interested in the average citizen's POV, not that of anyone in government at any level.  I'd especially be interested in people here like MM that support it.  Not interested in it from a debate stand-point.  Just curious that if gun control is the means, what is the end they are trying to achieve. 
 

[Nihil Obstat]

Because guns are scary, and when you outlaw guns, the seediest people have them. For most people that means the guns are out of sight, out of mind. The average person does not have to think about it anymore.

They are not gone, but you can pretend.

[NotreDame]

NO, yes... If you've read any of my posts ever than you can probably guess I have my own ideas about their motivations, but I've learned as a marketer that we have to be careful not to project our POV's onto others so I was looking to hear from the horses mouth what motivates them.

 

And fwiw I'm not interested in a debate on the subject and not trying to troll for folks to argue with.

[Nihil Obstat]

NO, yes... If you've read any of my posts ever than you can probably guess I have my own ideas about their motivations, but I've learned as a marketer that we have to be careful not to project our POV's onto others so I was looking to hear from the horses mouth what motivates them.

 

And fwiw I'm not interested in a debate on the subject and not trying to troll for folks to argue with.

Yeah, I do not ascribe any ill-will towards people who think along those lines. Everyone has a bit of irrationality and cognitive dissonance somewhere in their beliefs. But that is one I am willing to challenge, because I think it is important in a truly just society.