church and gun control

[Winchester]

Government disarming people and criminalizing the carrying of arms for self defense promotes violence against the unarmed and is, in itself, unjust aggression.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1313106337' post='2286207']
I think this is referring more to weapons of mass destruction and such than firearms.
It would be hard to argue that private individuals owning personal firearms promotes violence and conflict among nations.
[/quote]

I really dont think so. most wars fought have been with personal arms, not with weapons of mass destruction. Besides, the people who wrote the Catechism were hardly dumb, I'm pretty sure if they meant to refer to the unintuitive WMD, then they would have said so.

Isuspect that it is also refering to violence and conflict within nations.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313107378' post='2286219']
Government disarming people and criminalizing the carrying of arms for self defense promotes violence against the unarmed and is, in itself, unjust aggression.
[/quote]

So are you in disagreement with the CC on that topic then? although, regulation does not mean disarming and criminalizing carrying for self defense.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313109452' post='2286229']

So are you in disagreement with the CC on that topic then? although, regulation does not mean disarming and criminalizing carrying for self defense.
[/quote]
My statement doesn't contradict the Catechism. Regulation also doesn't mean barring production or possession. A law holding citizens responsible for collateral damage from self defense would be a form of regulation. And that's already the case in more than a few places.

[Maximilianus]

[img]http://bank.imgdumpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/funny-signs-131-e1291373023318.jpg[/img]

Edited August 12, 2011 by Maximilianus

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313109927' post='2286236']
My statement doesn't contradict the Catechism. Regulation also doesn't mean barring production or possession. A law holding citizens responsible for collateral damage from self defense would be a form of regulation. And that's already the case in more than a few places.
[/quote]


ok thats what i was getting at with the second part of my post.

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1313110491' post='2286240']
.
[/quote]

That guy is an arse.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1313110491' post='2286240'][img]http://bank.imgdumpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/funny-signs-131-e1291373023318.jpg[/img][/quote]+10000000000000 internets awarded

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313109452' post='2286229']

I really dont think so. most wars fought have been with personal arms, not with weapons of mass destruction. [/quote]

So those planes of the Luftwaffe and the tanks and armored divisions of the Wehrmact that invaded Poland were "personal arms"? Same for the Zeros that bombed Pearl Harbor, as well as the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan and the mustard gas used by the German army in WW1?

I guess you learn something new every day......

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm more pist that I can't wear my samurai swords in public. The prohibition of Bat'leths really chaps my arse too. What kind of sissy society is this?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1313207475' post='2286833']

So those planes of the Luftwaffe and the tanks and armored divisions of the Wehrmact that invaded Poland were "personal arms"? Same for the Zeros that bombed Pearl Harbor, as well as the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan and the mustard gas used by the German army in WW1?

I guess you learn something new every day......
[/quote]

Since when has "weapons of mass destruction" meant fighter planes or tanks? and are you forgetting about the masses of humanity that were fighting each other with personal arms?


throughout history, humanity has not lacked for wars, even without WMDs. unless you count a guy riding a horse into battle hundreds of years ago as a weapon of mass destruction.

That section of the catechism is pretty clearly NOT limiting its scope to regulation of WMD's only. You can read that into it, but that is clearly a case of fitting the church teaching to your belief rather than fitting your belief to the church teaching.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313109452' post='2286229']

I really dont think so. most wars fought have been with personal arms, not with weapons of mass destruction. Besides, the people who wrote the Catechism were hardly dumb, I'm pretty sure if they meant to refer to the unintuitive WMD, then they would have said so.
I suspect that it is also refering to violence and conflict within nations.
[/quote]
"WMD" is itself a rather ill-defined and inexact term, so I think context is needed. The Church has opposed things like the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but has traditionally supported the right of both persons and nations to legitimate defense against agressors.

I don't think it's accurate to read this statement as saying that the state must necessarily ban or heavily regulate the possession of personal firearms by private citizens.

While most would agree that the state has a legitimate right and duty to limit nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or other "WMD"s, where exactly does one draw the line? Should the state ban assault rifles? Handguns? Swords? Knives? Baseball bats? Knowledge of lethal hand-to-hand combat?

Most wars and acts of violence between nations have been conducted by standing military forces at the behest of the state - they have not been the result of private citizens owning or bearing arms. And disarmament of private citizens does absolutely nothing towards promoting international peace; in fact, some of the most bloodthirsty and violent governments have banned and regulated private gun ownership. The banning of gun ownership by private citizens under Hitler certainly did absolutely nothing to prevent Germany from waging war and engaging in acts of violence.

(beaver dam, where the hell is Sternhauser when you really need him?)

And I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue with the statement, "most wars fought have been with personal arms," unless you're trying to argue that nations should disarm their own armies.
An unarmed individual or nation will end up at the mercy of those who do have arms - to secure peace is to prepare for war.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313215901' post='2286868']
throughout history, humanity has not lacked for wars, even without WMDs. unless you count a guy riding a horse into battle hundreds of years ago as a weapon of mass destruction.
[/quote]
So horseback riding needs to be regulated by the state?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Socrates

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1313287696' post='2287331']
So horseback riding needs to be regulated by the state?
[/quote]

Don't give the government any ideas.....

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313215901' post='2286868']

Since when has "weapons of mass destruction" meant fighter planes or tanks? and are you forgetting about the masses of humanity that were fighting each other with personal arms?


throughout history, humanity has not lacked for wars, even without WMDs. unless you count a guy riding a horse into battle hundreds of years ago as a weapon of mass destruction.

That section of the catechism is pretty clearly NOT limiting its scope to regulation of WMD's only. You can read that into it, but that is clearly a case of fitting the church teaching to your belief rather than fitting your belief to the church teaching.
[/quote]

You missed my point completely. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Please reread the post.

[Winchester]

How many people must ban together before it's legitimate to own a nuclear weapon?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1313287522' post='2287326']
"WMD" is itself a rather ill-defined and inexact term, so I think context is needed. The Church has opposed things like the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but has traditionally supported the right of both persons and nations to legitimate defense against agressors.

I don't think it's accurate to read this statement as saying that the state must necessarily ban or heavily regulate the possession of personal firearms by private citizens.

While most would agree that the state has a legitimate right and duty to limit nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or other "WMD"s, where exactly does one draw the line? Should the state ban assault rifles? Handguns? Swords? Knives? Baseball bats? Knowledge of lethal hand-to-hand combat?
[/quote]

Also don't forget, I think the State does have a duty to prevent those who have a history of breaking the law the ability to obtain weapons. You can easily read the CCC as saying the state has a right to regulate the availibilty of firearms to convicted felons.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1313110491' post='2286240']
[img]http://bank.imgdumpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/funny-signs-131-e1291373023318.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
That's crazy dope. Saving it to my photobucket (con permiso).

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1313432839' post='2288464']
That's crazy dope. Saving it to my photobucket (con permiso).
[/quote]

I got from Dominican Fr. Philip Neri Powell's blog, it found it's way into my photobucket.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1312852939' post='2283652']


[i]2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community.[b] Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.[/b] The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.[/i]
[/quote]
CCC2316 is under avoiding war. I don't think it is applicable to personal firearms such as my .357 next to my fourth rib.

[img]http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gun-control-72.jpg[/img]

Edited August 15, 2011 by Papist

[Winchester]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1313214485' post='2286863']
I'm more pist that I can't wear my samurai swords in public. The prohibition of Bat'leths really chaps my arse too. What kind of sissy society is this?
[/quote]
No switchblades either. Because West Side Story. They're not sissies---they're damned ninnies.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1313432629' post='2288457']

Also don't forget, I think the State does have a duty to prevent those who have a history of breaking the law the ability to obtain weapons. You can easily read the CCC as saying the state has a right to regulate the availibilty of firearms to convicted felons.
[/quote]
True, but convicted criminals forfeit a lot of their freedoms.

It is not obvious for me that the CCC is calling for more "gun control" in the usual sense of restricting the rights of private (non-criminal) citizens to keep and bear arms.


Is anyone else confused as to exactly what position J-lol and co. are trying to argue here?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Socrates