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

[Nihil Obstat]

The Wounded Knee Protection of the Common Good by Public Authorities.

 

Ah, thanks. I have heard that one being talked about a lot lately, but I am not that familiar with the context.

[Winchester]

Ah, thanks. I have heard that one being talked about a lot lately, but I am not that familiar with the context.

 

See, some dangerous, unregulated, ordinary mortals needed to be regulated by the super holy representatives of government. Honestly, we should just run everyone through the magical process that sanctifies us. I think somewhere, it explains how government employees don't have to go to confession and are able to commit acts that are sins for the rest of us. Really, this whole approach explains stuff. Like how a Kennedy can get an annulment at the drop of a hat.

[Era Might]

 

 

 

 

Not really worried about the public, for some reason. It's the State that has shown  to be the most effective mass murderer and violator of human dignity.

 

"Ownership" does not interfere with the right to life. And my right to life doesn't end because I have a magazine that holds 11 rounds within some political boundary.

 

What do you believe will become of "the public" once it is militarized? In a world with 6 billion people, are they going to organize in some kind of society of free and independent citizen-warriors, minding their own business?

 

The public would soon be organized along modern political lines, into parties and states. During the Russian Revolution, the peasants were largely free to roam the countryside, there was no effective police presence. At first the peasants imagined that they were free to go on with their lives as they always had, but the revolution turned into the party.

 

What if the American people were to "rise up" against some imagined corrupt government? Who would lead such a defense? It's nice to imagine Joe Schmoe in Tampa and Detroit leading the charge, but it would be organized the same way the modern state is organized, by engineers and party leaders.

 

What we have in America right now is a pretty effective, controlled system where the people can vote their wishes. But how is that system run? By engineers and party leaders. We have some true measure of freedom, but it's all organized into two ruling parties. That's how people generally organize themselves in modern society, into mass organizations.

 

I don't see how that would change if some kind of a public revolution were put into action. Just to survive you would have to develop an organized state that could compete with all the other organized states in the world.

[Winchester]

See, the Sacrament of Matrimony is different if you're in government. Just like thou shalt not steal or murder is suspended.

What do you believe will become of "the public" once it is militarized? In a world with 6 billion people, are they going to organize in some kind of society of free and independent citizen-warriors, minding their own business?

 

The public would soon be organized along modern political lines, into parties and states. During the Russian Revolution, the peasants were largely free to roam the countryside, there was no effective police presence. At first the peasants imagined that they were free to go on with their lives as they always had, but the revolution turned into the party.

 

What if the American people were to "rise up" against some imagined corrupt government? Who would lead such a defense? It's nice to imagine Joe Schmoe in Tampa and Detroit leading the charge, but it would be organized the same way the modern state is organized, by engineers and party leaders.

 

What we have in America right now is a pretty effective, controlled system where the people can vote their wishes. But how is that system run? By engineers and party leaders. We have some true measure of freedom, but it's all organized into two ruling parties. That's how people generally organize themselves in modern society, into mass organizations.

 

I don't see how that would change if some kind of a public revolution were put into action. Just to survive you would have to develop an organized state that could compete with all the other organized states in the world.

 

How did you get that out of me showing the wonderful protective acts of our public authorities?

[Era Might]

See, the Sacrament of Matrimony is different if you're in government. Just like thou shalt not steal or murder is suspended.

 

How did you get that out of me showing the wonderful protective acts of our public authorities?

 

Not sure, guess I was just assuming.

 

I guess I'm just asking what you think is the way forward to reshape the role of the state in society? If we accept the silliness of a citizen's revolution, then what can we do within the social shell that we have?

[eagle_eye222001]

The government is not the church, and politics is not theology. Politics is about finding the best ways to live in society, in world that changes.

 

I am not dismissing anything, but your interpretation of things is probably going to be different from mine. In which case, who decides?

 

To me, the guiding principle of politics is the here and now, not trying to construct an ideology out of a document written 250 years ago. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

 

That is not to say I am uninterested in the legal details of these debates. But that is not what motivates me. I do not want to disarm every last person in the country, because that's not going to solve the problem anymore than our prison system solves the problem of crime. But I also don't look at laissez-faire anarchy as a solution, either. There are ways to be creative with law to address problems that we have.

 

Ultimately, I don't take a worshipful attitude toward the law. I do not lose sleep because people have guns, but neither do I lose sleep because people immigrate illegally, or join gangs, or jaywalk. I do not believe in painting everything with a broad criminalizing brush...society is human, and I think the point of politics and law should be to accommodate humanity as much as possible.

 

Trying to live by a purist interpretation of a document from the 18th century is like trying to follow the Mosaic law the same way they did in ancient Israel. It doesn't work. Society did not begin or end in the 18th century.

 

I have an objective understanding of the 2nd Amendment.  I recognize the 2nd for what it was meant, and for what it should be.  My position exists.  If the 2nd should be different for our so called modern age, then there is a process to amend the Constitution.  I have no idea on how you understand the 2nd.  Although as you said yourself, you have no idea who should interpret.  When I offer an analogical solution, you routinely dismiss it simply because it's different words...

 

Arbitrarily deciding when you want to follow the Constitution is not a good idea .... it makes the Constitution pointless.  As I said before, the issue is not the 2nd Amendment since you take no position and can't decide where to set up base camp.  However, I have offered the solution that It makes the most sense to interpret something in light of its origins.

 

When you read the Bible, do you interpret in light of personal interpretation, or do you interpret in light of the meaning behind it and the Church?  You are arbitrarily deciding that politics and theology are different so you can cop out and take a different approach with both but there is no good reason listed to do so.  You say they are different, but is that difference substantial enough to warrant disqualification of such an approach?  I say no, and I have yet to see any solid reason for otherwise.

 

We are not supposed to follow the Mosaic law.  We are supposed to follow the Constitution.  Simply because a document from the 18th century logically does not make it invalid.  It is up to you and others to prove that such a document is out-of-date and indeed worthy of no longer being followed.  It is up to you to propose amendments to it if you have issues with the original meaning of it.  Jesus said we are to no longer follow the old Law.  However, just because our current and past presidents ignore the Constitution and trample it does not mean it is out of date.  We are still at risk for a tyrannical government just as people have been in every age.  Thus, until such a fear can be proven false beyond a doubt with absolutely no chance at all, we should stick with the wisdom of our forefathers to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

To ignore the Constitution  is to invalidate it, and make it meaningless.  Thanks to many people, we now have a large federal government is increasing in size and power with every presidential term.  You have a right to free speech....just fill out this form, pay a $200 processing fee, and say it only in pre-approved areas.  Be warned, if you say anything dangerous, or speak in prohibited areas such as churches, schools, and movie theaters, we'll arrest/fine you.  Oh, and you need to take a class to learn what you can speak and why!

 

I sound ludicrous, but only because I mixed two amendments from the Bill of Rights with the modern understanding of them.

 

If you want to make a case against the Constitution, you need to do way more than just claim it's old, or is out of date.  Cite for me the founding fathers intentions...and then show why such thinking is out of date.  That is your case to make.  Until then, the 2nd as it was meant to be stands!

[Era Might]

I have an objective understanding of the 2nd Amendment.  I recognize the 2nd for what it was meant, and for what it should be.  My position exists.  If the 2nd should be different for our so called modern age, then there is a process to amend the Constitution.  I have no idea on how you understand the 2nd.  Although as you said yourself, you have no idea who should interpret.  When I offer an analogical solution, you routinely dismiss it simply because it's different words...

 

Arbitrarily deciding when you want to follow the Constitution is not a good idea .... it makes the Constitution pointless.  As I said before, the issue is not the 2nd Amendment since you take no position and can't decide where to set up base camp.  However, I have offered the solution that It makes the most sense to interpret something in light of its origins.

 

When you read the Bible, do you interpret in light of personal interpretation, or do you interpret in light of the meaning behind it and the Church?  You are arbitrarily deciding that politics and theology are different so you can cop out and take a different approach with both but there is no good reason listed to do so.  You say they are different, but is that difference substantial enough to warrant disqualification of such an approach?  I say no, and I have yet to see any solid reason for otherwise.

 

We are not supposed to follow the Mosaic law.  We are supposed to follow the Constitution.  Simply because a document from the 18th century logically does not make it invalid.  It is up to you and others to prove that such a document is out-of-date and indeed worthy of no longer being followed.  It is up to you to propose amendments to it if you have issues with the original meaning of it.  Jesus said we are to no longer follow the old Law.  However, just because our current and past presidents ignore the Constitution and trample it does not mean it is out of date.  We are still at risk for a tyrannical government just as people have been in every age.  Thus, until such a fear can be proven false beyond a doubt with absolutely no chance at all, we should stick with the wisdom of our forefathers to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

To ignore the Constitution  is to invalidate it, and make it meaningless.  Thanks to many people, we now have a large federal government is increasing in size and power with every presidential term.  You have a right to free speech....just fill out this form, pay a $200 processing fee, and say it only in pre-approved areas.  Be warned, if you say anything dangerous, or speak in prohibited areas such as churches, schools, and movie theaters, we'll arrest/fine you.  Oh, and you need to take a class to learn what you can speak and why!

 

I sound ludicrous, but only because I mixed two amendments from the Bill of Rights with the modern understanding of them.

 

If you want to make a case against the Constitution, you need to do way more than just claim it's old, or is out of date.  Cite for me the founding fathers intentions...and then show why such thinking is out of date.  That is your case to make.  Until then, the 2nd as it was meant to be stands!

 

 

My point is that there is the assumption on the Right that its interpretation of the Constitution is correct, or as you say, objective, because well, it just is. But I find this a recipe for fanaticism, and one can see that fanaticism on the Right and its paranoia about the people rising up against the government, or the 100,000 people who signed a petition recently for Texas to secede from the union.

 

It doesn't really matter what argument I make for an interpretation of the Second Amendment, because you have already decided that your interpretation is "objective." I don't see how any kind of social "living together" is possible in that case, since you have already decided that your vision for society is the "objective" one, and the experience of other people in society has no place.

[Socrates]

Yes, it does:

 

CCC 2316: The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.

 

The section of the Catechism you pulled that from is titled "Avoiding War," which specifically addresses the issues of war between nations and the arms race, which typically concerns nuclear arms and other such high-end weapons of mass destruction.

 

Here's your quote with the surrounding sentences included for proper context:

 

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."¹¹⁰ A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;¹¹¹ it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. 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.

 

 

This section is not discussing ownership of personal small arms by private citizens for use in self-defense.

 

There is certainly nothing to imply that the state has a moral duty to deprive its law-abiding citizens of weapons to be used in legitimate self-defense.

And it certainly does not mean that Catholics are morally obligated to support the various "gun-control" measures supported by Obama and other "liberal" politicians..

 

It would be absurd and contradictory for the Church to teach (as she does) that persons have a right to defend their own lives--and a right and duty to defend the lives of those entrusted to them--against aggressors, and at the same time deprive persons of the means to such legitimate defense.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[double post]

Edited January 17, 2013 by Socrates

[eagle_eye222001]

My point is that there is the assumption on the Right that its interpretation of the Constitution is correct, or as you say, objective, because well, it just is. But I find this a recipe for fanaticism, and one can see that fanaticism on the Right and its paranoia about the people rising up against the government, or the 100,000 people who signed a petition recently for Texas to secede from the union.

 

It doesn't really matter what argument I make for an interpretation of the Second Amendment, because you have already decided that your interpretation is "objective." I don't see how any kind of social "living together" is possible in that case, since you have already decided that your vision for society is the "objective" one, and the experience of other people in society has no place.

 

 

So the original meaning of the founders isn't objective?  Again, just as the Bible's original meaning has no objective meaning?  The writer's intent means nothing?

 

Apparently all the founders were paranoid about a tyrannical government just as we are paranoid that a fire will burn down a school.  For that reason, we have sprinkler systems in every modern building....because we are paranoid about a fire breaking out.  Why be so paranoid?

 

Your fluid reasoning makes it impossible to discuss anything since anything objective in your eyes is a condemnation of another position. In that sense, you cannot make any progress in discussing anything since everything is relative and means nothing......unless you arbitrarily decide it means something.  So I ask what do you hope to accomplish in this discussion since you deny anything meaningful yet accuse me of living in a fanciful world?

[Socrates]

Sometimes It is nice not being catholic. If I had a conversation with both Bloomberg and the Pope and they both told me guns only belonged in the hands of police, i would be pretty comfortable telling them both to get stuffed.

 

As a Catholic, I do not have to agree with every personal opinion of the Pope on prudential matters, such as whether it is best that private citizens be armed or that only police officers have guns.  

The Pope is only infallible when making doctrinal pronouncements on matters of faith and morals, not on matters of politics, science, etc.

 

While, out of respect, I wouldn't tell His Holiness to "get stuffed," I would still disagree with him on this matter, if in fact he did say that guns only belong in the hands of police (which I'm not sure he actually indeed said.)  There are a number of prudential judgments I disagree with the Pope on.

 

 

 

But I think you are extrapolating too far what the catholic church has written. As far as regulating goes, all that means is they dont support a completely unregulated gun system, which is far from the 20,000 gun laws the USA has. If you have anything more specific than "some regulation may be required", feel free to post it.

True, except the quoted excerpt from the Catechism concerning arms regulations doesn't refer specifically to firearms.  The only arms specifically mentioned in that section are "atomic, biological, and chemical weapons."

The Catechism is expressing concerns about the international arms race and the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rather than guns for use in personal defense.

[Era Might]

So the original meaning of the founders isn't objective?  Again, just as the Bible's original meaning has no objective meaning?  The writer's intent means nothing?

 

Apparently all the founders were paranoid about a tyrannical government just as we are paranoid that a fire will burn down a school.  For that reason, we have sprinkler systems in every modern building....because we are paranoid about a fire breaking out.  Why be so paranoid?

 

Your fluid reasoning makes it impossible to discuss anything since anything objective in your eyes is a condemnation of another position. In that sense, you cannot make any progress in discussing anything since everything is relative and means nothing......unless you arbitrarily decide it means something.  So I ask what do you hope to accomplish in this discussion since you deny anything meaningful yet accuse me of living in a fanciful world?

 

What do I hope to accomplish in discussion? Just that, discussion.

 

You don't seem to have any way to resolve disagreement except to claim objectivity, and therefore the right of way. I am willing to work in a society where other people see things differently. I am even willing to let other people make decisions in society that I do not agree with. But I also claim a right for my voice, and my actions, in the midst of it.

 

There are scholars, politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. very well versed in these matters who disagree. Contrary to what you suggest, I find them all "meaningful," though I don't think any of them have some "objective" view of things.

[Fidei Defensor]

I have an objective understanding of the 2nd Amendment.  I recognize the 2nd for what it was meant, and for what it should be.  My position exists.  If the 2nd should be different for our so called modern age, then there is a process to amend the Constitution.  I have no idea on how you understand the 2nd.  Although as you said yourself, you have no idea who should interpret.  When I offer an analogical solution, you routinely dismiss it simply because it's different words...

 

Arbitrarily deciding when you want to follow the Constitution is not a good idea .... it makes the Constitution pointless.  As I said before, the issue is not the 2nd Amendment since you take no position and can't decide where to set up base camp.  However, I have offered the solution that It makes the most sense to interpret something in light of its origins.

 

When you read the Bible, do you interpret in light of personal interpretation, or do you interpret in light of the meaning behind it and the Church?  You are arbitrarily deciding that politics and theology are different so you can cop out and take a different approach with both but there is no good reason listed to do so.  You say they are different, but is that difference substantial enough to warrant disqualification of such an approach?  I say no, and I have yet to see any solid reason for otherwise.

 

We are not supposed to follow the Mosaic law.  We are supposed to follow the Constitution.  Simply because a document from the 18th century logically does not make it invalid.  It is up to you and others to prove that such a document is out-of-date and indeed worthy of no longer being followed.  It is up to you to propose amendments to it if you have issues with the original meaning of it.  Jesus said we are to no longer follow the old Law.  However, just because our current and past presidents ignore the Constitution and trample it does not mean it is out of date.  We are still at risk for a tyrannical government just as people have been in every age.  Thus, until such a fear can be proven false beyond a doubt with absolutely no chance at all, we should stick with the wisdom of our forefathers to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

To ignore the Constitution  is to invalidate it, and make it meaningless.  Thanks to many people, we now have a large federal government is increasing in size and power with every presidential term.  You have a right to free speech....just fill out this form, pay a $200 processing fee, and say it only in pre-approved areas.  Be warned, if you say anything dangerous, or speak in prohibited areas such as churches, schools, and movie theaters, we'll arrest/fine you.  Oh, and you need to take a class to learn what you can speak and why!

 

I sound ludicrous, but only because I mixed two amendments from the Bill of Rights with the modern understanding of them.

 

If you want to make a case against the Constitution, you need to do way more than just claim it's old, or is out of date.  Cite for me the founding fathers intentions...and then show why such thinking is out of date.  That is your case to make.  Until then, the 2nd as it was meant to be stands!

 

You should remember this when the idea that legislating morality is okay because its the "truth." The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, unless its a morality thing, then just go for it!"  

 

In addition, I couldn't give a flying fig what the Founding Fathers have said. The words of the Constitution are the only thing that hold weight. No one is obligated to follow the ideas of the Fathers. They are only obligated to follow the words of the Constitution.

Edited January 17, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[Socrates]

A state militia is a government militia. And the Second Amendment speaks of a "well regulated" militia, not an unregulated militia.

 

 

reg·u·late
  [reg-yuh-leyt]  Show IPA

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.

1.

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

 

 

It's one sentence (i.e., the clauses are related). And it's speaking about the defense of a "free state," not self defense, nor defense against the government.

 

Of course, anything can be read into anything, but the literal text says very little, and frames its point in the context of a "well regulated militia" in a "state" (I know you hate that word).

 

The meaning of the second amendment is quite clear when studying the writings of the founding fathers and American history at the time of the framing.

 

All militias at the time of the framing were of the individual states.

Militias were comprised of private free citizens, who owned their own arms.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" refers to the state militias, not the arms owned and born by the people.

 

The entire Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was written in order to protect the rights of the people and of the individual states against infringement by the federal government.  In this case, the government is not to infringe in any way on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - very plainly written.

 

The Bill of Rights grants no powers to the federal government, but puts specific limits on what it can do.

 

The Constitution's framers, as well as most of the other founding fathers, wrote of the importance of the right of the people to own and bear arms as a bulwark of freedom against foreign and potential domestic tyranny and oppression of the people.

[Era Might]

The meaning of the second amendment is quite clear when studying the writings of the founding fathers and American history at the time of the framing.

 

All militias at the time of the framing were of the individual states.

Militias were comprised of private free citizens, who owned their own arms.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" refers to the state militias, not the arms owned and born by the people.

 

The entire Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was written in order to protect the rights of the people and of the individual states against infringement by the federal government.  In this case, the government is not to infringe in any way on the right of the people to keep and bear arms - very plainly written.

 

The Bill of Rights grants no powers to the federal government, but puts specific limits on what it can do.

 

The Constitution's framers, as well as most of the other founding fathers, wrote of the importance of the right of the people to own and bear arms as a bulwark of freedom against foreign and potential domestic tyranny and oppression of the people.

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion and interpretation.