America And Guns

[elizabeth09]

Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.

http://whoistherealbarackobama.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/070618_sacredright2.jpg.

But see what you mean, Norseman82

Edited November 9, 2009 by elizabeth09

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='08 November 2009 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1257735333' post='1998602']
In my opinion, the problem with American society is not so much the Second Amendment. Rather, the problem is that American Christians are among the most vocal defenders of the Second Amendment.


Note that Our Lord does not speak here of "rights." The Christian vocation ultimately transcends recourse to "rights," even when those rights are naturally legitimate. It is sad that American Christians are more known for the Second Amendment than they are for "turning the other cheek." We have become so fixated on a natural "right to live" that we have lost our sense of the supernatural vocation to non-violence. We are so fixated on a natural right to property that we would shoot a man rather than "let him have your cloak as well" (Matthew 5:40).

As I said, the problem with American society, in my opinion, is not so much the Second Amendment in itself. Rather, the problem is that Christians are not an eschatological witness against the Second Amendment. "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men" (Matthew 5:13).
[/quote]

Your position is distributing. Because of the way you misuse scripture. It is well established teaching of Mother Church that everyone has the right to self-defense. The second amendment is the right of self-defense with use of arms.

-------------------------------------------

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm"][b]Defense of life and person[/b][/url]

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may notlawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend thelife of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.


[b]Defense of property[/b]

It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the agressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust agressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the agressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.

[b]Honor[/b]

Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

[b]Sources[/b]
Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, III, I, iii; St. Thomas, Summa Theolgica, II-II, Q lxvii, a. 7; Billuart, Cursus Theolgiae: in II-II St. Thomae, d. X, a. V.

[elizabeth09]

Same thing pretty much. We can hadle guns at anytimes.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='08 November 2009 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1257731923' post='1998571']
"From Government"

But in America the government is elected by the citizens (the people with the right to the guns) so why would they need protection from something they chose? Not to mention a democratic government has limitations to its power and we have human rights. Obama can't come into your house, tear down your crucifix and abduct your wife.[/quote]

If you give someone power, what is to stop him from abusing it? What limits a 'democratic' State if it decides it doesn't really care whether you want them in power or not? As the French say, "Constitutions are made of paper. Bayonets are made of steel."


[quote]
Most Western countries don't give citizens the right to own guns without restriction and they don't suffer from higher crime rates than America. I include my own country in that. In fact don't you think that allowing citizens to have easy access to guns may just be creating a problem? I'm thinking of the large number of class room massacres America has had in the last decade.[/quote]

No State in the world gives anyone the right to keep and bear arms. God gave us life. God gave us liberty. God gave us the right to defend life and liberty with the best physical means in existence. My owning any defensive weapon I like does not infringe your rights. My right to self-defense with the best means in existence is not dependent upon a piece of parchment with words scrawled upon it by long-dead men, and neither is the existence of my right dependent upon its recognition by any man or body of men.


[quote]
Isn't that why you have an army? I mean especially America! You are numerically and technologically superior to all other foreign armies so if your military can't protect your country from invaders then I doubt civillians with guns could.[/quote]

In a speech in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison (who did not want a Bill of Rights because it might lead people to believe they were the only rights they had, yet who wrote the Second Amendment) said this: "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Through out all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

During the time of the revolution and subsequently, the writing of the Constitution, the citizens of Rutland, Vermont got together and said what they, and the majority of people believed: [font="Verdana"][size="2"]“A regular standing army . . . will be principally composed of the refuse of society, who are destitute of property, and whose idleness and dissipation denies them [/size][/font][size="2"]existence in any other way." [/size](In other words, they join the military because they lead dead-end lives, and feel the need to have every facet of their lives regimented by other men.)

Thomas Jefferson said these things: you can see for yourself what he thought of keeping a standing army, such as the one we have now, a regular army so widely revered in modern America.

[b]"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings."--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261[/b]

[b]"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys,1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]."--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
[/b]
[b]"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207[/b]

[b]"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363[/b]

[b]"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make everyman a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154 [/b]
[url="http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm"]Jefferson on the Standing Army[/url]

Another period quote, from Elbridge Gerry. "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

So remember, whenever you speak of the "need" for a standing army, you are contradicting the men who founded this United State, who, despite their flaws, were very wise, and understood immutable human nature.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Marie-Therese]

Ora, the Second Amendment was originally included to protect the ability of the private citizenry to maintain means of defense of his home and homeland. To quote from the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The American perspective is that individual liberty is paramount; even though we have a standing army, it is a volunteer force, and ultimately the individual is responsible for his/her own protection. Even though the Amendment was largely crafted to accommodate the formation and maintenance of state militias (which were the norm during the Colonial period), Constitutional law has long held that the protections extended to the individual as well as the entity (i.e. militia).

As for me, I believe that it is critical to maintain an ability to protect my home and family from intruders, and though I wish no harm on any person, if my family is threatened I will kill without question. I do own guns. It is not, as Era mentioned, a knee-jerk reaction against being robbed, or a lack of Christian charity. In a world full of Satan's minions, it is not unreasonable to believe that there will be a good possibility that someone would attempt to harm my child. I myself have been robbed at gunpoint. To stand by defenseless while someone harmed my family would not only be a dereliction of duty, it would go against what even the CCC has to say about self defense (see 2264).

My 2 cents.

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 November 2009 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1257736482' post='1998611']everyone has the right to self-defense.[/quote]
I agree. And that's just my point. Christianity is not a philosophy; rather, it is a supernatural vocation. Philosophy is concerned with natural [i]rights[/i]. Christianity is concerned with supernatural [i]vocation[/i]. The Apostles did not go to their deaths because they were unable to secure their [i]rights[/i]. They went to their deaths because they ultimately did not care about their [i]rights[/i]. They ultimately cared about following the supernatural [i]vocation[/i] that Christ revealed and invited them to.

I stand by my criticism that Christians have become so fixated on the natural [i]rights[/i] of this world, that we have forgotten that Our Lord's Kingdom is not of this world, and that he has invited us to bear witness to his Kingdom even while we remain in this world.

Can Christians have recourse to the Second Amendment? Yes. What saddens me is that we overwhelmingly choose to do so, because I believe that when Christians are overwhelmingly fixated on this world and its [i]rights[/i], we compromise the Christian [i]vocation[/i]:

[quote]"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

--1Corinthians 10:23-24[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

For what it's worth, significant gun control really doesn't decrease the amount of gun crimes. Canada proves this. Private citizens only rarely own guns, even more rarely non-hunting guns, and the restrictions on transport and storage are enormous.

Of course, the criminals don't care about that, and why would they? The gun crime comes from the career criminals and the gang bangers. Think they're going to listen to gun laws?



I kinda like what Ann Coulter said; carrying a concealed weapon should be mandatory. What petty criminal in their right mind is going to mug someone when that person legally has to be armed?

[homeschoolmom]

Interesting conversation.

[mommas_boy]

Here's a question, and one that I've struggled with quite a bit.

As has been mentioned by others in this thread, one of the originally intended purposes of the second amendment is to provide society with the means to protect itself from it's own government, in the case that it has become despotic.

However, in the age of the modern military, the following truths are self-evident:

[list]
[*]Tank beats minivan.
[*]Assault rifle beats hunting rifle.
[*]F-22 Raptor beats Cessna 172 (those are both planes; the first being a fighter jet).
[*]Special Forces training beats [i]posse comitatus[/i].
[/list]

I think that the second amendment is still relevant in its purpose of defending ourselves from other citizens, and potentially from foreign aggressors (but not so much, as they're likely to have at the very least tanks and assault rifles, too). But, is it still relevant in defending ourselves from our own government in the event that it becomes despotic?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='08 November 2009 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1257737209' post='1998616']As for me, I believe that it is critical to maintain an ability to protect my home and family from intruders, and though I wish no harm on any person, if my family is threatened I will kill without question. I do own guns. It is not, as Era mentioned, a knee-jerk reaction against being robbed, or a lack of Christian charity. In a world full of Satan's minions, it is not unreasonable to believe that there will be a good possibility that someone would attempt to harm my child. I myself have been robbed at gunpoint. To stand by defenseless while someone harmed my family would not only be a dereliction of duty, it would go against what even the CCC has to say about self defense (see 2264).[/quote]
I completely understand the complexity of these issues, especially for people who have families. What bothers me is not so much the recourse to moderate self-defense; rather, what bothers me is when we use Christianity to justify it. I think we have to recognize that the Christian vocation is eschatological. Maybe we sometimes have to live in this world, and so we cannot always perfectly follow the eschatological vocation. I completely understand that. But I think it's important that we not compromise the eschatological vocation by trying to reconcile it to this world. Someone posted a story a while back about a congregation of American Christians who were invited to bring their guns to church. That's the kind of thing that I think reflects a seriously compromised Christian identity among American Christians. Our Lord told us to turn the other cheek. Maybe we cannot always turn the other cheek. Okay. But let's not try to soften Our Lord's words. Let his words remain what they are, and let us recognize that when we do not turn the other cheek, then we are failing to live up to his words. Let's not try to soften Our Lord's words, and thereby justify our failures and imperfections and compromises as we live with the tensions between this world and the eschatological Kingdom to which Christ has invited us.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='09 November 2009 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1257740529' post='1998635']
Here's a question, and one that I've struggled with quite a bit.

As has been mentioned by others in this thread, one of the originally intended purposes of the second amendment is to provide society with the means to protect itself from it's own government, in the case that it has become despotic.

However, in the age of the modern military, the following truths are self-evident:

[list][*]Tank beats minivan.[*]Assault rifle beats hunting rifle.[*]F-22 Raptor beats Cessna 172 (those are both planes; the first being a fighter jet).[*]Special Forces training beats [i]posse comitatus[/i].[/quote][/list]And a bunch of illiterate North Vietnamese and Afghanis defeated phenomenally more technologically advanced armies, with minimal supplies, many of which the Vietnamese "borrowed" from the aggressors, right off the docks.

Tanks and jets need funding to get maintained and repaired. Many a State has ceased war due to bankruptcy. You don't fight with modern militaries on their own terms.


[quote]I think that the second amendment is still relevant in its purpose of defending ourselves from other citizens, and potentially from foreign aggressors (but not so much, as they're likely to have at the very least tanks and assault rifles, too). But, is it still relevant in defending ourselves from our own government in the event that it becomes despotic?
[/quote]

Yes. The mightiest military on the face of the earth is having its resources bled dry by uneducated shopkeepers and shepherds. The State can't fund war if A) The people refuse to pay for the killing of their neighbors, B) No other State wants to lend the warring State any money, and C) in order to fund its war, the State debases its currency so much that it becomes worthless, and the loyalty of the soldiers goes to the highest bidder.

Ultimately, you don't win a war with technology. You win it with popular support. Actions are based on ideas. As a friend often says, "The best way to stop a war is to convince the guy fighting it not to pull the trigger."

~Sternhauser

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sternhauser

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='08 November 2009 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1257741174' post='1998642']
[/list]And a bunch of illiterate North Vietnamese and Afghanis defeated phenomenally more technologically advanced armies, with minimal supplies, many of which the Vietnamese "borrowed" from the aggressors, right off the docks.

Tanks and jets need funding to get maintained and repaired. Many a State has ceased war due to bankruptcy. You don't fight with modern militaries on their own terms.




Yes. The mightiest military on the face of the earth is having its resources bled dry by uneducated shopkeepers and shepherds. The State can't fund war if A) The people refuse to pay for the killing of their neighbors, B) No other State wants to lend the warring State any money, and C) in order to fund its war, the State debases its currency so much that it becomes worthless, and the loyalty of the soldiers goes to the highest bidder.

Ultimately, you don't win a war with technology. You win it with popular support. Actions are based on ideas. As a friend often says, "The best way to stop a war is to convince the guy fighting it not to pull the trigger."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Interesting. Scary as hell (and I mean that quite literally in this case), but interesting.

Edited November 9, 2009 by mommas_boy

[jeffpugh]

Scary... I'll say...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='08 November 2009 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1257737252' post='1998617']
I agree. And that's just my point. Christianity is not a philosophy; rather, it is a supernatural vocation. Philosophy is concerned with natural [i]rights[/i]. Christianity is concerned with supernatural [i]vocation[/i]. The Apostles did not go to their deaths because they were unable to secure their [i]rights[/i]. They went to their deaths because they ultimately did not care about their [i]rights[/i]. They ultimately cared about following the supernatural [i]vocation[/i] that Christ revealed and invited them to.

I stand by my criticism that Christians have become so fixated on the natural [i]rights[/i] of this world, that we have forgotten that Our Lord's Kingdom is not of this world, and that he has invited us to bear witness to his Kingdom even while we remain in this world.

Can Christians have recourse to the Second Amendment? Yes. What saddens me is that we overwhelmingly choose to do so, because I believe that when Christians are overwhelmingly fixated on this world and its [i]rights[/i], we compromise the Christian [i]vocation[/i]:
[/quote]

Well I am not one of these persons. I do support fully the second amendment as a fundamental right. I still pray should the day come, to die for my Lord, I would indeed. And I am not alone. So I rebuke your criticism, it's a assumption that paints with a wide brush.

There is a problem in our society, one group of vocal persons on the left continuously attempts to rid the US citizens of the right to bare arms. This naturally causes a great need to defend the right.

[OraProMe]

Thanks for the answers guys, especially Marie-Therese, that really helped clear up a few questions I had. I still don't see how it's really needed though. KnighofChrist, I noticed you didn't address my objections either.