Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[dairygirl4u2c]

Socrates is just wrong. He found a city or two that follows his preconceptions and made a rule out of it.  Science says his examples are exceptions to the rule as my post says above. He's arguing w science not me. Places w more gun control have less homicide than places w less. 

[Socrates]

Rights aren't dependent on stats.

Gun control = less freedom, bigger government, more tyranny.

 

[little2add]

 

[Socrates]

"too many"

[Peace]

On July 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Socrates said:

less freedom, bigger government

 

These are not necessarily bad things, at least from a Catholic standpoint.

On July 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Socrates said:

Gun control = more tyranny.

That's debatable. Depends on the specific form of control and the specific type of weapons being controlled.

[dominicansoul]

I've been mulling over buying a handgun because my great state allows open carry.  I just have one question.  If pantsuit wins the presidency does she have the power to destroy open carry laws?  I just don't want to go to the trouble and spend the $$$$ if the democrats take away my rights.  

[Papist]

Not having the legitimate power/authority will not stop her. More than likely she will try regardless. But it will be a long, hard battle.

[Socrates]

On 7/23/2016 at 6:59 AM, Peace said:

These are not necessarily bad things, at least from a Catholic standpoint.

The stripping of legitimate freedoms and the insatiable grabbing and centralization of power by the state is not a good thing, and not to be applauded.  Neither is our leviathon federal state's blatant disregard for its lawful (constitutional) limits.  Our federal government exceeded its lawful and legitimate powers long ago.

Let's not delude ourselves; there's nothing good or Catholic about the modern state and its objectives; it's not really interested in "the common good," but in increasing its own power ("gun control" is but one aspect of this).  Before you start piously idolizing Holy Mother the State, you might try looking up the "principle of subsidiarity." (JPII wrote about it.)

And unless something is in fact inherently evil, I'd say it's best that the federal government leave it alone.  There's nothing inherently evil about owning guns or other such weapons.

 

Quote

That's debatable. Depends on the specific form of control and the specific type of weapons being controlled.

There's definitely  no actual need to further restrict ownership of any weapons that are currently legal.  (I would argue that automatic weapons should be legal too, but that's not what's currently under debate.)  The needless restriction of legitimate rights and freedoms (such as owning the means to one's defense) is tyranny.

[Socrates]

19 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I've been mulling over buying a handgun because my great state allows open carry.  I just have one question.  If pantsuit wins the presidency does she have the power to destroy open carry laws?  I just don't want to go to the trouble and spend the $$$$ if the democrats take away my rights.  

 

11 hours ago, Papist said:

Not having the legitimate power/authority will not stop her. More than likely she will try regardless. But it will be a long, hard battle.

 

Under the constitution, the president has absolutely no such power.  Though like our current Dear Leader, she'll no doubt try the "executive order" "pen and a phone" bs.  We can just hope that Congress stands up to her.

More troubling is the fact that we're just one SCOTUS justice away from losing the Second Amendment.  Though likely allowing state restrictions will come before giving the rubber stamp to actual federal anti-gun laws (though that will be next on their agenda.)

It's probably better to buy now than wait.  (If I could afford it, I'd buy more.)  Unfortunately, there are already regulations and some proposed taxes that would greatly drive up the cost of buying guns and ammo even without anything actually being banned.  Likely obtaining guns and ammo will become more costly and difficult before the government tries actual confiscation.  If they do go that route, they'll have a hard, ugly fight on their hands.  (At least I hope they will.)

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

The stripping of legitimate freedoms and the insatiable grabbing and centralization of power by the state is not a good thing, and not to be applauded.  

Agreed.

I just wanted to clarify that "less freedom" = good and "more government" = bad are not unequivocal statements that can be made from a Catholic standpoint. If that were the situation you could not justify ANY form of government. Anarchy would be the ideal.

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Neither is our leviathon federal state's blatant disregard for its lawful (constitutional) limits.  Our federal government exceeded its lawful and legitimate powers long ago.

I would tend to agree that the Federal Goverment is significantly bigger than it need be from an efficiency standpoint, but you might have trouble convincing me that the government has gone beyond its legitimate powers. I am certainly no expert on it.

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Let's not delude ourselves; there's nothing good or Catholic about the modern state and its objectives; it's not really interested in "the common good," but in increasing its own power ("gun control" is but one aspect of this).  

The government is comprised of people just like you and me. It is not as if "the state" is some creature that has an intelligence  or will that is independent of the individual people who comprise it. Some of those people are power hungry. Some of those people actually desire to serve the common good. So it seems to me that a blanket condemnation of all of government is somewhat unwarranted.

If there is nothing good or Catholic about our government is it safe to presume that you believe we would be better off with anarchy?

I would also be interested in knowing whether you believe whether there was any point in US history where the state was for the common good?  I am wondering if you have some rather idealistic view of the so-called founding fathers of this country. Do you somehow believe that the politicians of that era were nobler than the politicians of today?

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Before you start piously idolizing Holy Mother the State, you might try looking up the "principle of subsidiarity." (JPII wrote about it.)

I sometimes wonder about your memory.  We have discussed subsidiary multiple times during our previous debates. You seem to think that the principle of subsidiary holds that "smaller is better", but please correct me if I am wrong. Subsidiary does not hold that "smaller is better, but rather, that a matter should be handled at the most local (or lowest) level necessary to properly dispose of it.  This would not preclude, for example, a system of Universal Health Care IF that level of control were necessary to ensure that all citizens have access to basic health care.

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

And unless something is in fact inherently evil, I'd say it's best that the federal government leave it alone.  There's nothing inherently evil about owning guns or other such weapons.

Fair enough. The defense of the nation against foreign powers is not inherently evil either. Is it safe to assume that you would also leave this up to the states? Donald Rumsfeld may not like your idea very much.

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

There's definitely  no actual need to further restrict ownership of any weapons that are currently legal.  

Perhaps.

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

(I would argue that automatic weapons should be legal too, but that's not what's currently under debate.)  

Where exactly would you draw the line, and why? I assume that you don't want people walking the streets with bombs, biological weapons, Uzis and so forth? Or are such things acceptable in the land of Socrates?

[dairygirl4u2c]

a lot of gun nuts draw a line arbitrarily about what restrictions should be in place. most that i talk to just want to enforce what we have, as if what we have is magical. it's just the status quo, what happens to be in place. if you dont think background checks work for expanding them, shouldn't you be for getting rid of them altoegher against the status quo? if you think what we have now with checks works, doesn't that mean expanding them would add to the protection? ive heard some argue that a transaction between a father and son is sacred, which was my first impression too.... but i dont see why we cant just treat guns like cars. but anyways, i guessi understand that point if that's your position. are nuke guns not okay but semiautomatics okay? where do you draw the line, and why is the current situation the best? why not go the opposite direction and allow machine guns? i could go o with examples but my point is they embrace arbitrary-ness when they just say 'enforce the status quo"

[Socrates]

On 7/25/2016 at 7:38 PM, Peace said:

Agreed.

I just wanted to clarify that "less freedom" = good and "more government" = bad are not unequivocal statements that can be made from a Catholic standpoint. If that were the situation you could not justify ANY form of government. Anarchy would be the ideal.

Limited government =/= anarchy.

Quote

I would tend to agree that the Federal Goverment is significantly bigger than it need be from an efficiency standpoint, but you might have trouble convincing me that the government has gone beyond its legitimate powers. I am certainly no expert on it.

My primary concern is not about efficiency.  Unjust governments can be brutally efficient in their tyranny.

If you're okay with public officials blatantly disregarding the limitations of the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold, it's unlikely anything I say will convince you.

 

Quote

The government is comprised of people just like you and me. It is not as if "the state" is some creature that has an intelligence  or will that is independent of the individual people who comprise it. Some of those people are power hungry. Some of those people actually desire to serve the common good. So it seems to me that a blanket condemnation of all of government is somewhat unwarranted.

Private citizens like you or me don't have the legal power to forcibly take your money or property or throw you in a cage if you don't follow my dictates.  The state does.  It's this power over others, and the inherent danger of abuse, that makes the state so dangerous and in need of checks and limitation.  Power corrupts, and tends to attract those who lust after it.  Every single person in government may not be evil (though I'm sure my overall view of politicians is less rosy than your own), but this does not mean the danger can be disregarded.  The less power government has, the less damage can be inflicted by either malice or stupidity.

 

Quote

 

If there is nothing good or Catholic about our government is it safe to presume that you believe we would be better off with anarchy?

I would also be interested in knowing whether you believe whether there was any point in US history where the state was for the common good?  I am wondering if you have some rather idealistic view of the so-called founding fathers of this country. Do you somehow believe that the politicians of that era were nobler than the politicians of today?

 

I generally believe government should be minimal, de-centralized and limited.  I never said anything about anarchy.

I certainly don't believe politicians are any nobler or wiser today.  At least in the past, people in this country had the wisdom to recognize the evils and dangers inherent in government power, and sought to limit and check it.

The idea that those in power are always getting wiser and more virtuous (and thus to be trusted with more power) is delusional nonsense.

 

Quote

I sometimes wonder about your memory.  We have discussed subsidiary multiple times during our previous debates. You seem to think that the principle of subsidiary holds that "smaller is better", but please correct me if I am wrong. Subsidiary does not hold that "smaller is better, but rather, that a matter should be handled at the most local (or lowest) level necessary to properly dispose of it.  This would not preclude, for example, a system of Universal Health Care IF that level of control were necessary to ensure that all citizens have access to basic health care.

Declaring the federal government to be the most local (or lowest) level necessary to take care of things kind of defeats the entire principle.  That's corporatism, not subsidiarity.

You can promote your pet cause of socialist medicine elsewhere.  This is the gun thread.

 

Quote

Fair enough. The defense of the nation against foreign powers is not inherently evil either. Is it safe to assume that you would also leave this up to the states? Donald Rumsfeld may not like your idea very much.

Irrelevant to this discussion (though I would favor a revival of the Militias of the Several States and other such quixotic ideas).  I was talking about people being allowed to own and do things without government interference.  And I really don't give a rat's rear-end what Donald Rumsfeld would think.

 

Quote

 

Perhaps.

Where exactly would you draw the line, and why? I assume that you don't want people walking the streets with bombs, biological weapons, Uzis and so forth? Or are such things acceptable in the land of Socrates?

 

I'd draw the line at things that would indiscriminately cause death and mayhem through a population (such as biological weapons, etc.)  But of course the Land of Socrates is all flowers and unicorns.

[Anselm]

Socrates, your argument seems to focus almost exclusively on your right to carry firearms. What about the huge numbers of people killed by guns each year? Does that not bother you? Are those lives not more important?

[Anomaly]

Maybe there is a more realistic alternative to empowering the government to eliminate 300,000,000 (three hundred million) legal firearms in the US? The first to be disarmed are people obey the law and least likely to use guns with unprovoked violence.   That would leave lawbreakers and criminals as the only armed citizens, with little incentive to not use guns as they will. 

Half of the gun deaths are suicides.  Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death. Most mass shootings are committed by mentally sick persons.  There are other means of inflicting death available.

May it be more prudent and effective to spend money and resources in mental health and fighting the cycle of crime instead of first, disarming sane, law abiding citizens in an environment of 3 Hundred Million firearms?   How is disarmament working out in DC and Chicago?

Maybe it would be nice if we didn't have three hundred million guns in private citizen possession.  But you can't unring a bell.  Let's not make things worse with idealistic stupidity enforced by naïveté and power.    

Suicide, by any means, is the tenth leading cause of death.  Homicide (by any means) is way less than half of that. According to FBI, less than 75% of gun homicides were with a pistol.  But we focus on "assault rifles" being the culprit, etc.

 Politicians, news media, and the gullible masses focus on the wrong solutions because it gets votes, ratings to sell car ads, and Facebook likes. And golly, we feel like we're so much more moral and nicer!   Maybe Pope Francis will click Like on one of our posts.  

[Anselm]

35 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Maybe it would be nice if we didn't have three hundred million guns in private citizen possession.  But you can't unring a bell.  Let's not make things worse with idealistic stupidity enforced by naïveté and power.    

It's not naive nor idealistically stupid to believe that the number of guns in circulation in any country could be reduced. Many deaths simply wouldn't happen if the people in question didn't have ready access to guns. Yes, if someone is determined to kill (including suicide) then they will find a way, but it would dramatically cut the number of deaths that occur because a gun is close at hand. The situations in which someone simply loses their temper would end in death in a fraction of the current number, as they would be reduced to a punch or something similar. 

Just look at at very nearly any other country in the world. Numbers of gun deaths are infinitesimally small by comparison. I'm shocked that an ostensibly Christian website should have so many contributors advocating lethal force.