Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[Anomaly]

2 minutes ago, Anselm said:

Put that passage from Luke into context; it's in fulfilment of a prophecy. Jesus doesn't demand that they all get weapons, since when he's told that there are two to hand he says that that's enough. It clearly wouldn't be enough to deems thirteen people against a violent mob but is enough to fulfil the prophecy. In the first quotation, however, Jesus explicitly says that 'all those who take up the sword will die by the sword.'

Guns are specifically designed to kill. There is no theological justification for private citizens to own them, particularly when the justification appears to be not through need, but simply by right.

Guns are a defensive weapon for personal protection, unlike an atomic bomb. That is the theological justification.  In your example, Jesus didn't just instruct them to make plow shares. Two were the appropriate amount for legitimate self defense. 

Is self defense not Christian?

[Anselm]

No, guns are offensive weapons; you cannot claim that lethal force is defensive.

You're right, Jesus didn't instruct them to make ploughshares, that's elsewhere in the Bible. Still there though!

Turn the other cheek etc...

[Anomaly]

Bigotry is simply obstinate devotion to your opinion.  It's not inflammatory.  I prefer that word to "mulish" without getting too fancy with "intransigent myopia". 

[Amppax]

2 minutes ago, Anselm said:

No, guns are offensive weapons; you cannot claim that lethal force is defensive.

You're right, Jesus didn't instruct them to make ploughshares, that's elsewhere in the Bible. Still there though!

Turn the other cheek etc...

Yes you can. lethal force can be licitly used defensively, see CCC 2263.

[Anselm]

1 minute ago, Anomaly said:

Bigotry is simply obstinate devotion to your opinion.  It's not inflammatory.  I prefer that word to "mulish" without getting too fancy with "intransigent myopia". 

No, bigotry has immediate connotations of unfairness, ignorance and narrow-mindedness, which certainly make it inflammatory, as I'm sure you're quite aware.

[Anomaly]

4 minutes ago, Anselm said:

No, guns are offensive weapons; you cannot claim that lethal force is defensive.

You're right, Jesus didn't instruct them to make ploughshares, that's elsewhere in the Bible. Still there though!

Turn the other cheek etc...

I guess the Popes with armed Pontifical Swiss Guards are just faking it. 

[Anselm]

3 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Yes you can. lethal force can be licitly used defensively, see CCC 2263.

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

[Anomaly]

3 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Yes you can. lethal force can be licitly used defensively, see CCC 2263.

Just quoting to bring things back on topic and bring this to the current page.  

[Amppax]

Just now, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

That's not what you said, but thanks for clarifying. That's still a very debatable point. 

[Anselm]

It's already on this page.

We all have our own experiences and opinions, of course, and in my experience of guns and of theology the two are incompatible and any attempt to reduce the number of guns in circulation is a positive thing.

[Anomaly]

2 minutes ago, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

 

Our citizens have not lived for centuries under the armed boot heel of the ruling class.   We were also allowed to hunt for sustenance without the Kings permission.  Different circumstances. 

Again. It's about the proper use of a gun.   You aren't going to magically eliminate 300,000,000 guns with words on paper.  

[Anselm]

'The armed boot heel of the ruling class'? Um, I'm sure you haven't, but who has? Hunting for sustenance hardly comes into it now does it? 

And no, 300,000,000 guns wouldn't be 'magically eliminated'; it would begin a long and torturous process, but one by which thousands of lives would be saved.

[Amppax]

10 minutes ago, Anselm said:

The point I'm making is that in the majority of circumstances in which lethal force is used it is not proportional.

Also, you don't seem to be arguing that you NEED a gun, simply that you'll have one because it's your right to do so and that that right should remain.

I'm responding to the second part, because I didn't see it earlier. I don't own a gun personally, nor am I a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment (therefore, I'm not pro-gun). In fact, I think there's a case to be made that the modern gun lobby misinterprets the 2nd amendment, though that's a different debate than the current one. The problem that I have, and which others have, with your statements is that they are overly simplistic and show that you know little about the American political context. You have shown you know next to nothing about the historical, cultural, and legal context of the debate over gun control in this country, and also that you don't really understand the issue from the standpoint of moral theology. 

[Anselm]

Thank you for your detailed assumptions about many elements of my knowledge and experience; the reason none of this has gone very far is that I struggle to see why you and others appear to have no desire to attempt to reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S. So far I've seen no indication that any of you believe the number to be in any way strange, let alone unacceptable. 

I'd be very grateful if you could explain exactly what it is I apparently don't understand.

[Anomaly]

3 minutes ago, Anselm said:

'The armed boot heel of the ruling class'? Um, I'm sure you haven't, but who has? Hunting for sustenance hardly comes into it now does it? 

And no, 300,000,000 guns wouldn't be 'magically eliminated'; it would begin a long and torturous process, but one by which thousands of lives would be saved.

The British Government has a long tradition of laws to keep citizens disarmed so the void dominate, such as the Disarming Act in 1716.   That helped keep the Scots under Protestant rule. 

So now it's not theology, it's about saving lives?    Whose lives?   The sane law abiding citizens?  Who suffers during the "torturous process"?   Who realistically remains armed?  Who realistically has a means of self defense doring this process?  We're all to just rely on the State to protect us?    How's that working?