National Catholic Review: Repeal The Second Amendment

Posted: February 21, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, Religion, Second Amendment, Tyranny

From America Magazine/The Nationl Catholic Review, a long piece with the familiar anti-gun spiel and their conclusion here:

Americans must ask: Is it prudent to retain a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms when it compels our judges to strike down reasonable, popularly supported gun regulations? Is it moral to inhibit in this way the power of the country’s elected representatives to provide for the public safety?

There is nothing reasonable about any steps towards disarmament.  It is only “reasonable” to the tyrant, who lies until he has total power.

It is absolutely moral to inhibit the power of government.  And somebody else already came up with 95 reasons to inhibit the power of the Catholic Church.

martin luther 95 theses

Does the threat of tyranny, a legitimate 18th-century concern but an increasingly remote, fanciful possibility in the contemporary United States, trump the grisly, daily reality of gun violence?

There have been plenty of tyrannies since the 18th century, and the tyrannies since the 18th century have killed many more people.  The grisly, daily reality of violence is man upon man.  The apocalyptic reality of government violence goes far beyond any of that is scale.

There have already been concentration camps inside the US.  There is nothing “fanciful” about it.

H

Just to really hammer the point home hard in a very critical way – to many people today, God (especially by Catholicism’s claims) is an increasingly remote, fanciful possibility in the contemporary United States.  The Catholic Church and their particular belief system have been rejected quite a lot, as they claim their moral and sometimes physical authority based on their remote, fanciful possibility of a God they can’t prove (otherwise there wouldn’t be Protestants who reject the Catholic dogma, agnostics who question it, or atheists who outright reject it).

You can visit Heart Mountain.  You don’t have to believe, and there are no massive institutions set up to develop belief in it (and thereby develop their own power around it).  It simply exists.  It is there.

The answer to each of these questions is no.

If you refuse to acknowledge the deaths of millions and if you selectively ignore information which disputes your conclusion, and if you want greater power over the population, sure.

It is time to face reality. If the American people are to confront this scourge in any meaningful way, then they must change. The Constitution must change. The American people should repeal the Second Amendment.

No.  That is not reality.  That is a willful rejection of reality.

You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

Jesus, Matthew 12:34

I’m with the Jewish carpenter.

In a recent interview, Tommaso Di Ruzza, the expert on disarmament and arms control at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, explained that an individual does not possess an absolute natural right to own a lethal weapon: “There is a sort of natural right to defend the common interest and the common good” by the limited use of force, but this applies more to nations with an effective rule of law, not armed individuals.

What a surprise, an expert on disarmament says individuals don’t have rights to self defense – that they must be part of a collective.  According to the “expert on disarmament”, an individual life is irrelevant to “the common good”.  An individual has no right to arms to defend themselves with effective tools, so the individual life is forfeit, unless the collective agrees.

It’s almost like there’s somebody who taught us a lesson about persecution at some point in the past…  Maybe something about one guy being killed because the many wanted him dead…  There might’ve been a few lessons to that story that that guy’s death was supposed to teach us…  I’m sure the Catholic Church hasn’t heard it before.

In the wake of Newtown, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan said that “the fight for greater gun control in the country” is a pro-life position. “The unfettered access to assault weapons and handguns, along with the glorification of violence in our ‘entertainment’ industry…is really all part of a culture of death,” Cardinal Dolan said.

Oh really?  Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan?

A week before Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan is set to leave New York for Rome, where his name is being floated as a candidate for pope, he was questioned in Manhattan for three hours on Wednesday behind closed doors in a legal deposition concerning the sexual abuse of children by priests.

The lawyers deposing Cardinal Dolan represent hundreds of people who say they were sexually molested by priests in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, which he led for seven years before his appointment as archbishop of New York in 2009. The lawyers want to know when Cardinal Dolan, as archbishop of Milwaukee, learned of allegations against certain priests, and how quickly he made those allegations public.

Cardinal Dolan is one of two American cardinals who are being deposed in sexual abuse lawsuits this week…

Cardinal Timothy M. “Pays Off Child Molesters” Dolan?

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.

Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”

But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.

I’m going back to what the Jewish carpenter said:

You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

Jesus, Matthew 12:34

They speak of disarmament while they molest children.  They speak of collective rights which make the individual defenseless.  They reject the facts of what happens when governments become tyrannical, they reject crime statistics they don’t like, and they then demand that the US changes its laws?

In the national imagination, the Constitution is too often thought of as a kind of sacred text. Yet neither our founders nor our forebears held to that view. The Constitution is mere human law. It is excellent law, but it is not divine law; it is not revelation. We should be wary of amending the Bill of Rights. We should also be wary of idolizing it. The Constitution is the man-made law of a self-governing people; the people, therefore, are entitled to ask basic, critical questions about it. In our time, is a given constitutional provision a good law or a bad law? Does it promote the common good? The secular dogma of constitutional immutability must yield to careful, critical inquiry.

The origins of who wrote it, how they were inspired to write it, and all the history makes it pretty darned close to sacred text.  It isn’t “mere human law”, it’s the best governmental law there is, and it provides for an environment wherein religious groups can worship as they choose, creating an environment in which the free and open discussion of what is right and wrong in a religious sense can be decided without coercion or holy wars.

The Constitution is a law of self-governing people.  If you take away the arms of the people, they are no longer self-governed.  Then there is a government of the Ruling Class who rule the rest of the people.

Ben Franklin famously said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”  The “common good” means the lamb should be the wolves’ dinner.  By 66% vote, the wolves have it.  The “common good” is unacceptable, and has for millenia been the cry of tyrants who oppress minorities… like some people in a book that some people’s entire religions are based off of.

The Constitution is a social science model, not in the mushy sociology of today, but in the “what form of government works” analysis of generations past.  It works.  It does provide for the individual and common good as well.  It does benefit it to have a moral, invested citizenry to uphold it, but it is closer to laws of science and how people work together in groups.  It’s worked demonstratably well for an incredibly long time because it was written by men with a very good understanding of how people work together, the natural tendencies of one group to oppress another, and with the best system of opposing checks and balances to help keep the individual citizen as free as possible.  It’s not just some transient thing scribbled down on parchment.  The Founders wrote it down the way an engineer writes blueprints for a well-constructed house.

The Catholic Church inserting itself into science and declaring that only one view of how the world works is acceptable is part of the reason Galileo ended up under arrest for a long time.

Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief.

Does not happen.  Never happens.  Disarmament leads to genocide, and it does so every damned time, just at different speeds.  When one group has uncontested power and authority over another, the weaker is exploited.  Altar boys know this.

Government, too, is people.   Putting power in the hands of government simply leads to oppression.  A religious argument for governmental tyranny is every bit as invalid as a secular one.

If only there were a crystal clear example of putting power in the hands of one group of “well-meaning” religious people that resulted in torture, execution, persecution and mass murder of people they disliked

inquisition torture

We’ve got a Constitution to prevent this.

And the Jewish carpenter would agree.

And if you don’t have an AR-15, sell your cloak and buy one.

jesus ar 15

Well, he’d say it today.

Update: Another point to add that I omitted yesterday – the National Catholic Review’s anti-2A stance also rejects the life of any individual – including the individual Catholic – as worth defending by denying effective tools of self-defense.

Consider that one of the main tenets of the KKK was anti-Catholicism, and that an argument for disarmament of the individual against the mob would leave individual Catholics defenseless.

For a church that’s both persecuted the defenseless and itself been the target of persecution, the need for effective self-defense against any oppression is probably pretty well understood by the rank & file Catholic; while the Ruling Class theocracy is simply out for the same kind of power that secular Ruling Class people are out for.

Comments
  1. Where was the Catholic Church when Hitler disarmed people in Germany? In light of this, I suppose they supported it? They must has as I would have to ask just where was the Catholic Church in Germany when Hitler after disarming the population in order to promote public safety ( Sound familiar?) started in killing off the Jews as they had no means of defense. So then as now the Catholic Church seems to have it’s do gooder head buried in it’s ass. Interesting how Dolan railed to get Obama out of office, but now supports his tyrannical ideas of civil disarmament.

  2. Roxene Kimes says:

    Living by the sword or dying by the sword makes a broad statement that would seem to deny those that want to promote superior firepower as the “end all” = which seems to be the bomb that destroyed Dr Paul’s bid to reinstate the golden rule into our foreign policy. Yet American consciences that rely ONLY on firepower because it IS superior, rather than God? Being Godless I fear is a lot more erroneous than being gunless and keeping that in ones mind is more important than keeping a gun in ones hand.
    THAT BEING SAID, I can certainly see where this is headed and the prophetic eschatological implications for the catholics to align (as usual) with the money. It is time to rekindle the reformation. (Gary, Roxene’s husband)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s