28 January 2011

Wow. Just, wow.

Colleen Hammond's blog today features a post about some prior statements by the USCCB to the effect that they favor the eventual elimination of gun ownership for anyone but the state and its agents.


Because there is no better protector of the Catholic Church, her teachings, her autonomy and her mission, than the government of the United States of America.


Thanks, Colleen, for the reminder.


Anonymous said...

USCCB action prompted me to give an extre $125 to the NRA. Give up your guns - give up your freedom!

Latinmassgirl said...

That is what they do in Communist countries. These socialist leaning bishops need to brush up on history, unless they want to revisit the "Gulag Archipelago", but this time in the Gulag Washington D.C.

Anonymous said...

The Church does not need guns to protect itself. Catholics live happily in countries where gun ownership is abnormal and it is. Why do I need a gun when no one else has a gun. If they do and use to kill someone they are put away for life. Owning guns is creepy. However where guns are as common as pennies do not be surprised if guns are used routinley. Do not argue then because it is routine you need guns to be normal.
Gun ownership is just a cultural norm you have created. It does not work for you as is evidenced by your prisons being full and violence growing daily. Like inflation you need to restrict gun ownership not use your situation to justify gun ownership. The bishops are right and as Christ is the Prince of Peace they do the right thing. May the USA stop exporting its weapons to the world. May the USA through Hollywood stop bombarding us with violence. In a country where people are routinely shot do not be surprised when the unborn are rouinely aborted. You have no respect for life and gun ownership is the currency of death. You pollute the world!

thetimman said...

Anonymous wrote:

"You have no respect for life and gun ownership is the currency of death. You pollute the world!"

Ha! That's funny. That was a joke, right? Right?

Tell me, in which country does no one have a gun?


I would be more in favor of forcing everyone to carry a gun than to forbid everyone from carrying one.

Because I have no respect for life and I pollute the world, that is.

Need Guns said...


In states where they have conceal and carry laws, the crime rate has gone down. Even if all guns were confiscated, the criminals would still get them, thus making citizens sitting ducks.

Also, the reason gun ownership is protected in our constitution is that it allows the people the possibility of defending themselves against an evil communist or dictatorship government. We would just be sitting ducks for a totalitarian regime otherwise.

Do you live in the real world, or a cartoon version of reality?

Anonymous said...

You Americans seem unable to step outside the little world you have created!
I live in a country where only police, army, have handguns. Farmers and hunters (rare) have shotguns. I have NEVER handled a gun in my life. I have never known anyone who has been sudject to gun violence. It is rare and extremely nutty.
Violence seems to occur in countries like the USA and other places where firearms are produced on mass. You do pollute the world! With your ideas and incredably stupid reasoning.
YOU are the ones who make the world a worse place.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 17:58, Why don't you take a look at some of the data provided by http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp. I don't know whether or not you are from England or Wales, but if you are, pay special attention to their homicide report graph from 1967-2008. Gun ownership is a valid deterrent on many levels from ill-enforced laws and bad people and a proven protection of ones own life and the those of his loved ones and property, at least in my country. I wouldn't live in your country if my life depended on it and nor would any rational American nor our ancestors either. With respect due to the USCCB, they are wrong on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Isn't great living in a country where insane people can walk into a gun show and buy semi-automatic weapons, clips that hold 30 bullets and armor piercing bullets so that they can 'defend themselves' against people like Congresswoman Giffords?

The irony is monstrous:
The religious right screams about having the words "In GOD We Trust" removed from anything. But when our religious leaders suggest we actually do that, they suddenly scream "NO - we really mean 'In GUNS We Trust!'"

Looks like you "Cafeteria Catholics" are back at it - rejecting Christian's core values when it conflicts with your Republican dogma.

thetimman said...

10:20 anon,

That is an interesting take on someone's position. It just isn't mine.

"Republican dogma". You may want to accuse me of that to some of my Republican friends and hear them chuckle.

Anonymous said...

It is exactly your position: "...the USCCB to ... favor(s) the eventual elimination of gun ownership for anyone but the state and its agents.
Because there is no better protector of the Catholic Church, her teachings, her autonomy and her mission, than the government of the United States of America."

Maybe you should read your own blog to understand your clear stance here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:20 ... reads like a tip sheet from the Huffington Post. People like you with your prejudice so stark ... you think that those who believe in the right to hold and bear arms as defined by law are Republicans who hold right-wing extremist positions holding caches of heavy ballistics when in fact they are not. And then you shamefully parallel that to the Giffords tragedy. What kind of person would use a tragedy in that way to make their point?

BTW, Timman is right. The 'Cafeteria Catholic' comment was pretty entertaining as there is probably no greater dichotomy between that phrase and Saint Louis Catholic Blog.


StGuyFawkes said...

The right to own and bear arms is based on a commonplace of European history: armed populations intimidate tyrants and act as a check against kingly predations. The greatest argument in the monarchist canon is that kings throughout the middle ages were rarely despotic because they depended on their armed vassals to
protect and defend their kingdoms. Now there you have a real balance of power.

The problem today is that the state has a virtual monopoly on violence and its means so that unless gun ownership would include bazookas and ak-47s, rocket helicopters and tanks the second amendment guarantees are mostly comfort blankets.

It would be better if individuals were limited in their personal gun ownership while individual communities were unlimited in what their local militia could train to deploy and shoot. Now that would intimidate an expansive federal government!

I'd like to see personal ownership continue but be the sort of thing where a background check includes asking all your neighbors if they are comfortable with the sight of you grilling porksteaks on the Weber and packing. In otherwords, I think everyone should be able to own a firearm but if your neighbors know you to be frequently drunk, or abusive to your wife you may not get your license.

I don't think this is theological. This is just how a people orders its folkways.

thetimman said...

anon, see, I understand what I wrote. I do not think we need to "protect" ourselves against Giffords, or any congressman, or "the government". That is your inference, not based on what I said.

My point was that I didn't see the government protecting US.