Eh, as not much of a Catholic I guess, though 2 and 3 strike me as too much of the thin edge as they say. If #3 was, "therefore let's remember to love our enemies in the debate" then sure. But otherwise... what's the point of it really? The time that is covered in an attack & self-defense situation is so swift the exhortation "love your enemy" is the equivalent of "be polite." (People don't have time to say, "excuse me" as they pull the trigger.) It's functionally meaningless.
Likewise #2 ends up shooting itself in the foot. A simple metric for self-defense is... well preservation of self. If an 8 foot thug is coming at you, a gun can stop him and save yourself. Nukes or a biological weapon would stop the thug... and kill you too. Ok, so we can agree on government regulation of those. Great! Why does government have to regulate anything else? It's just trivially true that any time the government regulates something, it becomes harder for people (particularly the poor) to use that thing legally (for better or worse). So if people have a right to self defense, then any statement that government should regulate the most effective tool of self defense is a statement saying that there are times people have no right of self defense. So by all means, Catholics, let's have that discussion. When should people not be able to defend themselves? When should people die?
Yeah, I didn't say perfect. But compared to some who suggest that the debate ends by informing us if we don't support Obama, we trust in guns rather than Jesus for salvation, this is at least a starting point for discussion.
Eh, as not much of a Catholic I guess, though 2 and 3 strike me as too much of the thin edge as they say. If #3 was, "therefore let's remember to love our enemies in the debate" then sure. But otherwise... what's the point of it really? The time that is covered in an attack & self-defense situation is so swift the exhortation "love your enemy" is the equivalent of "be polite." (People don't have time to say, "excuse me" as they pull the trigger.) It's functionally meaningless.
ReplyDeleteLikewise #2 ends up shooting itself in the foot. A simple metric for self-defense is... well preservation of self. If an 8 foot thug is coming at you, a gun can stop him and save yourself. Nukes or a biological weapon would stop the thug... and kill you too. Ok, so we can agree on government regulation of those. Great! Why does government have to regulate anything else? It's just trivially true that any time the government regulates something, it becomes harder for people (particularly the poor) to use that thing legally (for better or worse). So if people have a right to self defense, then any statement that government should regulate the most effective tool of self defense is a statement saying that there are times people have no right of self defense. So by all means, Catholics, let's have that discussion. When should people not be able to defend themselves? When should people die?
Yeah, I didn't say perfect. But compared to some who suggest that the debate ends by informing us if we don't support Obama, we trust in guns rather than Jesus for salvation, this is at least a starting point for discussion.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you've got a point there. Shame we have to curve the grade that badly.
ReplyDelete