Sigh. . . Yet another senseless mass murder, and yet another ghoulish, vulturine exploitation by the totalitarian, gun-grabbing Left in their ongoing war on the Second Amendment. However, it appears this time there may be real consequences, especially as even our Republican President (who had campaigned as a friend of the Second Amendment) has joined in the anti-gun nonsense, calling for banning 18-20-year-olds from buying and owning rifles, and even going so far as to declare that guns should be taken from potentially dangerous persons without due process.
As usual, the much of the so-called “debate” blatantly disregards the facts, with those on the “gun control” (in reality citizen-control) side displaying profound and willful ignorance or outright lying. The Left uses this killing, as with previous mass-killings, to focus on banning the rifles of the AR-15 platform. Politicians frequently give these rifles the scary-sounding but meaningless label “assault weapons” – designed to confuse with the term “assault rifle,” which refers to actual fully automatic military weapons. AR-15s are not automatic, but semi-automatic, meaning the weapon automatically chambers the next round after firing, but can only fire one round per pull of the trigger. They are not “machine guns,” and cannot spray bullets. Neither are they, as often claimed, “high power” or high caliber rifles. They are in fact only slightly higher caliber than a .22, and used mainly for sport shooting, varmint hunting, and home defense.
While they have been involved in a few high-profile mass killings, AR-15s are statistically almost never used in crime (the vast majority of gun crime involves handguns), and each year far more murders are committed with bare hands or feet than with AR-15s.
In short, there is absolutely no compelling rational reason to ban this type of weapon. The outcry is pure, irrational hysteria.
The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Arbitrarily banning “scary-looking” weapons such as the AR-15 is an arbitrary infringement on this right. If one type of gun can be arbitrarily banned by politicians, then any other type can be banned, and another, and another. The Second Amendment is meaningless and has no teeth if politicians are free to simply take away the right of the people to keep and bear whatever arms they choose. If you can ban AR-15s, why not ban shotguns? Handguns? Hunting rifles (higher caliber)? Knives? The slippery slope is not a fallacy in this case.
Likewise, the call to ban guns from citizens 18-20 years of age is also arbitrary infringement. If people at 18 are considered legal adults able to vote, marry, start families, and join the military, it makes no sense to deprive them of the right to the means to defend themselves and their families against attack. If 18-year-olds cannot be trusted to use so-called “military style” weapons, it makes no sense that they should be trusted to use actual military weapons in the military. And most of the recent mass killings were committed by persons over 21. The Vegas killer was 64, yet there was no serious talk of banning ornery old farts from having weapons.
It is unlikely gun bans will in fact stop school shootings and other mass murders, but it is likely that “hardening the target” by allowing concealed carry on school campuses, and having teachers well-trained in use of firearms would likely be a deterrent, and lower body counts. Almost all these mass murders are committed in “gun free zones” where killers know the intended victims will be helpless sitting ducks. However, such measures are vehemently opposed by the anti-gun Left. The goal is not to actually prevent such killings and protect human life, but to increase government power and control over law-abiding citizens, and attack political opponents. (Let’s face it, if the Left were really so concerned with protecting innocent human life, it would not so fanatically support the killing of unborn children.)
Similarly, the majority of churches are also “gun free zones,” where a killer knows he can likely slaughter unarmed persons, as evidenced by the Southerland Springs Baptist church shooting last November (the murderer later being stopped, ironically enough, by a man with an AR-15 – that weapon so demonized by the Left of late). (I had originally intended to blog about it at the time, but did not have time to finish that rant.)
The little FSSP parish I attend has long been preparing for such a scenario, especially following death threats on the priests some years ago. While we all pray such a thing will never happen here, there is an armed cop on duty, and many men of the parish form a civilian security team, training in defense measures, and working out plans to deal with an active shooter scenario.
While some use such horrific occasions to scream for the outlawing of weapons, the question remains of what would happen if some parishioners in the Southerland Springs church had been armed? It seems likely, if someone there were armed and properly trained, that the massacre could have at least been could short before the body count rose to 26. In most churches, firearms are not allowed, but this, as in other “gun free zones,” creates a crowd of people that are sitting ducks for any evil, deranged person intent on mass killing. Should concealed carry be allowed on church grounds, as well as schools and other “safe” places targeted by murderous maniacs? Much as it may irk the piously p.c., I believe the answer is yes.
Of course, such an answer is anathema to many on the “Catholic” and “Christian” Left, who insist that Christians (with the possible exception of cops) should never own nor carry lethal weapons, and that more laws restricting or banning gun ownership (enforced, of course, by men with guns) are the solution to all violence. A document by the USCCB even goes so far as to say that ultimately gun ownership of any kind should be restricted only to police and military personnel. And liberal clergy declare that people who support second amendment rights are “not pro-life.” Some even argue strict pacifism, saying that in the event that one’s wife and children are faced by a dangerous aggressor, and one has the ability to stop him, the moral “Christ-like” thing to do is to do nothing at all, and simply allow the creep to murder or rape as he chooses. After all, they piously insist, Christ did not come down from the cross to defend Himself or His disciples.
But is this view actual Church teaching? Or is it misguided theology at best, or, at worst, simply another cynical political attempt to find “common ground” with the godless political Left?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow . . .
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” (CCC: 2264-2265)
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” (CCC: 2264-2265)
Of course, some try to claim that this grave duty is restricted to the state (police, military, and Nancy Pelosi’s bodyguards). But this is nonsense. Parents, for instance, are primarily responsible for the lives of their children. And, much as I back the Blue, even the best cops simply can’t be everywhere at once. And if using a lethal weapon to defend life is as inherently evil as the bleeding hearts imply, what makes it good in the hands of the state?
The second amendment right to keep and bear arms is not simply an anachronistic idiosyncrasy of the American Constitution, but is closely tied to the right of persons to self-defense, related closely to the right to life itself, and has always been taught by the Church herself. A government forcibly depriving people of the means to defend themselves against aggressors is not Catholic, nor Christ-like, nor “pro-life,” but would simply leave good people at the mercy of lawless criminals and psychos, and an increasingly immoral and godless state.
In recent “debates,” “liberals” have hysterically compared supporters of the second amendment to Nazis, which is ironic, as it was the real Nazis who deprived German private citizens of the right to own arms.
Update: Here’s a little article I found by John G. Malcolm and Amy Swearer in The Stream which neatly summarizes and refutes much of the blatant nonsense surrounding the gun control propaganda: 6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings.