Confiscate all 300 million guns - National Catholic Reporter

[dinosaur]

From the encyclical itself.

In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.

Sure he doesn't use the term "New World Order" but he definitely gives a description of it and endorses a "kindler gentler" version.

Edit: More from the same encyclical.

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.

Calling for "justice through redistribution" is statist.

Do you even know what is meant by subsidiary? The first quote is basically saying that things should be handled on the lowest level of society that is possible in order to avoid tyranny. Basically, that quote says that power should not be concentrated. Also, that second quote doesn't say anything sinister either, I havan't read the context, but it isn't an endorsement of wealth confiscation and redistribution.

[dinosaur]

Irrelevant. They're just reporting what is coming from in the church.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...al-justice.cfm

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

A Statement of the Catholic Bishops of the United States

Challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.
All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse.35 As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.

It isn't irrelevant. Those are people's opinions, not official church teaching. Opinions will change, the official teachings won't. The old libs who were educated in the 60s are dying off and the younger crop is much more conservative.

[seapilot]

The pope made a decree to keep the peasants from possessing cross-bows during the dark ages. Some things never change.

[dinosaur]

Some things never change.

Let's please separate fact from opinion. Pope Benedict has made no decree about gun control. Father Lombardi gave this statement in an editorial radio show. The Catholic Church does not claim any special expertise on matters of public policy, instead they set forth principles that public leaders should be guided by. There are plenty of ill-informed catholic leaders who readily give their advice, but they do not speak for the church or set church teaching.

Here is the church teaching on defense (there is nothing on guns):

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... the one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.

Pray for us St. Gabriel Possenti, patron saint of gun owners.

[Confederate]

The pope made a decree to keep the peasants from possessing cross-bows during the dark ages. Some things never change.

Source?

[seapilot]

Source?

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crossbow.htm

The crossbow could be used by an untrained soldier to injure or kill a knight in plate armour. The crossbow, itself, was therefore viewed as an inhuman weapon which required no skill and had no honour. It was even banned by the Pope!

http://thisiswarblog.wordpress.com/2...-medieval-wmd/

The Great Equalizer
In a highly stratified society like medieval Europe, any technology that could put the power to instantly kill a chivalric knight, a nobleman, a prince or even a king into the hands of a commoner was seen as an abomination in the eyes of God. Crossbows weren’t just weapons that could win battles, they were equalizing instruments that could overturn the natural order of society.

Accordingly, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139. However, while the church frowned on Christian-on-Christian use of the crossbow, the religious authorities had no problem when the weapons were being pointed at non-believers during the Crusades.

[dinosaur]

The crossbow could be used by an untrained soldier to injure or kill a knight in plate armour. The crossbow, itself, was therefore viewed as an inhuman weapon which required no skill and had no honour. It was even banned by the Pope!

Well I found the source, they didn't ban crossbows themselves, but the "murderous art" of fighting with (I assume) unequal weapons. Maybe it was thought honorable to engage with equal weapons? I'm trying to find out what is meant by murderous art. Jousting as sport was also condemned because it killed people.

Canon 29. We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

[jmdrake]

Do you even know what is meant by subsidiary?

Yes. But apparently you don't. The word "subsidiary" isn't in the quote I gave. The word used is "subsidiarity". And the meaning is:

a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization

Have you ever seen leftists with bumper stickers saying "Think globally, act locally"? It's the same principle. Now do you know what cognitive dissonance means? Because you are practicing it.

The first quote is basically saying that things should be handled on the lowest level of society that is possible in order to avoid tyranny.

No. That's not what it says. That's what you want it to say and that's how you are conditioned to read it. The first quote includes globalization as a goal. So in pursuit of a global governance goal things should be handled on the lowest level of society possible. The difference is I do not have global governance as a goal.

Basically, that quote says that power should not be concentrated.

Again, that's how you've been conditioned to read it. But globalization is the goal of the first quote. A "kinder gentler new world order".

Also, that second quote doesn't say anything sinister either, I havan't read the context, but it isn't an endorsement of wealth confiscation and redistribution.

The guilty flee where no man pursues. Did I use the word "sinister"? No. Some people don't think wealth confiscation and redistribution is sinister. And how can you honestly say on the one hand you haven't read the context and, yet on the other hand you know what it does or does not mean? That's not intellectually honest. What kind of redistribution do you think is being addressed? Read the context and give a real answer. Don't just disagree with what makes you uncomfortable.

[jmdrake]

//

[dinosaur]

Yes. But apparently you don't. The word "subsidiary" isn't in the quote I gave. The word used is "subsidiarity".

It is in the quote, a little further down.

And the meaning is:

a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization

Have you ever seen leftists with bumper stickers saying "Think globally, act locally"? It's the same principle. Now do you know what cognitive dissonance means? Because you are practicing it.

This is the bias that you are imposing on it. You think that because it sounds like something leftists say, that it must be leftist.

No. That's not what it says. That's what you want it to say and that's how you are conditioned to read it. The first quote includes globalization as a goal. So in pursuit of a global governance goal things should be handled on the lowest level of society possible. The difference is I do not have global governance as a goal.

Organization in a subsidiary and stratified way is not necessarily different than having independent nations.

Again, that's how you've been conditioned to read it. But globalization is the goal of the first quote. A "kinder gentler new world order".

We have a global world order now and have always had one. A certain order will always exist and change. The order that you and I don't want is the "new" one that Bush Sr. talked about...that one wasn't based on subsidiarity. An order that is based on subsidiarity would have sovereign nations.

The guilty flee where no man pursues. Did I use the word "sinister"? No. Some people don't think wealth confiscation and redistribution is sinister. And how can you honestly say on the one hand you haven't read the context and, yet on the other hand you know what it does or does not mean? That's not intellectually honest. What kind of redistribution do you think is being addressed? Read the context and give a real answer. Don't just disagree with what makes you uncomfortable.

I just said that from reading just what you quoted, it doesn't say what you were implying it said. If you wish to provide further context that strenghtens your argument go ahead.

[RickyJ]

They are scared of our guns obviously. With the vast amount of knowledge in the public domain out there and the very real enemies they have created they should be more scared of weapons that they have no way to confiscate and can inflict mass causalities quickly, such as biological and chemical weapons.