Everytime there is a shooting, the mainstream press and Anti-Gunners frequently remind the public that guns are “evil”. People who possess guns are referred to as “unstable” or “homicidal maniacs”. As a consequence, these people would want to embarrass you into thinking that the possession of guns is wrong.
Is possession of a gun immoral?
First, a gun is an inanimate object. It has no brain, feelings, emotions or sense of morality. It cannot determine what is right or wrong. A favorite example I use is to place loaded pistol in front and stare at it. Even if we stare at this pistol for the next 30 years, the pistol will not fire, without human intervention. Rather it is the HUMAN HAND and BRAIN which causes a gun to fire and hit what it’s aimed at BY THE HUMAN USER. Consequently, mere possession of a gun – without doing anything else with it – cannot possibly result in anything “evil”.
Second, Morality is equated with “moral turpitude” or the Ten Commandments. Worded negatively, it is the Ten Fundamental Commanments of God which determines whether or not something is funadamentally “wrong” or in other words, “immoral”. Unawful possession of guns is not termed as immoral by the law of God. Nothing in the Bible or the teachings of God says so. We cannot therefore say that if you break the law and possess a weapon illegally that you have committed an immoral act. Heaven knows God could not even care less how many guns you possess. Rather, the crime and penalty of unlawful possession of guns is a creation of HUMAN LAW, not God’s Law.
In legal terms crimes such as Unlawful possession of a firearm, are termed “malum pohibitum”. It is wrong because it is prohibited, i.e., because human law decided to make it so. In contrast crimes such as Rape, Theft, and Perjury are termed as “mala per se” or “mala in se”, which means wrong fundamentally, or immoral, i.e, these acts are wrong even if there is no law prohibiting them. Conseqeuntly, we have the term: “What is legal is not necessarily moral, and what is illegal is not necessarily immoral.”
To Anti-Gunners, firearms are synonymous with violence, which they say has no place in civil society. For them, the use of force is morally wrong so therefore the instruments of force should be outlawed. They fail to see the hypocrisy of this position.
Violence is a fact of nature and wishing it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away. In the animal kingdom, only the strong survive. This was also true for most of human history but modern civilisation has given us the gun. At what other point in time could the old and the weak have the capability to fight off a more powerful aggressor?
Only in a twisted mind can it be considered moral to take away the very tools that would hold at bay the barbaric and the vicious.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that it is licit to take another being life, if it is done in self-defense of one’s own life or that of his family. Such action does not violate the 5th commandment, “Thou shall not kill.” The 5th commandment proscribes only against the unlawful taking of life.
The 5th commandment, “thou shall not kill” is actually an inaccurate translation of the original Aramaic (Hebrew) text.
A much more accurate translation would be”Thou shall not murder”
“Everytime there is a shooting, the mainstream press and Anti-Gunners frequently remind the public that guns are “evil”. People who possess guns are referred to as “unstable” or “homicidal maniacs”. As a consequence, these people would want to embarrass you into thinking that the possession of guns is wrong.” Maybe those who are in the mainstream press who are ignorant of guns, gun safety and responsibility especially those media who have no guns purchased legally are those who keeps on saying that guns are evil and people who have guns are unstable.. I am with the mainstream media, I a a progun and proud to be an owner of a gun..
IN THE OLD VERSION OF THE BIBLE THE 5TH COMMANMENTS SAYS
THOU SHALL NOT KILL WITH EVIL INTENT
Simon Peter was one of Twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus from his first disciples. Violence such as, robberies, kidknapping, and wanton killing was prevalent in Simon Peter’s time. So much so that Peter carried a sword (as most men did at the time). We know this to be fact because three synoptic Gospels all mention that, when Jesus was arrested, one of his companions cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest. The Gospel of John also includes this event and names Peter as the swordsman and Malchus as the victim.
Peter must have been a skilled swordsman to be able to chop the servants ear off and not cause other bodily harm. Jesus would not have chosen him as an apostle if owning, carrying, and using a sword was immoral.
Guns are the modern-day swords. If a person feels they need to own, carry, and use a gun for protection, it should be their choice.
Is Ownership of a Gun Immoral? – NO. If it was, Saint Peter would not be a Saint.
Jesus said, “But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.'”
– Luke 22:36
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.”
– Luke 11:21
“Though defensive violence will always be ‘a sad necessity’ in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men.”
– St. Augustine
“Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one’s life, one’s goods or one’s physical integrity; sometimes, even ’til the aggressor’s death…. In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim.”
– Thomas Aquinas
Even Jesus and Saints in the Holy Bible are PROGUN!