I want to ask something honest rather than clever.
Every Catholic I have met carries one question they cannot answer. Maybe it is about suffering, or something in the Old Testament, or a doctrine someone they love cannot get past. Most of us hold it quietly and hope nobody asks.
Mine is this. Why are we here at all, and if the answer is that we exist to give glory to God, then why did He make me specifically? Not humanity in general, not “mankind”, but this particular soul, at this particular time, in this particular family. If His glory is the end of the matter, then the question that stays with me is why the universe needed a me.
I have an answer I use when I do not want to sit with it. It is the one most of us learned: we were made to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him, and in doing that we give Him glory. St. Irenaeus has a line about the glory of God being a person fully alive, and I do like it.
But then I go back on it. God has no need of anything. He is complete without us, without witnesses, without a single creature to praise Him. So if a glory needs someone to receive it or recognize it, that sounds less like glory and more like need, and I do not believe God needs me. When I try to patch that over by saying the glory is for us rather than for Him, I get a nicer sentence and not a better answer.
Then I turn a third time and wonder if I am asking the wrong thing. Maybe “why me specifically” is not a puzzle with an answer waiting behind a door. Maybe being known and loved by name is closer to the point than being told the reason. I do not know. I only know that the question has never gone away, and that praying with it has done more for me than the argument has.
Which is why I want to hear yours. Not the one you can settle with a paragraph from the Catechism, but the one that stays open, and what you do with it. Keep reading it, keep praying it, set it down for a while, or take it to someone wiser than you?
I would rather hear how you live with an open question than watch another round of debate about it. I do not think any of us are less Catholic for having one.
Mine is the subject of killing. We are not meant to enact physical force with the end-point resulting in the target’s death, while I take severe issue with that particular assertion.
The reason the Catechism states this, is because God doesn’t wish for people to go to Hell and if you kill they could end up there, out of love for one’s neighbour, and because we are not God and so cannot know all things and therefore unable to determine what should be a life and death scenario.
However, discernment is for those who are “willing to put on the big boy panties and sail out to the deep water”.
There are certain truths which make killing absolutely necessary:
They will come back and kill you if you don’t kill them.
If you aim to injure, they might not be disabled in those moments and end up killing you.
Furthermore, it might not only be one’s own life which has to be defended but your family’s and also the wider community.
In support of those reasons, were law enforcement acting upon its duty at its very best and ‘social’ (urgh, I’ve come to despite that word) conditions within communities praiseworthy then it could be said that this occurrence wouldn’t be taking place and so the need to defend oneself.
And therefore this makes killing an act on behalf of the community and so too law enforcement, i.e. one is standing in the place of law enforcement. Plus, of course, law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once while the rest of us don’t live within a utopia.
While I would not normally argue over catechetical points, I am concerned that some additions in recent years may have been added by modern-day Jesuits and so could do with being removed; the other fact here, is that updates can be made - dogmas remain as they are, while branching doctrines can grow as can understanding.
We do have a natural right to defence and both logically and intellectually and defensibly, based on the above, one has a right to kill in certain instances.
I could be accused of a lack of trust, this being that after injuring someone and putting them out of harm’s way, should this be the eventuality and which as discussed is not a dead cert in itself, then, I could pray for the person. Yes, I could do that, while we are not meant to put God to the test. In every moment of each day, we are to make sure we exact that which is dutiful as a foundation (Psalm 14) and therefore if that is the case then in certain instances in life one may be obligated (certainly rare instances, or hopefully) in initiating a ‘take down’ for ourselves.
I believe the Jesuits as an Order require dissembling and this update be made in the Catechism. I am, however, guessing it will never be scripted in explicitly understood terms because if so people may exact that addition upon someone in instances where they shouldn’t have done. And as such, the wording would have to be scripted very, very carefully.
Its the very reason why the Second Amendment was not to be infringed upon in any way.
A well armed neighbor, where every house has firearms and trained in firearms, is a safe neighbor and by far, better than three “cops” patrolling 1 square mile of a town.
Robert Sarah, is not even a priest, he was “ordained” in the “New” false rite of Holy Orders. When you change the words of Ordination, or with any other sacrament, they no longer are what they were before, they are something new, which destroys the effects.
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae - 1896 On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
…All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.
Pope Eugene Council of Florence Sess. 8 - 1439
All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.
Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis - 1947
…the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign… [28] Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.
The Constitution almost equates to human versions of Catholic dogma. That would be correct. Firmly applied understanding. With amendments branching from it. These almost resemble doctrines which stem from the dogmas. In terms of structuring. Regarding those amendments, I understand it, seeing that times develop in relation to what makes the world up at any given point in history, e.g. technological advancement…that it is not so much that amendments have to be eradicated or rewritten but rather reinterpreted towards an update on how those amendments should be understood in modern times for purposes of social development and the freedoms which come with it…
So, on the subject of gun usage, that particular amendment is to do with natural rights. We have the natural right to defend ourselves and our livelihood. The right to bear arms is also important and even stated as such in these amendments for scenarios where a government becomes totalitarian. The amendments are incredible. So, essentially, ‘the people’ have a right to war. Of course, comparably, centuries ago, people could have managed to go to war against its government as both sides would have been able more or less to get hold of the same weapons whereas now, no - the army would win in about five minutes, unless soldiers also turned against their totalitarian leaders. But that’s am example of an amendment so impractical it is largely excluding the modern era, while important that it remains as it is. One example of an update, however, would be how a right to bear arms is understood in itself. Humanity, while still objective, as always, for obvious reason, is less prone to wishing war upon others and this is because people over time with history and media at our fingertips can see the damaging effects. And indeed the damage a gun can do to someone. This doesn’t mean omitting gun usage but interpreting how we can treat that amendment in contemporary times. Almost a sub-category second-amendment or third or whatever. And while the danger posed could mean so-called updates too easily integrated (as according to agendas), that wouldn’t be so. They would have to be exacted with the same sense of responsibility and consideration as the Constitution, itself.
People can be gun-ho. And popping a bullet in someone over a dispute may seem all well and good in the movies, while in reality is a completely different scenario. Humanity moving forward must incorporate a greater understanding of the need to deliberate and step back from a situation. I would say additions to that amendment must be conditions added for defence with gun usage. What are the factors surrounding the firing of a weapon upon another human being. It is all very well to have a blanket statement underlining one’s natural rights and then post-damage the courts to sort out whether a shooting was lawful or not yet this leaves a lot to the individual psychology within that duration. Better to have a stipulation at the beginning which rules out certain instances. Such as licensing.
To say, as well, it is very difficult to have even stipulations running on their own without neighbouring ones because someone could be very sick in the mind but actually really need a gun because they’re being bullied but overlooked because of the fact they are sick and so unable to obtain one. And bullies in the public authority could play on that. So, stipulations for stricter licensing for guns could even make for its own problems unless there was yet another stipulation combined with it, saying that should a person be undergoing bullying of any sort then their ability to be handed a weapon not be impeded due to questions over the state of their psychology or better still a stipulation which states that in such a situation where a person is bullied but cannot own a gun, rather than having a license simply declined, they are given immediate assistance in the form of a group of people who are allowed to fire one. The police are their own animal and so this couldn’t apply to them. This would take social programs. And maybe that is the answer. For there to be reinterpretation of the amendments for modern times, there have to be increased amounts of…social programs in order that those extra stipulations can be upheld in Justice as according to literally every person’s natural rights and not only for those who are listened to.
The above in mind, you can actually see how stipulations as per reinterpretation of this amendment as one example in the modern era means not only a more peaceable outcome but extends direct or indirect gun usage to those who would otherwise not in manifested realisation of the amendments be able to defend themselves (i.e. despite the initial blanket declaration being that all people can…theoretically…do so). The consequence with the above example…greater understanding which results in licensing being more strict for some while also attributing fairer (and connected to wider and definite availability of) self-defensive measures for others.
The Second Amendment and the other Bill of Rights cannot be alter in any way. The Bill of Rights is a separate document from the body of the “U.S.” Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 1992 gave his opinion in the “U.S.” Supreme Court cited below.
The Second Amendment in inherently joined to “U.S.” Const. Art. IV sec 4. the guarantee of a Republican form of government in every “State”, which means there are two forms of government not one.
“U.S.” Const. Bill of Rights Preamble
…THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. …
(2nd Amendment – Bearing Arms)
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(5th Amendment – Rights of Persons)
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
United States v. Williams 504 U.S. 36 47 A [1992]
“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. **It " is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' "** United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). **In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.** See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). **The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.** "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ " United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op. 4) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/36/
There is an argument because the word “Militia” is found textually in the body of the “U.S.” Constitution; Art. 1 Sec. 8, Art. 2 Sec. 2 and also in the Bill of Rights, that “U.S.” Congress believes it has the right to regulate firearms.
The People for the “United States” public Trust and the militia are two very different persons. The People have their own rights independent of the enumeration of the “U.S.” Constitution. And they are not to be infringed upon.
The People are not restricted the “U.S.” Constitution but the “United States” and all “States” are restricted by the Constitution. This truth is articulated in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
9th Amendment.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Antonin Scalia wrote a very good opinion in a court case that was filed in Washington D.C.
“U.S.” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion that the right of self defense is not tied to the Militia and it goes back to the days of England and the US colonies.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court
A. 1. Operative Clause.
c. …By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833).
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. …
Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause. B.
…Between 1789 and 1820, nine States adopted Second Amendment analogues. Four of them—Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Missouri—referred to the right of the people to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.” See n. 8, supra. …
Post-Civil War Commentators.
All other post-Civil War 19th-century sources we have found concurred with Cooley. One example from each decade will convey the general flavor:
“[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia… . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms… . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.” J. Pomeroy, An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152–153 (1868) (hereinafter Pomeroy).
III
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. …
“Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war, to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. …
…it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
A well armed neighborhood is far stronger than three men in a uniform with a firearm patrolling a mile wide neighborhood. A firearm in every house is the worst nightmare for a criminal.
The Constitution, then, has prevented updates! Politicians want to, as you can see from the referenced material you’ve put forward, yet can’t. The Constitution serves in its own right as an above-and-beyond…flag…almost in representation of the individual’s natural rights. The Grand Jury, the ones waving it. It is possible that with the ability to form clauses and what I was terming ‘stipulations’, someone somewhere would use that possibility for their own means so consequently the Constitution gets watered down in policy. I just wonder whether the word ‘interpretation’ has to be categorised under ‘clauses’, which as said cannot be. A way of reading the Constitution rather than adding to it. A natural right is a natural right and so there the Constitution still stands written in stone, with no clauses. It’s a nuance. I like those. Whether, though, an interpretation is really just a clause but with use of a different (modernised) title could make for a legitimate point of argument.
“A well armed neighborhood is far stronger than three men in a uniform with a firearm patrolling a mile wide neighborhood. A firearm in every house is the worst nightmare for a criminal.”
To separate that paragraph into two connected, while distinct statements:
“A well armed neighborhood is far stronger than three men in a uniform with a firearm patrolling a mile wide neighborhood”.
Not in all instances. The first port of call must always be to exhaust peaceful ways (granted, time to do so may not always be applicable), unless of course one places the Constitution higher in one’s mind than morals and which would make it an idol.
“A firearm in every house is the worst nightmare for a criminal.”
Accidents can happen, actually. So, could also be a nightmare for the one using it. This is what patrol cars are for. And people don’t generally go shouting out that they have a firearm in their house, and so I fail to see any pre-empting (while I do in the most expansive terms believe that one has a right to defend one’s property from an invader).
When one man threatens another man’s life, it is the moral obligation for the one man threatened to save his own life.
Pope Leo XIII Pastoralis Officii - 1891
2. Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self-defense.
Morgan, America is not England, and thank God for that.
Here in America there is the Castle doctrine.
The castle doctrine allows individuals to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against intruders in their homes without a duty to retreat. Most states in the U.S. recognize some form of this doctrine.
England has become a deplorable country infested with foreigners and your government allowed it.
The U.S. Constitution is not a living document, it does not change. Inherent rights don’t change.
Regarding interpretation of the US Constitution it was written for the voter and it is to be taken in its natural and obvious sense.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently said that the
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906)
Page 203 U.S. 16 “As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.” … https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/203/1/#opinions
Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)
Page 279 U.S. 679
2. …The words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 14 U. S. 326, and are to be given the meaning they have in common use unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary. Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 139, 117 U. S. 147. … https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/279/655/#opinions
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)
Page 282 U.S. 731 The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/716/#opinions
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
II [A]…we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#opinions
With how you view firearms, its no wonder why the corrupt communists in your country and countries like Australia were able to take away your right of self defense and owning firearms, like taking candy from a child.
An accident can happen with you falling out of bed Morgan.
Firearms are inanimate and do nothing by themselves. With simple and proper training a child can operate a firearm.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently said that the
Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1 (1906)
Page 203 U.S. 16
“As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey,…”
Some guns, the pull-back motion can disable your thumb. And bullets can ricochet. What if the intruder was someone you knew entering your home because of some misunderstanding (maybe just walking in, when the door was open) and so yes, their fault, while you’re not going to be thinking about whose fault it was when in floods of tears at the upset.
What I’m trying to draw attention to, in fact, is that a bullet is a chunk of sizeable metal that is, if not going through a person’s body, ending up inside of it. Muscle, veins, organs and other tissue, bone, and lots of blood. Horrific enough that it is piercing the skin. That’s a very serious undertaking. Gun-ho attitudes can easily be fostered. You cited Pope Leo XIII in the first of two of your later posts in support of your statement that it is an obligation to kill in self-defence (remember you were making response to my statement of the same understanding / opinion) and yet emphasised there was no ‘obligation’ to kill evident in his statement; rather, he is saying that we are forbidden to kill outside of public means except in self-defence where we can inflict a kill. ‘Compelled’ doesn’t equal ‘obligation’. One generally ‘feels compelled’ to act. Like a gut instinct, maybe. It doesn’t necessarily mean an objectively right thing to do. Could come from a subjective premise.
You misunderstood Pope Leo XIII public cause means death penalty. He was clearly saying taking a life in self defense is moral. God expects you to preserve your life. I get the feeling that you are a person that just needs to have the last word. I must say that a person like you, England is a good fit for you.
He was referring to the death penalty but saying that anyone is forbidden to kill people unless “compelled”. And which I then said was more to do with ‘feeling’ as if one has to undertake a killing as opposed to an ‘obligation’ to do so and which is an objectively reasoned duty that one must undertake, your referencing of his words because you were using them to back up a blanket notion that one has an obligation to kill in self-defence. As you can see “compelled” and ‘obligation’ come with varying definitions. It is true that if one feels compelled to kill in self-defence then they to a large degree must be answering their conscience, that they ‘feel obliged’, while an obligation has a wider more factual sense to it.
(My own perception is nothing to do with my side to this argument. I am merely reacting to your posts. I have already said what I think in this thread, your posts in response to mine).
— As for the UK retorts, just be relieved that you don’t live here. —
To sum up, you stated quite clearly that one always has a duty (an obligation) to kill in self-defence, while the then-Pope was saying that one might feel / be compelled to kill in certain instances. You and he are not saying the same thing.
My venturing into amendments with an idea for “interpretations”, and which as has been discussed would probably just be modernised clauses with a different title and so therefore not a route forward, was from reading along the lines as that particular Pope’s words as opposed to a blanket statement that one must always kill in self-defence.
So, to make it clear:
You are saying that one must always, is obliged to, kill…in self-defence.
The then-Pope was saying that one might feel obligated / a compulsion to / be or feel compelled…to kill in self-defence.
You therefore are making a blanket statement. Where the then-Pope was saying that this is left to your own reasoning at the time of the incident.
My concern is that some can be gun-ho, while others are not in actuality given the ability to defend themselves as per the Constitution.
— In the UK, no-one has the right to defend themselves (though we do have natural rights but will be sent to jail for acknowledging them in definite terms). It is indeed a ridiculously inane country purposefully this way for reasons of control on the part of an increasingly totalitarian (from a Marxist angle) government. —
