Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

YouTube Preview Image

Mark Shea has a habit of saying that unless people do x, x always being a policy he endorses, they really are not pro-life.  This of course is simply an attempt, at least among pro-lifers, to stop debate on x and says nothing about the merits of x as a policy.  His latest attempt to do so is on the issue of smart guns, technology that purports to prevent a firearm from being fired, unless the owner is the one pulling the trigger.  Go here to read one of his posts on the subject.  Blogger Rebecca Frech, at her blog Shoved to Them, relates an incident to describe why Shea is wrong as a practical matter:

The argument seems to center around smart gun technology. Shea reasons that if gun owners were truly pro-life then we would support all efforts to create guns which would only fire for their owners, and then the world would be a better place. People who don’t support such legislation and research, even if they support the protection of life from conception to natural death, are not truly pro-life because they participate in a culture which accepts the possibility of death by gun shot (Mark and his readers haven’t mentioned how they aim to prevent people from being bludgeoned with a rifle butt or pistol whipped with a handgun).

*********************

Go here to read the rest.  Go here to read an article on smart gun tech.  Go here to read a post at What Does Mike Think? on the problems of viewing smart gun technology as a panacea for gun violence.
When you need a gun in an emergency situation for your safety or the safety of others, you must be able to get to it quickly and use it quickly, all while adrenaline is pounding through your body and you are terrified.  Questioning smart gun technology that may prevent your using your weapon in a life and death setting doesn’t make you not pro-life, it merely means that you have a different opinion from Mark Shea on an issue that doesn’t have the foggiest thing to do with abortion.

124 Responses to Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

  • Thank God Rebecca Frech was able to defend herself and her child.
    .
    Unless you honor me, I will make of you a no-people.
    Sadly, self defense for an honorable people has become a dead issue in a court of law. The court decided that the victim must determine if the rapist was going to kill her (as the witness) or only rape her before she attempted self defense that might be lethal. The victim must remember to ask her assailant if he intends to murder her or only rape her. Of course, the assailant might change his mind. Equal Justice.

  • I do not own a gun but absolutely support those who do. I do not read Shea. I have met him. He likes to start arguments and be critical; that seems to be his bailiwick. I do not need it and do not care what his opinion it. He is not a boon to the faith with his attitude.

  • Shotguns will be the last to have smart gun tech and they are the best gun to have for the safety of nearby neighbors because they wreck criminals at close range but their pellets lose lethality with both distance and two walls far more so than bullets. Miss with a 357 magnum pistol and the bullet could go out your window and travel freely many many yards and kill a passerby on a sidewalk 20 houses away. The self defense shotgun shells will fade into 20 slow moving,far apart pellets in the same event. Shea’s making cheddar…436 comments…that’s cash per click…but as usual by setting one group against another while his followers think they are really about content. He’s an Irish barfight genius. The Swiss guard have armor piercing H&K submachine guns. Shea should point out the dangers of that. Those bullets could go through a bad guy and the good guy behind him but are necessary if terrorists arrived with body armor.

  • The greatest boost to my faith life was when I stopped visiting Shea’s blog (or following anything he had to say) years ago.

  • I agree. I stopped reading Shea at least a couple of years ago, because he was bitter and dismissive. I went back to read his rant against gun owners, and could not believe the arrogant stupidity. I can’t even listen to his little Mark Shea minutes on the radio anymore, and I refuse to buy his books.

  • it merely means that you have a different opinion from Mark Shea on an issue that doesn’t have the foggiest thing to do with abortion.

    Yeah, but you’re assuming that Shea’s political commentary (or that of palaeo types generally) has much to do with advancing a policy perspective rather than heaping contempt on certain political sectors which you despise as a subcultural group.

  • Mr. McClarey:
    Re: In defense of Mr. Shea:

    I enjoy your commentary. Thank you for defending the faith.

    I have not followed Mr. Shea for several years; but when I did he was utterly and heroically pro life. I do not know Mr. Shea; but I suspect that he is not a “gun guy”. I also suspect that most “gun guys” (and gals) would laugh at the idea that this techno-fix would save innocent lives; and in fact most likely put innocent lives at risk.

    I respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • “I respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls.”
    Well, this is an American-Catholic web site. It is focused on saving souls, yes, but also on how to live here on earth before salvation arrives.
    -
    “I do not know Mr. Shea; but I suspect that he is not a ‘gun guy’. I also suspect that most ‘gun guys’ (and gals) would laugh at the idea that this techno-fix would save innocent lives; and in fact most likely put innocent lives at risk.”
    You are correct on all counts. Since you are correct, then the fact that the smart gun proposal would “most likely put innocent lives at risk” means that is cannot be characterized as pro-life. Consequently this means that Mark Shea can be criticized for attempting to make the proposal into a pro-life stance. At best the impulse and ideal and motive for smart gun technology can be characterized as pro-life, but it can’t seriously be taken farther than that given the technological limits.
    Here is another way to look at it. As long as the police refuse to endorse the technology for themselves it cannot be considered to be a serious proposal for the average citizen.

  • Mr. Tom D;

    Thank you for your reply: regarding your comment that this is an “American-Catholic web site” you are indeed correct; but my point is that the right of self-defense is, I believe, under natural law – universal. And in regards to your comment “that Mark Shea can be criticized for attempting to make the proposal into a pro-life stance” my point here is that bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question is a waste of time diverting our attention from saving souls.

    OTH I would like to see someone like Mr. McClarey address my belief of whether we possess under natural right an inalienable right to self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Richard Comerford,
    But are you here to protect Mr. Shea through this peculiar angle of speaking of him as a detraction from saving souls.
    You were a regular on a little website called “Coalition for Clarity” started by Mark Shea but moderated by a woman, Red Cardigan, dedicated to the issue of torture. It’s still there but with rare posts. You were always on Shea’s side of the issue which was that of St. John Paul II who had said torture was intrinsically evil but he also said in the same place ( VS, sect.80) that slavery is intrinsically evil which is proved false by Leviticus 25:44-46. Slavery is sad but God gave it in perpetual form to the Jews over foreigners because in nomadic and post nomadic settings, it processes convicts, debtors and captured soldiers of the enemy.
    I went to that site several times because I believe there is a place for rare torture as when a murderous pedophile is captured by police but will not tell where a dying child is hidden…as per Proverbs 20:30..” Evil is cleansed away by bloody lashes, and a scourging to the inmost being”…..Proverbs 26:3. ” A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!”

  • NOT bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question could be diverting our attention from saving lives which would be lost due to smart gun technology malfunctions. He is the one wrapping his gun argument in the mantle of the pro-life movement. What are we to write? Some people (who we should not name out of concern for their pro-life work in the salvation of souls) are using pro-life rhetoric to promote so-called ‘smart gun’ technology, but we disagree with them on the technical merits of their stance and therefore on their applicability of the pro-life label to this promotion? Read that over again – it just sounds silly.

  • Why is anyone paying any attention to Mark Shea?

  • Mark Shea – he who must not be named. Sounds like an anti-Voldmort.

  • I have a mini-14 rifle and ammunition. My wife knows where both are and has standing order to serve the discharge of the muzzle end to any invader. And she is a better Catholic than I.

    Mark Shea is an egotistical bombastic arrogant self-appointed apologist to whom I pay zero attention. What he says isn’t worth the electrons it takes to display his words on the computer screen.

  • Mr. Tom D

    Is the issue one Catholic blogger or what I personally believe to be an inalienable right under natural law to self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Edwards:

    I am not quite sure what “sophistry” means. But we live in an age where our rulers appear both to have a contempt for innocent human life and a desire to strip the citizenry of its right to self defense. And the focus of Catholic commentators appears to be on the personality of one media personality. Should our focus rather be on what the Church, established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, teaches on the right and even duty of self defense?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • There is an inalienable right to self defense. Of course. The law also has held that there is a role foe government to promote public safety. Advocates of so-called smart gun technology believe that they are promoting both, or at least promoting safety without infringing on self defense. They are incorrect on both counts.
    -
    What this has to do with pro-life issues is beyond me, other than the fact that self defense IS defending life.

  • So Mr. Comerford, is it your position that the promotion of smart gun technology is an attempt to infringe on 2nd amendment rights?

  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. This is not a 2nd Ammendment issue. Rather something greater. What the Constitution is based on. Natural law. Or if you will God given rights and duties. I believe that the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense. If such right exists is it enabled in the 21st Century by the bearing of firearms? If the bearing of firearms enables said right can any restrictions be placed on the firearms – like the various techno gizmos under discussion?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • I’m sorry, I asked a simple question. Dodging it smells like sophistry. Tito Edwards usually does not throw around such words easily, but I have to agree with him. I don’t mind if you elaborate your answer to my question with a natural law argument. I do mind being asked questions in return.
    -
    This question, however, is very telling: “If such right exists is it enabled in the 21st Century by the bearing of firearms?” It is a hallmark of constitutional law that the nature of rights do not change from century to century. Your question implies that you think they can. I can assure you that if so you are wrong. Rights that can change are not rights at all.

  • Mr. Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. I think that the Church teaches we have a right and even duty to self defense. However Cain did not slay Able with a gun. Does the Church limit our self defense to broad swords in the 21st Century? If we can morally bear firearms can limits be placed on said firearms? Can I be prevented putting a hitch on my car in order to tow my very own 106mm reckless rifle? The Church seems less clear on these issues. I think said issues should be clarified rather than lighting over a Catholic media personality.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • I can think of some Christians in Iraq who would very much like to have their own 106mm recoilless rifles right now.
    http://www.aina.org/news/20140622032015.htm

  • Mr Edwards:

    Thank you for your definition. Please be assured that I strive to be honest.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Tom d:

    A very good point. Should we not be revisiting at this time the history of the Church’s military orders? IIRC the Church h approved the constitution’s of @ 100 military orders between the fall of Jerusalem and the Reformation for the defense of Christians.

    God bless

    Richard W Cometford

  • I wrote “Rights that can change are not rights at all.” You respond with “The Church seems less clear on these issues.” That is not an answer. It is a dodge.

  • Mr Tom d:

    I think k that the Church clearly teaches that we have a right and even duty to self defense. But I am unclear as to whether the Church teaches there are limitations on the tools we use for self defense. Can it be for instance immoral for I to possess a 10 -round mag rather than a government approved 9 – round mag? I suspect not; but I cannot cite any authority to back my thought.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr Edwards

    Thank you for your reply. And from what issue do I detract. Have I not made it clear that I think the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense? Is there some other issue here you wish me go address? Kindly tell me and I will be happy to do so.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • It is immoral for a government to prohibit the lawful ownership of weapons that are widely available to unlawful actors who care little for the lives of others. It is therefore also immoral to support such a prohibition with blind appeals to Church teaching that imply no prudential dissent is permitted. You haven’t done the latter, but you are suggesting that you just might.

  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if I understand you. I do not mean to infer or suggest anything. As evidenced by my post on the military orders it is clear that I think Christian men should realize we live in very evil times and we should be prepared to defend the right and the innocents. I think the Church teaches we have both a right and duty in this regard. As we live in the 21st Century self defense can only be accomplished with firearms. However there is an open question as to whether a limit can be morally placed on the type, functioning and capability of firearms in private hands. I would be happy to be enlightened if there are any relevant Church teachings on this matter.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • OK, since you are being a bit clearer I can respond a bit more clearly.
    -
    In a properly constituted modern democracy limits can be placed on private weapon possession and ownership, certainly. The American constitutional order provides two mechanisms for the private ownership of weapons: the Second Amendment for individually operated weapons, and the clause on Letters of Marque and Reprisal for crew operated weapons. Note that the Second Amendment addresses individual ownership as an individual right which exists for public purposes, while the clause on Letters of Marque and Reprisal does not. Lawyers will argue over the details, but this is the overall structure.
    -
    My previous posts are not really about this structure. They are about principles from which constitutionally valid and practical legislation may be enacted under this framework. Certainly Church teaching may be referred to here, but that teaching is prudential and does not necessarily override other principles.
    -
    One Church teaching that applies here is derived from Aquinas’ view on properly constituted government. This cuts both ways. Governments which interfere with their citizens’ self defense are to some degree not properly constituted. It is certainly within the rights of the citizens to work toward the repeal of legislation that interferes with their self defense, and it is wrong to suggest that it is wrong of them to do so.
    -
    Finally, if government completely fails and is practically non-existent, then there is no valid constitutional way that the private ownership of any weapon can be enforced, and doing so is plainly tyranny. I find your idea of re-establishing “military orders” to be sectarian and therefore not applicable to the modern world. I would much prefer that people in failed states work to establish the social institutions along the lines of those in English law which led to the American constitutional order.

  • Mr Tom d:

    Thank you for your reply. Now I learned something. And no name calling. A potential convert seeing your post would be I think impressed. You know Mr V from the Vortex is pretty effective. He never replies to his Catholic critics by name. I think this is a good idea. We must spread the Gospel and save souls. Everything else is unimportant.

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Cometford

  • Richard,
    Mr.V from the Vortex broached the salary oddities at Catholic Answers regarding very specific people being very well paid while others were being laid off…then noting that he takes a specific much lower salary per year even as head. His being specific therein showed potential converts that money can be a problem in Catholic media and not all Catholics think one way on it.. Mr. Shea used sins of the tongue like demeaning insults against individuals like Deacon Russel on the Lying as always sin issue repeatedly…then Shea issues repeated but seemingly general apologies. It is very good that potential converts for the good of their souls see that he is rejected by other Catholics as a model for behaviour for this ungoing and repeated sin. His example actually reinforces in Protestants their complaint that in Catholicism, you can do the same sin forever but just keep confessing it til death and all is well. You til your last post are seemingly more interested in silencing the use of his name here at TAC than in this gun issue. The gun issue is a bit moot. The smart tech depends on batteries and not even New Jersey will make them mandatory til dead batteries are not a variable. I think you came here to control the name issue really and I think your use of “God bless” has a teleology that also involves controlling others through disarming them. I saw this behaviour in you years ago and I would think you are perhaps a relative of Mr. Shea because your defense of him stretching out so many years is either close relationship or some strange attachment to one person.

  • To some extent, I think this issue is, for some of the Catholic blogs, taking on a bit of a “Blind Men and the Elephant” quality in that both Shea and his critics are focusing relentlessly on ONE or a few aspects of an issue and ignoring the big picture.

    Rebecca Frech has an important point that should not be forgotten — when you need a gun for self defense you need it instantly; any restrictions or burdens designed to make guns harder to obtain or use, therefore, will end up hurting precisely the people who most legitimately need them. However, Mark Shea has also made some important points: there ARE some utterly tone-deaf gun nuts out there — like the Open Carry activists who tote assault rifles into public places and behave like utter jerks toward those who disagree with them — who are doing far more harm than good to the cause of 2nd Amendment rights. Obviously, Frech is no gun nut, and the vast majority of gun owners are not “gun nuts,” but that doesn’t negate the fact that “gun nuts” do exist and appear to have disproportionate sway over certain public policy organizations.

    Shea’s personally combative blogging style is not my cup of tea, and I do NOT agree with many of his approaches to certain issues (like voting), but, he often posts interesting and humorous items that one may not find anywhere else. (No, I’m not related to him.) I am going to keep reading his blog AND this one every day.

  • Richard W Comerford wrote, “I would be happy to be enlightened if there are any relevant Church teachings on this matter” Can 29 of the Second Lateran Council (1139), the 10th ecumenical council, “We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.”

    It is thought to have been directed against crossbows and, whatever its precise meaning, it shows some restrictions are permissible.

  • It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.

  • my point here is that bringing Mr. Shea’s name into this question is a waste of time diverting our attention from saving souls

    Better to bring his name into it so that spectators can judge the merits of both sides fairly than to do the cowardly method Shea uses of referencing vague “somebodies” that, when questioned end up applying to no one. For example we have this post where even the commenters point out that they can’t find anyone who “complain about acts of private charity”.

    One gets the impression that if Shea would give up all the boogeymen his imagination invents, he might be a much happier man able to bring back the “enjoying it” of his blog title.

  • Winning the argument and losing the soul trumps any good that is done with that style of engagement.

  • Mr. Paterson:
    Re: Can only use crossbows to kill Muslims

    Thank you for the reminder. However I have watched a few friendly debates between very impressive historians online on this matter (which is often used in Catholic bashing). There seems to be more than a little disagreement among the experts regarding either the translation, the meaning and even the existence of the citation in question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Donald M McClarey wrote,
    “It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.”
    Le Roi Soleil was both more subtle and effective than the Lateran Counci; in the aftermath of the Frondes, that astute monarch made the wearing of swords at Versailles, not illegal, but unfashionable By the end of his reign, the sword, like wearing one’s own hair, had become the badge, not of a gentleman, but of a provincial.

  • If you believe that God will forgive your sins because you let kill you an evil man who manifestly hates God and man . . .

    For the rest of us, the thought process starts with, “What would Odysseus do?” It’s one resaon the classics were important.

    There’s nothing like the sound of a pump shot gun chambering a round. It says, “Kiss you @$$ goodbye, Jack!” And, unlike a .223 or .30/06, OO buck shot won’t tear into your neighbor’s bedroom. And, unless you’re practiced with a pistol, it’s too easy to miss even at close quarters.

    Roger that, bill bannon. Comerford, Bless your heart, you’re a tool.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    My primary motivation for posting the comment you cited is that there are several people who I pray will convert to the true faith; but I tremble at the thought of they stumbling on a Catholic blog, reviewing the comments section and thinking not “see how the Catholics love one another” but rather “see how the Catholics hate one another”. Issues of faith and morals can be vigorously addressed and hopefully clarified without bringing names and personalities into it.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Shaw:

    You wrote in part: “Comerford, Bless your heart, you’re a tool.” Then please pray that I ma a tool in the service of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Even discussing Mark Shea makes you look intellectually unserious. It’s the same phenomenon as endlessly reporting what some bitter leftist celebrity says about the Church. The more you report it, the more they spread their lies because they’re not looking for truth, they’re looking to glorify themselves.

  • Issues of faith and morals can be vigorously addressed and hopefully clarified without bringing names and personalities into it.

    Yes, Shea has done a bang up job of making at least one person (raise hand) feel unwelcome to your church by, instead of addressing an individual, lambasts a whole group. Yeah, it’s better to make entire groups (like gun-toting libertarians, or blue-state liberals) feel unwelcome than challenging one person head on in honorable debate (like Don here on this blog or Nancy Pelosi in the general). That’s why Paul didn’t call out Peter by name but made vague references to “some apostles”. Oh yeah, those previous two sentences should have been sarcasm.

    I’ve certainly grown far more appreciative of my uncle’s choice in joining the Orthodox.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    Thank you for your reply. All we have to do is look at the Gospels to realizethat this sort of intramural skirmishing is not new. What is important is Jesus Christ, not a blogger who, like us all, will be forgotten in a few years. What should you or I care about what one lone blogger (who has no teaching authority like a pastor or bishop) posts? We should not allow such stumbling blocks to become stumbling blocks to our faith.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • What is important is Jesus Christ, not a blogger who, like us all, will be forgotten in a few years. What should you or I care about what one lone blogger (who has no teaching authority like a pastor or bishop) posts?

    Then why did you post your first comment at all? Caring about what Mr McClarey posts a little?

    Next time might want to take that beam out of your pot before calling the kettle, wolf.*

    *(yes, I was mixing my metaphors for comic effect)

  • Don McClarey wrote “It also demonstrates the absolute futility of most attempts to ban weaponry.” Absolutely correct. And the fact that the Church has not attempted since 1139 to pass another weapons ban demonstrates that the Church understands this full well.

  • “Even discussing Mark Shea makes you look intellectually unserious”

    That is, unfortunately, becoming an axiom for what’s wrong in the Catholic blogosphere.

  • T Shaw,
    Since a convict I fought and beat said he’d be back with a pistol to get me, we sleep here in the NY harbor with a shotgun and thorough motion detectors. But I think he’s over it. Cops arriving after the fight and entering our house said, “hide that pistol grip shotgun, the detectives will take it…get a stock for it in New Jersey.”
    N.J. is the most anti gun state because it is the most densely populated state ergo it is the state wherein distant passerbys to a gun fight are a greater concern. The pistol grip shotgun ban is probably to prevent guys carrying one under their longcoat….when young, I was approached by just that type of guy as I got off a bus. Pray for him ever since by name which I knew….baddo to the nth. Tough town in some parts…nice huge park on the harbor though where I cycle….thug free because it’s a very long way from rough neighborhoods.

  • This, I suspect, will be a long thread.

  • Phillip,

    Don’t ruin it for the rest of us!

    ;)

  • That’s just me, I like to ruin things. :)

    Besides, a little voice told me this would go on and on.

  • I read Shea’s post, but not the 400+ comments. Did anyone get around to challenging him on the “30,000 corpses” statement he kept making? Last numbers I could find were 11,000 gun homicides per year. Is he including accidental deaths?

  • Richard W Comerford wrote, “There seems to be more than a little disagreement among the experts regarding either the translation, the meaning and even the existence of the citation in question.

    The canon is certainly genuine and can be found in the highly authoritative Hefele/Leclercq, Conciliengeschichte/Histoire des conciles vol V. Livre XXXIII p 733 (Paris 1912 ed)

    The original reads “Artem autem illam mortiferam et Deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus Christianos et Catholicos exerceri de cætero sub anathemate prohibemus.”

    That is all the Council has to say on the subject.

    Leclerq translates “ballistariorum” &c as « des arbalétriers et des archers »

  • but I tremble at the thought of they [sic] stumbling on a Catholic blog, reviewing the comments section and thinking not “see how the Catholics love one another” but rather “see how the Catholics hate one another”.

    A valid point. Have you informed Mr Shea of this insight?

  • Mr c matt:

    Thank you for your question. IN answer: Yes. Several of his regular correspondent, including myself, did about 3-years ago. We were deleted and our e-mails went unanswered. And this is the blog owners privilege. It shows his good taste too. I would not allow me to post on my blog if I had one.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mr. Paterson-Seymour:

    Thank you for your reply. I am a semi-literate knuckle dragger. I bow to your superior knowledge in these matters.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • In Woodbury, Connecticut:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/19/jesus-republicans-and-nra-banned-on-school-website/?cmpid=NL_opinion

    Public education probably skips or rewrites the Dark Ages period in history.
    Save the pre-cyber encyclopedias and dictionaries from the downsizing rage!

  • Mr. Winchester:

    Thank you for your reply. In answer to your question I made the original post in part because of my gratitude to Mr. Shea for his heroic efforts in defense of life. also because IMO the Catholic Church in the USA has, in worldly terms, all but disappeared; and the remnant of late seems to be fractured and conducting multiple civil wars. And sometimes very uncivil civil wars at that. The issue of self defense should IMO be addressed in light of the deposit of faith and not in the light of one Catholic blogger’s personality.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • The issue of self defense should IMO be addressed in light of the deposit of faith and not in the light of one Catholic blogger’s personality.

    Then – as they say – do it. Blogs are free and easy to get. Leading by example is far more effective than back-seat steering.

  • Richard W Comerford,

    I misread you, with apologies.

  • Mr. Winchester:

    You wrote in part: “Then – as they say – do it. Blogs are free and easy to get. Leading by example is far more effective than back-seat steering.”

    Thank you for the suggestion. We all have different abilities. I am very mildly ill and right now I have the time to make an ass of myself while pontificating. Normally I would not have either the time or the ability to run a blog with justice and charity. The folks here do a very good job but I suspect they put a LOT of effort in it.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • c matt: “see how the Catholics hate one another”.
    .
    I do not buy into the concept of the death penalty inflicted by the state or the civilian as hate. It is Justice being imposed. This is why the homicide victim must be vindicated in a court of law.
    .
    Persons, souls, are created in love and damned in Justice and redeemed by Jesus Christ. The word “ord” in Latin means law. The word “ordinance” is English for law. The word “ordnance” are the ammunition and force needed to preserve the natural law that all men are created equal and deserve equal Justice.
    .
    The Second Amendment is for all people created equal. the militia is ordinary citizens. There was a time when citizens’ arrest, that is, a citizen might apprehend and hold a fleeing criminal, was incumbent upon everyone. Now, The true citizen will be arrested for assault and battery. Citizens’ arrest is no longer recognized by law authorities. People must ask the assailant: “Are you just going to rape and rob me, or are you going to kill me?” before self-defense will be extenuating circumstances in a court of law, for permanently preventing a criminal from plying his trade.
    .
    There was one case in New Jersey. The woman asked the intruder if he was only gong to rape her, would he wear a condom. His plea: “She asked for it.” Consent only works if there is free will, with out duress or intimidation, (he had the gun). Yeah, he got off. Eleven year old children incestuously raped were blamed for the crime in a court of law. After two such cases of “She ( a minor child) wanted it” I wrote the Start Ledger with a letter entitled: “Get your free rapes here.., just line up and get your free rapes here.” Forty year old men raping eleven year old children whose consent is held in trust for them by their parents. Oh, but sometimes the rapists are the parents.
    .
    It is incumbent for a citizen to protect a minor child, to give her food and shelter and an education if possible, even when she throws herself at him for sexual gratification, or any other human need. This is why “We, the people” have constituted government, and why “We, the people,”need our guns to preserve our government, liberty and peace.

  • Mr. Edwards:

    No apologies needed but warmly appreciated.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • bill bannon,

    I live in “Mayberry” just outside NYC. I can walk to Jamaica Ave., Couple weeks ago a neighbor’s car was broken into. A few years back a crew came in and stole a half dozen minivans, but were caught as they assembled to drive them out of the village. They were most upset that they would be tried in Nassau County court not Queens.

    In NYSSR, a high magazine capacity, a pistol grip and/or a bayonet lug (as if!) make a semi-auto rifle/shotgun an “assault weapon.” I have a mini 14 which has none of that (but I like it: small, light, easy to swing) and is not on the ban/register list.

    In any case, the solution is to emigrate to Amrica, if (financially) you can.

    One problem of the man and his tools is that all think that Shea’s prudential judgment/opinions are objective truth. They apparently much don’t reflect on the First Joyful Mystery: The Annunciatiion: desire the love of humility. Think of the humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary (my Mother) when the Angel Gabriel greeted her with these words, “Hail, full of grace.”

  • “Thank you for your reply. This is not a 2nd Ammendment issue. Rather something greater. What the Constitution is based on. Natural law. Or if you will God given rights and duties. I believe that the Church teaches we have a right even a duty to self defense.”
    .
    A right and a duty to self-defense of ourselves and every other person. “to secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity”

  • Ms. De Voe:

    Thank you for your reply. I do not mean to offend but on these matters I tend to first look to the Church rather than the glorious documents produced by our Founding Fathers, in part because said documents are based on natural law; and in part because I do not think there is a rule of law anymore in our nation’s capital; rather a rule based on pure, raw power.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • T Shaw,
    Shea should be writing books on scripture …period. His essay on the phrase “my God” was top shelf.
    Blogging is an occasion of sin for him. I’m a stock trader. If I were a cop, I’d be arrested in the first year for excessive force…which I was almost in trouble for in a citizen’s arrest I made years ago. Shea is a book writer and outside that road…trouble follows him.

  • Mr. Bannon:

    I am sorry I have not responded to your posts. I remember you from somewhere else and your posts were usually serious, somewhat complex and required work to respond to. I am very mildly ill and too happy sitting here feeling sorry for myself to do actual work. I do remember your posts with some fondness because they were always so very honest. I pray that you are well.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • respectfully suggest that these intramural, online Catholic firefights where Catholic media personalities are criticized by name are, in the final analysis, counter productive to our task of saving souls

    Having dealt with the people that they drive off with their consistent behavior, I must respectfully suggest you are very wrong.

    Shea is causing scandal– doing something wrong (equivocating the meaning of a phrase, claiming those who disagree are supporting the culture of death) that causes harm to others (both by blackening the name of those fighting to end abortion and euthanasia as being opposed to self defense, and by driving people away)– and as his actions are public, the response needs to be public; how many times have people asked you why “nobody” speaks out about this or that Catholic public figure’s falsehoods, if they are actually false?
    *****
    As usual, Shea is trying to substitute his prudential judgment for binding Church teaching, and is nasty about it. It gets old.

  • Last summer, one of the locations that I do volunteer-work at, had the Bishop of San Jose visit for an annual festivity. PJ McGrath has waxed eloquent on gun-control and the need to eliminate guns from society as the moral obligation of a Catholic.
    So, as the great Lord Bishop disembarked at our little establishment of mercy (a skilled nursing facility), lo and behold: he was accompanied by a uniformed, and of course, armed security guard. Never know when one of the CNA’s might go postal and beat him about the mitre, I say.

    I am so glad some of our very avid gun-control-oriented episcopacy has their armed security to protect them 24-7. Arent you? Meanwhile, all of you, hand em over.

  • I’m about the same height as Mrs. Frech; I carry a 38 special revolver because those who do evil do not fight fair, and I have an obligation to protect my children even if I had some sort of philosophical delusion that the life of someone doing no wrong is . I use personal defense rounds because they’re designed so that it’s much less likely they’ll go through the badguy– or a wall– and keep going.

    It’s not magic, but it is a tool, one that doesn’t care that I am short, female and (frequently) recovering from a c-section. Criminals do care that I look like I would be easy to attack, and shame on those who object to self defense, especially on the basis of cooked statistics!

  • Richard,
    As long as you were really deleted by Shea, St. Luke will watch over your health in payment thereof. Shea deleted and banned me when I pointed out that death penalty countries were not all neanderthals per his list. Japan has the death penalty, great food, great art, kind to each other on food lines after the tsunami and…makes great cars and is sixty times safer from murder than the two largest Catholic populations on earth who are non death penalty countries…Mexico and Brazil…sixty times safer.

  • Foxfier,
    Kudos…and never let them engage you in talk as they move closer. They want your wrist. Say “freeze”…and if they take one step toward you, you shoot….as long as your state’s protocols align with that which they should. And back up if they’re within haymaker distance. Women hesitate at unusual movement. Get past all merciful hesitation. Judith beheaded Holofernes in a flash…while looking like Joss Stone singing ” I put a spell on you”.

  • Mr. Foxfier:

    Thank you for your reply. You wrote in part: “you are very wrong”. I have head that before. Are you related to my wife?

    More seriously: you are right in our obligation to deflate the balloon of scandal; but by directly confronting an individual the more important underlying issue (in this case the right and duty to self defense under natural law) becomes obscured; and there is a danger, no matter how careful we are, of also being uncharitable to the person in question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Bill B– thanks.
    As my husband says: guns are not a melee weapon. Thankfully the Navy gave me a good basic understanding of how dang fast folks can move, especially if their weapon is already at hand. (be the weapon their body, a knife or a hammer)
    That said, I’ve still twice been caught in situations where I really should’ve had my weapon– once cornered by a crazy person at the grocery store, with my children, and once with a drunk or high psycho who literally thought he owned the road and could issue threats to those walking on the sidewalk. It’s really not nice to have to bluff your way through dangerous situations. (stupidity and ability to beat the heck out of him, respectively; problem with a bluff is that eventually it WILL be called)
    ****
    Richard W-
    You are ignoring the major, main issue in looking for an underlying one; your underlying issue is part of why Shea is wrong, but the over-arching issue is that Shea banks on HIS reputation and “authority” as speaking for the Church and pro-life groups in general.
    You also do not answer the points I made about Shea directly driving people off, and that only being able to be fixed by addressing the problem. Not broad statements of general correction, which all too easily (as he demonstrates in the source of this very topic) devolve into innuendo, passive aggressive attacks and a refusal to stand up for the facts, but “this person is wrong. Here’s why.”

  • Ms. Foxfier:

    Thank you for your reply. Mr. Shea, whom I admire for his pro life advocacy, is neither Pope, Bishop nor Pastor. He possess no teaching authority. If one disagrees with what Mr. Shea has to say one can in good conscience simply ignore him.

    You also posted in part: “You also do not answer the points I made about Shea directly driving people off”. It is his blog. He can drive off anyone he wishes to. I mean he showed great good taste in deleting my posts. After all it is only a blog. It is not like he is denying someone the sacraments.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Again, Mr. Comerford, you do not actually make any type of argument to support your claim that directly confronting Mr. Shea does more harm than good to the cause of saving souls; in fact, you change the subject to his blog, rather than sticking with the Catholic Church.
    If you are unwilling to support it, why on earth did you assert it?

  • MikeS wrote “I read Shea’s post, but not the 400+ comments. Did anyone get around to challenging him on the “30,000 corpses” statement he kept making? Last numbers I could find were 11,000 gun homicides per year. Is he including accidental deaths?”
    -
    Accidental deaths are at an all time low thanks to vastly improved and mandated safety classes. The major number in the difference are the suicides. And of course, smart-gun technology will do nothing to stop most suicides.

  • Ms. Foxfier:

    I am sorry but I do not understand your question.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • TomD- I think I found the source.

    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

    If you select

    1) All intents
    2) firearm
    3) Year of report 2011-2011
    you get Number of Deaths 32,351.

    That includes the ten-short-of-20k suicides, and the roughly 1k lawful-police-or-unknown-motive shots, and possibly the several hundred justifiable homicide (FBI caught 260, defined as shooting a felon during a felony by a US citizen)

    Obviously, the criminals don’t care about laws.
    Equally obvious, cases like Mrs. Frech’s “I HAVE A GUN AND WILL SHOOT YOU IF YOU COME IN” are the primary use of guns for defense– it’s a rather unusual criminal who will keep coming if he doesn’t have other advantages and isn’t out of his mind for one reason or another.

  • It’s Mrs.

    And I did not ask a question, Mr. Comerford; you made an assertion, and are steadfastly refusing to support it in anyway.

  • In late April, I was in Mr McClarey’s fair state and noticed the traffic billboard noting at that point that there were over 200 Illinois residents that had died in traffic accidents. When I returned back a week later to fly out of Mayor Rahm’s city, it was now over 220.

    So, Mr Shea must be equally concerned about traffic deaths and the outlawing of cars, because in the same year, 2011, there were actually more traffic deaths than gun-related deaths (32,367, Natl Hwy Traffic Safety Data), and the next year, the trend was up almost 5 per cent to around 34,000.

    Oh. He has never mentioned “violent” traffic fatalities? Humm.

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    I am sorry. I have lost you. Which assertion would you like me to support please?

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • If you cannot be bothered to defend your assertion after multiple polite requests, I’m quite willing to accept that as you dropping your objection, though it wasn’t very gracefully done and has the added problem of misleading people.
    ***
    Goes rather far in proving the point of why problems need to be openly dealt with– if there is not a direct challenge, it becomes very hard for there to be a defense, let alone communication to find any sort of solution.

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    I simply do not understand what you want. I have made five requests for clarification to you. I would be happy to oblige. Please tell em what is bothering you. Kindly be clear.

    Thank you very much.

    Richard W Comerford

  • …the Open Carry activists who tote assault rifles into public places…
    –Elaine Krewer

    It may not be true that Mark Shea and his minions don’t know what they’re talking about, but it’s a good working theory.

    (Like the media droids you and Shea parrot, you don’t know what an “assault rifle” is, do you honey?)

  • Mr. Comerford
    - that is objectively not true, as is easily found by looking at what you have written. That’s the nice thing about comment feeds like this– they make it clear when someone is trying to play games.

  • Until you can be bothered to find the manners to actually engage in conversation, rather than using the trappings and tossing out the essence, I’m not going to waste the time.

  • Mr. Elyi
    Re: Assault Rifle

    You know that is an interesting point. Just what is an assault rifle? The Germans titled their StG 44 a “storm” rifle. The Russians titled their AK 47 as an “automatic”. And the USA titled its M 16 simply as a “rifle”.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Mrs. Foxfier:

    OK. Whatever you want. If you change your mind let me know.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

  • Micha-
    You might get a kick out of this recap of the “assault rifle” political phrase:
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/so-what-is-an-assault-rifle-really-we-look-at-the-definitions-and-how-the-term-is-demonized/

    If you use one definition, anything that was designed for military use is an assault rifle; by that definition, an AR-15 is not an “assault rifle.”
    If you ask the DoD, it’s automatic rifles, which… well, also not the AR-15.

    If you use gun control advocate’s definition, it means “scary looking, vaguely military gun.” Likewise “Assault weapon.”

    Like this pink trimmed 22lr:
    https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/tempest-in-a-teapot-22lr-edition/

  • Micha: I am aware that the definition of “assault rifle” varies considerably depending on who is using the term, and that in many cases it is simply a catch-all term for a “scary looking vaguely military gun”. I am also aware that attempts to ban so-called “assault rifles” often end up targeting weapons that have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses. That said, I still think that there are SOME (by no means most or all) gun rights advocates who overreact grossly to even the slightest percieved threat to their rights, and whose publicity stunts do more harm than good. Insisting that gun rights advocates can do no wrong is as counterproductive as making the opposite mistake of insisting that anyone who has any interest in owning a gun must be a bloodthirsty gun nut.

  • Elaine-
    you seem to be implying that the gun bans get some weapons that do not have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses.
    Would you care to describe what those weapons are?

  • Bill Bannon wrote, “Japan has the death penalty… and is sixty times safer from murder than the two largest Catholic populations on earth who are non death penalty countries”
    What you omit to mention is that the other eight countries with an intentional homicide rate below 1:100,000, (2010 figures) Austria (0.56), Norway (0.68), Spain (0.72), Germany (0.84), Denmark (0.85), Netherlands (0.87), Sweden (0.87) and Italy (0.97) do not have the death penalty. Austria, Italy and Spain have Catholic majorities and Germany and the Netherlands have large Catholic minorities.
    The rate in the US is 4.8:100,000, over eight and a half times the Austrian rate.

  • “You seem to be implying that the gun bans get some weapons that do not have legitimate self-defense and sporting uses. Would you care to describe what those weapons are?”

    No, actually, I don’t, because that is beside the point I was trying to make. My main point is that while most 2nd Amendment rights advocates are, to my knowledge, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens simply standing up for the right to defend themselves, there are some who go too far, like the Texas Open Carry group — which even the NRA and pro-gun groups thought stepped way out of line with some of their public displays:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/nra-open-carry-guns-backlash-texas

    http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/05/21/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-texas-open-carry/

    Yes, one of the linked sources is what Shea would call a “ritually impure” left-leaning publication and the other (from a pro-gun source) contains some bad language. Nevertheless, it is my opinion (not Church teaching binding on anyone) that sharing stories like Rebecca’s (of real people using guns to defend themselves and their families) is a far more effective way to convert people to the cause of 2nd Amendment rights than is walking into restaurants and stores openly displaying scary looking, vaguely military guns.

  • It does rather matter, since you characterize those you are objecting to as over-reacting to merely slight and perceived restrictions on their rights, so it does matter if you can show how the restrictions are slight and probably imaginary infringements of, per your choice of ground, legitimate defense and sporting purposes.
    .
    Mother Jones isn’t “ritually impure,” although I can see why Shea would like to attribute that to those he disagrees with rather than making any sort of rational argument. They’re known to be wildly biased with a tendency to ignore anything against what they want to support and to cherry pick their “facts.”
    The other is childish to the extreme– “didn’t get enough hugs as a child”? This is what you wish to choose to represent your arguments, someone whose point can only be made with nasty personal insults?
    That’s like building an argument that praying outside of abortion clinics with nuns in habits is a crazy thing, and linking to “flying spaghetti monster” about how symbols of the Church like nuns and rosaries are scary, and justifying it because a pro-life group argues that it’s easier to persuade the mothers not to kill their children if you don’t look too religious. (Example chosen because it’s that “reach them” argument is one I’ve actually seen in action.)
    *
    Why not just find the statement from the NRA? It was from the NRA-ILA in an email alert, incidentally, written by a staffer who was stating his own opinion in characterizing it, and which was disagreed with enough by the rest of the organization that it was removed.
    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/5/good-citizens-and-good-neighbors-the-gun-owners-role.aspx
    .
    If you’d like to see the specific quote, here’s a source that’s not crazy:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/02/nra-splits-with-open-carry-texas-amid-chipotle-beef/
    ***
    The NRA was objecting to a specific example of people making for bad optics in an area where open carry is fairly new and fights are still being had, because they know that the media will be hostile; see also, the people who bemoan how the Pope keeps saying things that are mauled and mangled by our media, not because he’s (some sort of insult,) but because he’s doing things that can be abused.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour-
    that argues that the death penalty doesn’t hurt– it may point to a confused cause and effect, as well. It’s much easier to get people to let the death penalty be removed if murder is relatively uncommon.

    When Australia has drug gangs and an equivalent of the Mexican army walking across their borders, they might be a good comparison.
    Also, without looking it up, I know at least some of those Catholic countries are graying– young males commit the most murders.
    And there’s the issue of how various countries define murder or homicide… I know that at least as of a few years ago, it wasn’t murder until someone had been found guilty.
    (see also, the death rate for newborn children in the US vs countries that don’t count every child that “showed signs of life” as a “live birth”; TOF has a post about these definition problems:
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/06/some-statistical-fun.html )

  • Michael PS,
    Europe’s present stability as to murder was partly formed by many centuries of the death penalty which was abolished only of late….Sweden 1921, Norway 1902, Denmark 1892, Austria 1968, Germany 20th century. They are safe now… partly because of centuries of the death penalty. Then add in that they do not have an ex slave underclass that the US has.
    Abolish it …the death penalty…tomorrow in Japan and Japan will stay non murderous for a very long time…unless a rich poor divide builds up.
    Several Catholic countries with the help of Pope Nicholas V ( Romanus Pontifex, mid 4th large par.) caused the crime legacy of Latin America but escaped that legacy and left it here…Spain and Portugal, the latter of which was last to leave the slave trade.
    Enter the US…which had both slavery and white indentured servants from European sources….whose descendants became our main violent criminals along with Irish and Italian etc. underclasses coming from Europe. The US attracts aggressive personalities also from all the world because to be poor here is not relaxing…it puts you in bad neighborhoods that can be lethal. Ergo we attract aggressives.
    The US needs a death penalty that does not have ten years of appeals ( Texas) or 20 years of appeals
    ( California).

    Back to Mexico. Read the ccc 2267 article virtually against the death penalty because prisons are so nice now…and then watch this tape of Mexican gangsters scaring prison guards into letting them open a cell and machine gun rival gang members ( the Mexican Human Rights Commission stated that cartels control 60% of the prisons)… you cannot turn this around with killing many if the 100,000 cartel members:

  • correct last phrase: you cannot turn this around without killing many of the 100,000 cartel members.

  • Regarding assault rifle bans: HO HUM . . . I am of of those million in NY.
    .

    4/17/2014: “The SAFE Act, passed in New York last year, had an April 15 deadline for owners of assault-style weapons to register their guns with the state. Some 1 million residents have refused to abide.”
    .

    2/20/2014: Instapundit: “I love the people who say you could never deport all the illegals, but who think you could lock up all the gun owners.”
    .

    J. D. Tuccille: “This successful example of mass defiance horrifies the editorial board of the Hartford Courant, which shudders at the sight of the masses not obeying an order that, history, tells us, never had a shot at wide compliance. But compliance with gun registration would have been a historical aberration. Gun restrictions of all sorts breed defiance everywhere they’re introduced.”
    .

    1/27/2014: Irish democracy: CT scrambles for “amnesty” after masses refuse to register their assault weapons and high-magazine capacities.

  • Reagrding so-called open-carry: I was stationed in Ca when that great state was yet part of America. Ronald Reagan was governr. Then, it was legal to carry a sidearm if it was in plain sight. I think the concealed carry was illegal.
    .

    Now (last I heard), 33 (out of 57 if you’re an Obama-worshiping idiot) US states have not self-eliminated from America and have passed legislation allowing so-called concealed carry. My son in TN always has a .45 on his person, except when on post where he must needs be unarmed so that a terrrorist may safely kill him.

  • Foxfier
    I think you are confusing Australia (which I did not mention) with Austria. Australia’s 2010 rate was 1.16, more than twice that of Austria.
    You are certainly right about young males committing the most “intentional homicides” as we classify them in Scotland, that is both murders and those cases where provocation, diminished responsibility or excess in self-defence reduces the crime to Culpable Homicide. I believe the corresponding Anglo-American term is Voluntary Manslaughter.In 2011-2012, in Scotland, the young males (aged 16 to 20 years) were the most likely to be accused in homicide cases. The accused rate per million population was more than six times greater for 16 to 20 year old males, at 148 accused per million population, compared to the national average of 24 per million population In 2012-2013, it was males aged 21 to 30 years that were the most likely to be accused in homicide cases. The accused rate per million population was more than five times greater for 21 to 30 year old males, at 82 accused per million population, compared to the national average of 16 per million population.

  • “Now (last I heard), 33 (out of 57 if you’re an Obama-worshiping idiot) US states have not self-eliminated from America and have passed legislation allowing so-called concealed carry.”

    Actually, all 50 states now have (at least on paper) provisions for concealed carry by ordinary citizens; the last holdout, Illinois, approved it last year and thousands of state residents are now carrying or taking the necessary steps to obtain permits. The main difference between states at this point is “shall issue” — a permit must be issued to anyone who meets the legal qualifications — vs. “may issue” — permits are granted only at the discretion of a local or state official. At last count, 4 states (HI, MD, NJ and RI) were “restrictive may-issue” statewide; 3 (CA, NY and MA) had “may issue” laws that varied by locality; 2 (CT and DE) were classed as “permissive may-issue”; and 5 states (VT, AR, AK, WY and AZ) had no carry restrictions. The remaining 36 states are “shall-issue”.

  • Also, this animated graphic shows the spread of concealed carry laws across the nation over the past three decades:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Rtc2.gif

    As recently as 1986, only 8 states had “shall issue” concealed carry laws and 16 states — mostly in the South and Midwest — were still “no issue.”

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour -
    Yes, I read the second “Austria” as “Australia” and thought you were trying to draw a more equivalent comparison– a country that doesn’t have wooden houses older than the country’s culture, closer in population and cultural diversity, higher migration rate (Australia actually has a higher rate than the US, per 1k population, though raw numbers are something like 780k for the US and 129k for Australia) and so on– although it doesn’t have a land border, it does have a lot of “refugee” boats.

    In that case, it’s not a decent comparison at all; it’s a smaller, muuuuuuuuch more established culture, more homogeneous (over 90% ethnic Austrians), much older population that has a big population bulge at 40-60 rather than the US’s slight bulge at 60 to… well, hard to tell, because it’s a very gradual drop to 40, and then it bounces back up at 35 for another spike at 20-25. (Looking at the CIA’s World Factbook population graph.

    Additionally, it doesn’t have an equivalent of the Mexico border.

  • Elaine Krewer-
    Part of the push for shall issue laws was people recognizing that they could not trust those in authority to exercise basic sense as had been the traditional expectation, so laws spelling out exactly what would disqualify a person were put in place.

    Comments to the effect that fearing for your life is not a compelling reason to carry a gun had something to do with that…. (Chief Zavaras of Denver, ’88)

  • Foxfier
    But I was not comparing Austria, or any of the other countries I cited with the United States, which I agree would be absurd. I was comparing them with Japan.
    Bill Bannon had attributed Japan’s very low intentional homicide rate – in fact, the lowest in the world at 0.36:100,000 – to its having the death penalty.
    Now, in my submission, the other countries I cited, all with an intentional homicide rate below 1:100,000, can fairly be compared with Japan and none of them employ capital punishment.

  • It is not without interest to note that in Public International Law, those who carry concealed weapons are treated as franc-tireurs or unlawful combatants.
    The requirement that combatants carry arms openly was, I believe (I am not a Publicist) first set out in the proposed Brussels Declaration of 1874 and was adopted in Article I of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and repeated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.
    There does seem to be something sneaky about it. In both France and the UK, laws against carrying concealed weapons abounded, when the open wearing of swords or dirks was commonplace.

  • “There does seem to be something sneaky about it.”

    Not at all. It is a very good thing that miscreants be uncertain if their next victim may be carrying arms. Security for politicians around the globe invariably involves agents in plain clothes who are carrying concealed weapons. In Europe, with the exception of the Czech Republic which allows concealed carry, as is so often the case in many areas, it seems there is one law for the ruled and other for the rulers.

  • Donald M McClarey

    “In Europe, with the exception of the Czech Republic which allows concealed carry, as is so often the case in many areas, it seems there is one law for the ruled and other for the rulers.”

    The Brussels Declaration was based, in part, on the experience of French farmers taking pot-shots at Prussian troops in the aftermath of Sedan.

    The government of Thiers tightened up French gun laws considerably after the crushing of the Paris Commune, including the Law of 14 March 1872 abolishing the National Guard; whatever benefits it offered in time of war were more than outweighed by the threat it posed to internal stability (they kept their Tabatière rifles at home!). As a result, there has not been an armed insurrection in metropolitan France since.

  • “The Brussels Declaration was based, in part, on the experience of French farmers taking pot-shots at Prussian troops in the aftermath of Sedan.”

    As you might have guessed MPS, I am well versed in the military history of the Franco-Prussian War and its aftermath. European governments routinely treat their people as subjects rather than as citizens, which includes France which has long demonstrated that democratic verbiage and ruthless centralization of power can walk hand in hand. The sheep like way in which, notable heroic exceptions to the contrary, the French lived under Nazi and Vichy rule from 1941-1944 demonstrates the advantages of a disarmed population for tyrants.

  • MPS, do you think there might be some utility to these sorts of regulations in a society which suffered repeated violent disorders between 1789 and 1871 and societies which did not? Re France, If the regulation is shopworn, can we repeal it?

    While we are at it, there are about 68 million people living in metropolitan France. I would think there would be some room for devolving police power, don’t you?

    You’re not quite getting the significance of chatter about ‘gun control’ in this country. Recreational hunting and target shooting are a class and subcultural marker. At the same time, violent crime is very unevenly distributed. The situation is a somewhat fuzzier down South, but where I grew up, the homicide rate in non-metropolitan counties is 1.14 per 100,000. In suburban zones and in the more agreeable inner-city neighborhoods, it might climb to 2.4 per 100,000. In the less agreeable sort of inner city neighborhood, it can range from 12 to 35 per 100,000. Fully two thirds of the homicides in the region where I grew up are in an inner city zone where live about 10% of the total population and nearly all unsolved homicides are in that zone. Please note that gun ownership is pervasive in small towns and rural areas in New York and if you do not process your deer you know someone who does.

    Sport hunters are not invading slum neighborhoods and putting a dose of lead in post-adolescent slum dwellers and gun regulations will be a weak vector in influencing rates of violent crime. Inner-city violence is the issue of what sociologists delicately call ‘social disorganization’ in the slums. Containing and ameliorating that (what’s been done very effectively) requires boots on the ground. The idea of fixed standards defined according to the general public’s dispositions and enforced by cops with the manners and sensibility cops have is repulsive to a certain sort of bourgeois. The objects of this enforcement are part of the Democratic Party’s clientele. How do you resolve this dissonance between social reality and the Vision of the Anointed? By sticking the bill with people you despise, and that’s Mr. Diehl who hunts deer and Mr. Tomaselli who bought a pistol when one of his neighbors suffered a home invasion.

  • Art Deco wrote, “Re France, If the regulation is shopworn, can we repeal it?”
    Certainly. If the National Assembly is minded to turn Saint-Denis, La Courneuve or Clichy-sous-Bois into a passable imitation of Gaza City or San Pedro Sula, there is nothing to stop them doing so.

    Here, too, shooting is a class marker; the typical charge for grouse shooting is £150 ($255) per brace shot, not including gratuities to loaders and beaters. Other driven game, partridge or pheasant is rather less expensive. For deer stalking one pays around £150 ($255) a day, including transport and a ghillie, which is not bad. Of course, most landowners and farmers will let anyone they know shoot rabbits and pigeons and, especially, Canada Geese for nothing. I had a Labrador I used to lend people. He enjoyed working, but, if anyone shot over him, he would come home.

    I own shotguns myself, a pair of James Purdey 29” 12-bores and a 31” pigeon-gun, all inherited. I keep them in the bank. At around £30K ($51K) each second-hand, they would be a magnet to thieves, rather than a deterrent. I keep a cheap Italian 410-bore 29” barrel at home for rough shooting. It is worth about £100 ($170). I keep it in a windowless tack-room with a steel door, along with my saddles. The ammunition I store elsewhere in an under-floor safe.

  • Here, too, shooting is a class marker;

    Different business here. It’s all up and down the social scale but tends not to include the salaried bourgeois, especially outside the South and the Plains and Mountain states. The go-to guy for hunting advice in my old office was the building custodian. Bow, rifle, muzzleloader season every year. The man could fill his freezer for the winter. Ironically, he doesn’t care for venison.

  • Unless they’re military. A lot of all flavors of (male) military– even the folks whose families have no tradition of it– pick up hunting.

    Oddly, the only group I’ve found that is less likely to hunt is the special forces and some of their support. My little brother accidentally made several big, tough, combat-tested SEALs physically ill when they found out that the jerky he was sharing was “bambi.”

  • Art Deco & Foxfier

    I love venison and I can gralloch one, too. A bit fiddly to prepare for roasting, but I have spent many a happy hour with a larding needle. Stewed is good, too.

    I am not a particularly good cook, but my dinner party dish is salmis de pigeon, roasted and finished in a game stock and wine sauce, something I was taught by an old French lady, when I was a schoolboy. She had been a cook/housekeeper in a noble, but impoverished family in the Auvergne. It is a good way to cook duck, too, teal or wigeon. Lapin a la moutarde I can do as well.

    In the winter, if I am in Scotland, I have game two or three times a week

  • the typical charge for grouse shooting is £150 ($255) per brace shot, not including gratuities to loaders and beaters. Other driven game, partridge or pheasant is rather less expensive. For deer stalking one pays around £150 ($255) a day, including transport and a ghillie, which is not bad.

    Sounds like an episode of Midsommer Murders.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0647491/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307058/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

  • The price of two days “deer stalking” is more than my dad’s new AR, including ammo.

  • “As a result, there has not been an armed insurrection in metropolitan France since.”
    -
    I guess you don’t count the Molotov cocktails used by France’s North African youths against France’s Citroens and Peugeots and Renaults to be arms, MPS.

  • TomD wrote, “guess you don’t count the Molotov cocktails used by France’s North African youths against France’s Citroens and Peugeots and Renaults to be arms”
    No more than I would consider the OAS campaign an armed insurrection, despite such episodes of violence as the machine-gunning of the Communist Party headquarters in the Place Kossuth on 4 January 1962, the bombing of the Quai d’Orsay on the 22nd January (which I actually witnessed – I was just beside Voltaire’s statue on the rue de Seine, when the front of the building blew out), or the dozens of other plastiques around that period. In one night, 17 January (la Nuit Bleue) there were 18 in Paris alone.
    The attacks of the plastiqueurs became as frequent as they were inept. They bombed the wrong floor of Satre’s apartment-block on the Rue Bonapart and of André Malraux’s in Boulange-sur-Seine on 7 February, blinding little four-year-old Delphine Renard. The subsequent demonstration by 10,000 workers (banned by the authorities) on the following day resulted in the massacre of the Charonne Métro (the Soirée Sanglante), when eight demonstrators, including three women and a sixteen-year-old boy were killed by the police pitching demonstrators, iron tree-guards and marble-topped café tables onto those sheltering in the stair-well. On the following Tuesday, 13 February, the funerals took place at Père Lachaise. Again, demonstrations were banned, but that did not stop half-a-million trade unionists following the coffins, heaped with red carnations as the crowds sang the workers’ great anthem against fascism,
    « C’est la lutte finale
    Groupons-nous, et demain
    L’Internationale
    Sera le genre humain »
    – and not a policeman anywhere in sight.
    That day, Algérie Francaise was buried – by the OAS
    Terrorist attacks, public disorder, yes, but armed insurrection, no.

  • “Ms. De Voe: Thank you for your reply. I do not mean to offend but on these matters I tend to first look to the Church rather than the glorious documents produced by our Founding Fathers, in part because said documents are based on natural law; and in part because I do not think there is a rule of law anymore in our nation’s capital; rather a rule based on pure, raw power. God bless Richard W Comerford”
    .
    It appears Richard W. Comerford, that you reject our founding documents because they are based on natural law and our Creator, and you adhere to church teaching; obviously, because Church teaching is no longer respected and outright banned by our government, leaving ordinary citizens with no refuge, in harm’s way.
    .
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
    .
    Ratified by all the colonies July 4th 1776
    .
    Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    .
    Ratified by all the states 12/15/1791.
    .
    Citizens have a right to express their grievances. Citizens are entitled to a redress of grievances.
    .
    Obama writes Executive Orders and ratifies these orders for himself and declares that the citizens are his subjects when he bothers himself to remember the citizens. When Obama acts outside of the Constitution, he acts outside of his citizenship and takes nobody else with him, for this is Obama’s personal opinion and Obama is totally responsible for his actions, and may not take the USA with him into annihilation.
    .
    All free lands and waterways are owned in joint and common tenancy by each and every citizen. You own it all and I own it all.
    .
    In the last days of Bill Clinton’s time in office, Clinton wrote an Executive Order making all free lands and waterways the property of the Chief Executive. Clinton wrote it and ratified it for himself. If Hillary gets into the president’s office, will she acknowledge the property that belongs to all citizens? Will she let us share our property? If the free lands and waterways become the property of the government, will these properties be used to pay off the national debt? Will foreign interest be free to violate our borders at will and take possession of property that was given over to them as debt holders by an illegitimate act of government?
    .
    Maybe the people will need weaponry to defend against intruders, usurpers invited by our government, our government which hasn’t the will of water running down hill.

  • Sorry to be late to the party: If homicide statistics from Detroit, Chicago, New York City and New Orleans are removed from calculations, the United States would rank near the bottom of country by country comparisons. The anti-gun rights people like to demonize the so-called gun culture of we hayseed hillbillies out in the sticks but it is the urban hell holes run by entrenched Democratic politicians that contribute the statistics the Left uses seeking to disarm us. Why do those gathered to the left seek to disarm the rest of us? I think it’s ideological at best and coldly practical at worst. God save us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .