Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 2:59am

Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns

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.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
124 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mary De Voe
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 6:47am

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.

Maggie
Maggie
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 9:43am

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.

bill bannon
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 10:51am

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.

Ken
Ken
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 12:05pm

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

Judy
Judy
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 12:31pm

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.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 12:44pm

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 1:32pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 2:35pm

“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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 2:55pm

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

bill bannon
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 3:53pm

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!”

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 4:54pm

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.

JasonL
JasonL
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 5:03pm

Why is anyone paying any attention to Mark Shea?

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 5:08pm

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

Paul W Primavera
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 5:27pm

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 5:37pm

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 7:37pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 7:39pm

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.

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 7:42pm

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 8:02pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 8:15pm

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 8:31pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 8:53pm

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 8:55pm

Mr Edwards:

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

God bless

Richard W Comerford

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 9:00pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 9:01pm

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 9:14pm

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 9:58pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 10:02pm

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 10:20pm

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

TomD
TomD
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 10:48pm

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.

trackback
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 11:03pm

[…] Morgenthaler Book Review: How Does a Smart Atheist Become Christian – Dr. T. Limjoco Rebecca Frech Schools Mark Shea on Guns – Don. R. McClarey JD, TACthlc Consider Gun Ownership for Family Protection – Rachel […]

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Sunday, June 22, AD 2014 11:05pm

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

bill bannon
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 4:47am

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.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 5:26am

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.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 6:03am

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.

Nate Winchester
Nate Winchester
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:02am

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.

Tito Edwards
Admin
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:10am

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:16am

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

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:19am

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.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:19am

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:22am

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

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:25am

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

Augustine Thomas
Augustine Thomas
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:29am

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.

Nate Winchester
Nate Winchester
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:39am

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.

Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 7:54am

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

Nate Winchester
Nate Winchester
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 8:09am

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)

TomD
TomD
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 8:20am

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.

Tito Edwards
Admin
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 8:21am

“Even discussing Mark Shea makes you look intellectually unserious”

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

bill bannon
Monday, June 23, AD 2014 8:22am

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.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top