Magazine Capacity Limits are a BAD Idea: Exhibit A

The following video illustrates pretty starkly why you might want to have more than seven rounds in your magazine (and why you'll probably need to shoot your attacker several times):

You see, most people get their ideas about guns from the movies, where if you shoot someone he dies immediately. That's not how guns work in real life. Guns poke holes in you; that's it. Yeah, one or two shots will probably cause you to bleed out eventually, but "eventually" doesn't really count when someone is trying to kill you or your family. To make someone stop, especially with a handgun, you're probably going to have to put a lot of bullets into him (hardened or drug-addled criminals have been known to soak up ten or fifteen rounds and still walk to the ambulance). Then, if he has an accomplice or two...well, you get the idea. 

One thing about this video is that the guy really should have barricaded his family in the basement or an interior room or something rather than waiting in the living room (quite apart from what happens here, what if the first guy just started shooting right away?). That, and he ought to have had a spare magazine handy for just such an occasion (or, you know, a shotgun or assault rifle handy in the basement. You know what I said about putting a lot of bullets into the guy? Shotguns let you put eight or nine in with a single blast). Good on him for looking out the window before letting the thief in, though.

Vive Christus Rex!

Feel-Good Video of the Day

Crook with shotgun vs. unassuming civilian. Guess who wins:

Free tip: guns are long range weapons. As in, you don't have to shove it right in your victim's face for it to work. Thank God for stupid crooks!

Vive Christus Rex!

Catholics and Concealed Carry

                In my post rejecting Cardinal Dolan’s calls for more gun control, and in subsequent discussion, the issue came up of Catholics and guns, and whether guns a detrimental to building a ‘Culture of Life.’ I believe they are quite the opposite; that armed citizenry is an essential element of a Culture of Life. I’m going to try to outline both why I think that and why I don’t see any conflict between my Catholic faith and my decision to carry a gun (or guns in general).

                The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its section on the Fifth Commandment, has this to say on self defense:

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

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

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

                2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

(Emph. mine)

                Thus far, fairly straightforward; it is not a sin to use force to defend ourselves from unjust aggression, even if that requires the use of lethal force.

                The sticking point for most people, I expect, would be the “moderation” clause: that self-defense requires “no more than necessary” violence. Aren’t guns immoderate violence?

                I would argue no, for a number of reasons. First of all, despite what we see in the movies, guns are not always lethal weapons. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly something like 80% of handgun victims survive their injuries (rifles, admitedly, are a different story). The human body is much better at dealing with the kind of damage that bullets cause than we give it credit for. So using a firearm on another human is not automatically the same as intentionally dealing a lethal blow or willing the other person’s death.

                More importantly, though, my understanding of necessary or moderate violence is that you are allowed to respond at roughly the same level as the threat. That is, if someone is trying to knock you around a little, but you know they won’t actually kill you or deal you any permanent damage, then you can’t kill them (not sure what real-life scenario that would be, but hypothetically speaking). If someone threatens you with deadly force, has the means and opportunity to carry it out, and is acting in such a manner that you honestly believe he intends to follow through with his threat, then you are justified in responding with deadly force if that’s what it takes to get him to stop.

                See, I think most people fall into the trap of judging this by the weapons involved: gun-beats-knife-beats-fists. But actually, from a real-life standpoint, the type of weapon doesn’t really enter into the level of force being brought to bear. That is, yes, different weapons are better or worse for fighting, but that’s not the point. The point is “how much damage is this person attempting to inflict?” Legitimate self-defense is “how much damage do I have to inflict to prevent him?”

                For instance, fist vs. gun, who wins? Most of you probably say ‘gun.’ But now adjust it; a highly-experienced, trained, hardened fighter ten feet away vs. a mild-mannered accountant whose never thrown a punch in anger with a .38 pistol in his pocket? I’d lay my money on the fists in that contest.

                Now, if the first man in this example wanted to, he probably could kill or seriously injure the other guy. So who is bringing the greater force? The unarmed fighter, or the accountant with a gun?

                The answer: neither. Both are able to inflict deadly force against the other. One can do it at a distance, the other can only do it at close range, but each could kill the other. If they meet in the parking lot and the fighter acts in such a way to make the accountant think he intends to kill him, then the accountant is justified in bringing deadly force to bear on him, because that’s the same level of force he is being threatened with.

                So using a gun does not automatically mean that you are bringing immoderate violence in a fight. The Catechism permits gun use.

                What about ‘bigger’ guns: the ‘assault weapons’ that we keep hearing about? Aren’t those excessive?

                The thing is, every gun is a weapon and every weapon can be lethal. The fact that one is more efficient or easier to use than the other doesn’t really give it a moral character all of its own. Functionally speaking, there’s not much difference between an ‘assault rifle’ and a hunting rifle (except that the hunting rifle is probably going to be bigger, more powerful, and harder to use).

                And again, it all comes down to deadly force. If someone has the means and opportunity to kill you or someone you’re responsible for and are acting so that you honestly believe they intend to, then the question becomes what force is necessary to prevent their doing so? In applying deadly force, a long-gun (rifle or shotgun) is the best choice.

                Now, admittedly under ordinary circumstances the only time a rifle or shotgun would legitimately be used in self-defense would be a home-invasion; unlikely, but certainly not impossible (in fact, it’s becoming increasingly common). But the thing we forget is that circumstances aren’t always ordinary, are they? I’m not talking about uprising against the government (which is a whole other topic that I’m not going to discuss here) or fantasy scenarios like the zombie apocalypse. I’m talking about civil unrest, riots, natural disasters, blackouts, or any other time the social order breaks down. It’s at times like these, where some people hunker down and hope to ride it out and others use it as a chance to enact their darkest fantasies, that long-guns become all-but essential to survival. Just as an example, in the terrible Los Angeles riots of 1992 the residents of Koreatown were able to protect their lives and businesses solely because they were armed with so-called “assault weapons.” Afterwards, there was a massive upswing in the number of people buying guns. Suddenly, they realized just how much they might need them. 

                No one who buys a gun expects to use it all the time. If he has any sense, he hopes he’ll never have to use it at all. Guns are not bought for the everyday occurrences; they’re bought for the once-in-a-lifetime, unexpected disasters. The decision to arm oneself in a hostile world is, to my mind, simply an example of being prudent, similar to buying health insurance or home medical supplies. You pray you don't have to use them, but you know that if you need them, you'll want them.

                Then there is the question of martyrdom, and whether preparing to defend oneself with lethal force is contrary to the call of Christians to “be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”

                The thing about martyrdom is that it has to be a witness of some kind; dying for one’s faith or to avoid comitting a sin. There’s no witness in being stabbed to death by a whacked-out thug after drug money. That’s simply murder. Unless we posit that the murder or assault of any Christian counts as martyrdom, I don’t think defending oneself is contrary to the call to witness the Gospel.

                On this note, St. Maria Goretti came up (for those who don’t know, she was a young Italian girl who was murdered resisting a would-be rapist). I would argue, though, that her witness was less in the fact that she was murdered resisting assault and more in the way she forgave her murderer. Also, remember that she is partially honored for preserving her purity through resistance, even at the cost of her own life, so I don’t think giving other young women the ability to resist without sacrificing their lives is contrary to the spirit of St. Maria.

                There is the question of whether it is more perfect to go unarmed and never deal violence to an aggressor, no matter what. Yes, I believe that is the more perfect choice, but in the same sense that celibacy is more perfect than married life. It is not that one is sinful and the other isn’t, it’s that one is good, but the other is better. Not everyone is called to be celibate, and not everyone is called to be unarmed. A universal call to either is impossible and contrary to the will of God.

                But isn’t it morally problematic to carry weapons specifically designed to kill other human beings? Again, a weapon is a weapon; they are designed to inflict violence, whether on human beings or animals. A weapon designed to inflict damage on a human being is better for defending against human beings than a weapon designed to inflict damage on animals. It is the nature of defense that damage will be done to the aggressor. We try to limit or minimize that damage as best we can by warnings or by avoiding conflict in the first place, but sometimes that simply isn’t possible. A man who is hopped up on drugs, or who is simply so hardened and embittered by life that he doesn’t care about pain or danger isn’t going to stop unless he physically cannot continue. To that end, the only defense may be to deal him a lethal blow. It’s not that we wish him dead, it’s that we want him to stop. The best defense, therefore, is a gun designed for this specific job; namely a handgun, an ‘assault rifle,’ or a shotgun (depending on where the encounter takes place).

                But, again, if we trust in God and believe that our ultimate end is with Him (as we must), then why the need to kill in defense of our own transitory lives? Because our own bodily lives are sacred and it’s no piety to treat them carelessly. Moreover, those who are responsible for the lives of others – husbands, parents, teachers, etc – have “a grave duty” to protect the lives they are responsible for. It would, therefore, be wrong of them to allow a violent aggressor to kill them and so remove their protection from those they are responsible for. Part of their duty to protect others is to not be careless with their own lives. Another part is to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that they actually could defend the people they’re responsible for if they needed to. Depending on their circumstances, that could include being armed (this, incidentally, is why I favor allowing teachers with CCW licenses to carry in schools).

                See, this is why I believe that guns can be a part of the Culture of Life. They allow parents to effectively protect their children, husbands to protect their wives, and teachers to protect their students. They allow ordinary people to live without fear of being victimized by the ruthless or violent. They discourage and prevent things like rape, murder, assault, and other manifestations of the Culture of Death.

                Think about it this way; say some mentally-disturbed or evil individual decides he wants to become the most famous person in the country by shooting up a shopping mall…but then he sees the news of the last mass shooting attempt and discovers that that guy was immediately stopped by an armed citizen. As a matter of fact, every time he hears about an attempted mass shooting, it seems like the perpetrator only managed to murder one or two people before being apprehended, shot, or frightened into committing suicide. Would you say he’s more or less likely to follow through with his sick fantasy with more armed citizens in the world?

                Or think about it like this; a man is out looking to indulge in his rape fantasy, but when he approaches a vulnerable-looking young woman, she suddenly pulls a Glock out of her purse, causing him to beat a hasty retreat. Not only has she been saved from a violent, traumatic, possibly-life-threatening experience, but he has been prevented from committing a grave sin and has been discouraged from attempting such a sin in the future.

                You see? Guns not only protect people from being attacked, but they discourage people from even attempting such attacks.

                Part of building the Culture of Life involves discouraging and breaking down the Culture of Death. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are part of that process. Not that I’m picturing a shooting war between the two cultures, but when people who are steeped in the Culture of Death are unable or unwilling to carry out their crimes because their victims are armed, then the Culture of Death is weakened. The crime is not committed, it doesn’t end up on the news, and other would-be-criminals don’t see it and aren’t inspired to do something similar. The violence which Cardinal Dolan rightly condemns is lessened by the presence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. Paradoxical, I know, but it’s been shown to work time and time again. Any honest researcher will tell you that when the law-abiding are armed, violence diminishes.

As long as there is evil in the world, people will need to be armed, and Catholics should not be afraid to choose to carry weapons if they feel they need to.

Molon Labe

E Vive Christus Rex!

Regarding Cardinal Dolan's Piece on Gun Control

Sorry, I didn't intend this to be "angry article day," but here's another one.              

              I love Cardinal Dolan. I confess he’s my personal front-runner for the next Pope. I always find him funny, insightful, and a great witness for the Church. Really, you just can’t say enough good things about the guy.

             But he doesn’t know a darn thing about guns.

 And I’m sorry, but I’m going to have be a little harsh here, because he’s a very influential figure in the Church (rightly so) and he’s so completely and dangerously wrong. His article is copied below, with a few comments in red.

It’s been an extremely full week in terms of news, with Monday’s surprising announcement from Pope Benedict, and Wednesday’s start of Lent.  But I wanted to be sure to take a moment to highlight the President’s call for sensible steps on gun control in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, as well as similar actions by Governor Cuomo here in New York State, and Mayor Bloomberg in New York City.

Gun control has been much on my mind since the Newtown killings, and, in particular, seeing the devastating effects that gun violence can bring when I celebrated the funeral Mass at Saint Mary of the Assumption parish in Katonah for Anne Marie Murphy, a brave teacher who died in that horrible tragedy, protecting her little student.

Can you name any gun-control measures currently being discussed that would have prevented this tragedy had they been in place at the time?

Advocating for gun control is not something new for the Church.  The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control; it’s even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of the Catholic faith (see numbers 2315-2316 in particular) .   Here in the United States, the bishops have for decades supported measures to get handguns off the streets, and to ban assault weapons.  To cite but one instance, in Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, released in 2000, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

Both of these ideas: handguns off the street and a ban on “assault weapons” (as compared to what? Comfort weapons?) are horrible ideas, for reasons I’ll discuss below.

That’s why I found myself nodding in agreement when the President said, “I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence.  But this time is different.  Overwhelming majorities of Americans — Americans who believe in the Second Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun.  Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals.  Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.”  It’s also why I was very much in favor a month ago when our own New York State legislature, heeding the call of Governor Cuomo, passed NY Safe, (New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act) the most comprehensive gun control bill in the country.

Most of what the President says is simply not true. Background checks don’t inconvenience criminals; the checks are extremely harsh as it is, and someone who thinks he’ll fail one will simply go to the black market. The ‘overwhelming majorities’ exist only in his addled brain (most of the country agrees more with the NRA than with the President, at a rate of, I believe, 46-43%). Police have the same weapons that civilians do; the days of cops with revolvers being outgunned by criminals with automatics is gone.

And I have to say, the President has a lot of gall to complain about “buying guns for resale to criminals,” since his own Justice Department forced (yes, forced) dozens of gun dealers to allow precisely these kinds of sales of weapons that ended up in the hands of some of the worst people on Earth, were used to murder hundreds of innocent people, and he, the President, then helped cover for them.

Whenever I mention my support for gun control, the calls and emails come in, telling me that I’m naïve, reminding me of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and arguing that the only thing gun control measures will accomplish is to keep guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people.

And they’re completely right.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm.  That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.  However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.

Yes, there can be denying. I deny it. I deny that we have to put more useless, freedom-sapping laws on our already-overloaded books just because some nut-job went on a rampage. Clearly the over 20,000 gun-control laws we already have didn’t stop him, so what do you expect a few more to do?

            See, I hate it when people say “the government needs to do something,” because a lot of the time no it doesn’t. Most of the time when the government “does something” all it does is grow a little more bloated and sap a little more freedom and responsibility from the average person while having no impact on the situation it was supposed to help.

            The hard truth is that evil, disturbed people are going to do horrible things and there is nothing the government can do to stop them.

For me, regulating and controlling guns is part of building a Culture of Life, of doing what we can to protect and defend human life.  The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a Culture of Death, where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence.  No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing.  But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.

Okay, now I have to work really hard to stay calm, because, again, I love Cardinal Dolan.

            Cardinal, guns are used to kill an average of 10,000 people each year in this country.

            They are used to save an estimated average of 2.5 million.

            Cardinal, I don’t see how taking defensive weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens counts as “protecting or defending life.”

            How, exactly, would you suggest that, say, an average young woman should protect her life and dignity against a 6’ rapist?

            How do you suggest that a father should protect his children from two men who want to assault them to steal their electronic toys?

            How do you suggest a mother should defend her home and her children from the person trying to break down her door?

            Would restricting their access and the access of millions like them to guns be protecting or promoting their lives?

            Guns are part of the culture of life, because they say that life is worth defending.

I have a long list of things to pray for this Lent.  Asking God’s help that our elected representatives in Washington and in state houses across the country have the courage and the wisdom to pass meaningful and effective gun control bills, will certainly have a prominent place in those prayers.

            Cardinal Dolan makes a number of very common and very dangerous mistakes in his thinking. One, he assumes that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn’t. Why we still think that laws can prevent criminals from, you know, committing crimes is something I simply cannot fathom. How much success did we have with prohibition? How much success are we having with our drug laws? I’m not saying crack should be legal, merely that no one who wants it actually has any difficulty getting hold of it. Why do we expect guns to be any different?

            Heck, the gun laws we have don’t do anything on that score. Machine guns, for instance, are almost totally illegal for civilian use. You have to pay a hefty fine, get a special permit, the works. It’s very nearly impossible in most states. Yet they still keep showing up at crime scenes. Why? It’s not because the handful of civilians who managed to run the gauntlet to acquire one immediately went out and shot up a crack house. It’s because there are something like ten times as many unregistered machine guns in the U.S. as there are registered. What law would stop that? The law has been passed; it was passed in 1934, and we still have criminals using machine guns.

            That’s the thing; they’re criminals. They’re breaking the law. Adding another one for them to break really doesn’t help things. We have a rich and flourishing black market in this country, because we have two massive, unsecured borders and thousands of miles of coastline. It’s not hard to sneak things in and out, if you know what you’re doing.

            No, gun control laws only affect people who obey the law. People who obey the law, who dutifully go through the kabuki theater of registering their handgun, submitting to the background check, getting a license, and so on aren’t the ones who shoot up schools.

            If you don’t believe me, take a look at the places with the strongest gun control in the U.S. Chicago? More people were shot in Chicago last year than soldiers were killed in Iraq. Washington D.C.? Not a whole lot better (of course, the politicians in charge of writing these laws don’t notice, because they have people with guns protecting them 24-7). Los Angeles? You’re kidding, right? Oh, how about Connecticut, which boasts some especially strict gun-control laws?

              Incidentally, I have to bring up gun-free zones. What is the thinking behind these? What causes anyone to think that someone who intends to bring a gun into a location for criminal purposes will be dissuaded in any way by a sign? No, a ‘gun free zone’ sign says one thing: it says “if you want to commit a crime here, no one will shoot back.” Or, as this excellent gun-control article put it, “a gun free zone is a hunting preserve for innocent people.”

            So, his first mistake is to assume that gun control will have any effect whatsoever on the criminals it’s supposed to protect against. His second mistake is to assume that guns are always and only used in crimes; to take lives rather than protect them. As I noted above, guns are used far more often to protect lives in this country than to destroy them. Even at the absolute worst estimate, by people who explicitly want to ban all guns, the use of guns by law abiding citizens to protect themselves and other people is ten times the rate of guns used in crime. We just don’t hear about it as much because a). a lot of such incidents don’t involve any shots fired and so don't make the news and b). the news media is mostly pro-gun control, so they don’t want to tell you about things that don’t fit their agenda. Cardinal Dolan ought to know this as well as anyone.

            Think about it; a murderous whack-job shoots up a bunch of unarmed people because of some deep-seated psychological problems. I agree that he shouldn’t have been able to get his hands on a gun in the first place, but no matter what you do, he’s going to be able to (and as a side note, try to imagine what will happen if he can’t. I’ll give you a hint; it caused the worst school massacre in American history). And somehow the solution is to make sure the unarmed people are even more unarmed?

            If Anne Marie Murphy, or one of her fellow teachers had had a gun and the will and training to use it, do you think Cardinal Dolan would have had to celebrate a funeral Mass for her? Isn’t it at least possible that most of the people murdered in Connecticut would still be alive now? No one can know what would have happened, but surely things would have turned out differently. Consider: do you think a man who walks into a school with a rifle and starts shooting children is looking for a fight? Does that sound like a brave man to you? A man who will stand a trade shots with armed opponents? Typically in shootings like this, the murderer will give up or kill himself at the first sign of armed resistance. But never mind that; we want to take away even more guns to make extra sure the next nutjob won’t have to deal with any armed resistance.

            The simple and horrible fact is that there are evil people in the world; people who would prey on ordinary, defenseless people. These people don’t need guns to commit harm; the same week as the Newton massacre, a man in China murdered 22 children with a knife. No law will stop them. Police will not protect you from them; they’ll just weep over your mangled body and swear to catch the crook before he does it again. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety and that of your family, and by far the best way to do that is with a gun. Look, I have a black belt; I’ve been studying martial arts for a decade and a half, I’m a fairly good-sized fellow, and even with all that I still wouldn’t count on hand-to-hand to save my life against a prison-hardened crook armed with a screwdriver unless I had no other choice. Guns are the great equalizer. A gun makes a 5’5” college student the equal to the 6’3” rapist. But laws of the kind that Cardinal Dolan is supporting would prefer to see her get raped so that people a hundred miles away can ‘feel safer.’

            Is that what he means by the ‘Culture of Life?’
            The big problem is that Cardinal Dolan (bless him) doesn't even bring up the topic of self-defense, or lawful gun-use, or any reasons why someone would want to have a gun, let alone present any counter arguments for them. Nor does he attempt to answer the objections he (briefly) says he has received. He seems simply to trust that the politicians know what they're doing and is ready to applaud anything that claims to achieve his desired end of less gun violence. Frankly, this indicates that his knowledge of the subject is limited entirely to his desire to see less violence. That's a laudable goal, but it means he probably shouldn't be speaking out on the subject at all.

            Cardinal Dolan specifically mentions handguns and ‘assault weapons’ (by which he means semi-automatic, civilian versions of military assault rifles). Those are two very different topics. Handguns are the guns you use for concealed carry. Assault weapons are the guns you wish you had when have to use the concealed carry weapon. Regarding handguns, these are precisely the weapons that protect innocent, law-abiding citizens. These are the guns that stop criminals. Can you really give me a good reason why we should “get them off the streets” and allow those (again, at rock-bottom, cooked-the-books, want-it-to-look-bad least) 100,000 citizens to get robbed, raped, and murdered each year?

            Regarding assault weapons. First of all, they’re not really ‘special’ guns (for a much more informed take, see the above linked-to article). They’re efficient and easy to use, but they’re not super-deadly killing machines. There are two points here: one, why citizens ought to have access to them, and two, why ‘banning’ them wouldn’t help anyway.

            Regarding the first point, assault weapons like the AR-15 are very popular because, again, they’re easy-to-use and fun to shoot. Moreover, they make an excellent home-defense weapon. And no, that’s not overkill. For one thing, assault weapons aren’t particularly ‘powerful’ guns: they’re actually relatively low caliber weapons. For another, in an intense situation like, yes, a home-invasion you’re probably going to miss, so you’ll want an accurate, high-capacity weapon. Finally, despite what we see in the movies, bullets don’t usually kill instantly (couple exceptions are the heart and the Medulla Oblongata in the brain). Rule of thumb is, if someone’s worth shooting once, he’s worth shooting a lot. Basically, if someone’s attacking you, you shoot until he stops. Whether that means he surrenders, runs, or dies doesn’t really matter. The important thing is to make him stop.

            Now, as to the second point, there already was an assault weapons ban, and that one was also supported by a public figure I admire. It did precisely nothing except make a lot of people angry. Why “Assault-Weapons-Ban II: The Wrath of Biden” would fare any better than episode one, I really can’t imagine.

            Then again, even if it did somehow work and scary-looking, efficient, easy-to-shoot rifles magically vanished, I’d like to remind you that the guy who shot up Virginia Tech used handguns. And if you magically made handguns vanish, there’s always that thing that good old Mr. Kehoe did in Bath, Michigan (see above link). What are you going to do then? Outlaw fertilizer?

            But all of that is, ultimately irrelevant. The Second Amendment of the Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as a bunch of politicians protected by armed security details are comfortable with shall not be infringed too much.” I believe there can be a legitimate need for civilians to own so-called assault weapons, but I also believe that ‘need’ doesn’t enter into it, any more than the Catholic Church’s ‘need’ to operate hospitals and orphanages doesn’t enter into the First Amendment. You don't have to justify exercising a right. 

            Guns that are exclusive to the lawless and to the government are part of the Culture of Death. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are part of the Culture of Life. They say “you will not victimize me. You will not harm my family. You will not take away my rights.” They prevent the Culture of Death from carrying out its desires with impunity. The laws that Cardinal Dolan naively supports would help to destroy that, as we have seen time and time again wherever harsh gun-control is enacted. England is now the violent-crime capital of the European Union. Australia isn’t much better. South Africa has stopped even counting its crime rate. Then there’s above mentioned Chicago, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. The Culture of Death thrives where the Culture of Life is disarmed.

            I’m sorry, but Cardinal Dolan, like most people advocating gun control, is speaking out of grief and confusion and so is making a fool of himself by talking about a subject he doesn’t understand. I’m going to pray that none of these new laws ever sees the light of day, and that the ones already on the books get revoked.

Molon Labe
E Vive Christus Rex!