Thoughts on the second amendment and other civil rights

Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter
I was recently asked the following question by a friend.   

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1789, the arms we had a right to bear were all single-shot muzzle-loaded weapons. I have no problems with responsible people owning and using guns for sport and self-protection. But if we can keep people with epilepsy or poor vision from driving cars, we should be able to prevent mentally unstable people from buying assault weapons.

My response covers a lot of ground.

      Unfortunately there is no amendment that specifically addresses driving. Unless you think it is covered under the 9th amendment, and you could make a good case for driving as a right. There are specific reasons that the second amendment is written as it is without the caveat that as long as they res of man. Meaning that rights are not bestowed by the government but they are inalienable from the individual and it is the duty of the government to protect these rights. In fact under the natural rights of man if a government fails to protect thmain "single shot muzzle loaded." Jefferson was a great student of the enlightenment from which we get the natural rights of individuals in a systemic fashion and does not respond to petitions for redress of these breaches, it ceases to exist in other words by definition it is no longer "government."

     Our Bill of rights and the Deceleration of Independence are the first attempt to codify the natural rights of man. This is what makes the US different from other countries. This is the very thing that our brave service men and women fight to defend and die for.   So, when I was asked by my congressman Adam Schiff if I supported restrictions on the purchase of certain types of weapons and ammunition, except in cases of felons and the mentally ill, I told him no the 2nd amendment prohibits this. I told him that our Representatives would have to find another way to deal with the violence against political figures that has once again surfaced in this country. I made two suggestions
      1- indict Sara Palin she crossed the line when putting political figures in cross hairs etc. She threatened the lives of                           
          legitimate representatives of our democracy, and this is a federal offense. Had you or I built such a site you can
          bet the feds would be crawling up our you know what’s, and rightly so. Why should Sara Palin get away with a
          federal offense.

2- I suggested that more money be spent on helping the mentally ill. I even pointed out that there are many 
    wandering around homeless right here in his own district.

    So, the second amendment is written the way it is for a reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. So, absent a move to remove the second amendment which would take 3/4s of the states or a Constitutional Convention (which would be utter chaos) they have to come up with another way. 

     I hesitate to mention this, but with the recent scientific advances i.e, DNA evidence and the subsequent research in executions particularly in IL, it has been found that 1/3 of the people being executed were innocent. One has to wonder if this constitutes a systematic abridgment of the right to life?  But it is certainly true that capital punishment should be eliminated.

     Then we get into the area of abortion. If as science tells us now that when sperm meets egg there is a completely unique human being produced one that is more than the sum total of the parents DNA, one has to question the  denial of the civil rights of the conceiveds’ right to life through “lawful” abortion.  I am not one of those who believe that pro-choicers are murders, having been pro-choice myself I do understand the argument that one can be personally against abortion and still believe that the right to chose belongs to the woman. However scientific information and a careful reading of the roe v. wade majority decision has convinced me that civil rights should be extended to the conceived who are in fact human beings and thus covered by the Bill of rights just as the mother's rights are covered.  I believe only a well reasoned response will convince others that human life begins at conception, and that thus the conceived are covered by the bill of rights.

     America has a long history of civil rights struggles, extending civil  rights for African-Americans, and for women being two. In both cases the argument of viability was put forth.  For example black slaves were not viable without their owners Women were not considered viable without a man to take care of them.  So any concern about the viability of the conceived is easily dispensed with.  History teaches us that the US is sometimes slow in extending civil rights to some of our brothers and sisters.   I do believe that the time has come for a non-violent movement such as that started by MLK to extend civil rights to the conceived.   However, this must be a reasoned and well-coordinated response modeled after Dr. King’s civil rights movement.  I do not believe that we are going to change anybody’s mind by forcibly shoving pictures of bloody fetuses in their faces.   It is this fanatical aspect of the pro-life movement that has caused it to stall and not make any real progress.  We can change the politicians’ minds and policies with reasoned, coordinated, non-violent efforts just as Dr. King did.  Forcing people to look at depictions of bloody dismembered fetuses is violent.   We must stand together as reasonable people not fanatics, and as surrogates for the conceived, as they cannot stand up for themselves.

     As an individual Catholic our doctrine is clear.   What it means is that in any election when presented with a pro-choice and a pro-life candidate, I must vote for the pro-life candidate no matter if I disagree with that candidate on every other issue, thus I voted for John McCain in the last Presidential election. In the last gubernatorial race since both candidates were pro-choice I was free to vote for Jerry Brown. I am praying that Bishop Soto in Sacramento will call him in for discussions on this.

     Jerry Brown is Catholic or he calls himself one.  One cannot be both pro-choice and Catholic. The bishops, although slow to act, as they were taught in the Gospels, have had enough. This is the only issue upon which we as Catholics are told in no uncertain terms how to vote.  When presented with a pro-life and a pro-choice candidate we must vote for the pro-life candidate and we cannot cop-out and simply not vote. The Bishops have already told us how to vote on this issue, the next step is the excommunication of those politicians who call themselves Catholic and yet pursue pro-choice policies. And I would not be surprised if we were to see some mass excommunications of Democratic politicians who like to think they are Catholic yet pursue pro-choice policies.  One day soon I would anticipate seeing Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Brown excommunicated from the Church. Technically they are already not Catholic the formality of excommunication by their respective bishops is the next step.

     Catholic doctrine on capital punishment is also clear. The Church says it is wrong and unnecessary.  Catholic doctrine on homosexuality is also clear. Homosexuality is a disorder.  The APA is divided on this, and the current DSM IV indicates homosexuality is only disorder if the suffer believes it to be so. This is of course a cop-out and there are large numbers of psychologists who disagree with this. As Catholics we are to treat homosexuals with patient loving kindness and never with hate or judgment. However we are required to speak the truth. This of course puts us at odds with current policy of the Democratic party, which is the government sanctioning of homosexuality. If the government sanctions homosexuality then those who suffer from the disorder will be discouraged from seeking the help they need and deserve. 

     However, neither the government sanction of homosexuality nor capital punishment are salient. That is Church Doctrine does not tell us how to vote on these issues. This does not mean that doctrine is unclear. What it does mean is that abortion is salient and such an egregious moral wrong that we are required to fight it by every legal means at our disposal. In fact, as I explained above when presented with two candidates one who is pro-life and pro-capital punishment and the other pro-choice and against capital punishment we MUST vote for and support the pro-life candidate. Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter

     I might also like to point out that no pro-life president has used the DOJ to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus I believe that Republicans use the issue or give it lip service in order to get our votes. This is an unfortunate situation, as I believe we Catholics fully 25% of the electorate are being used. However, I will continue to vote with regard to the abortion issue as described above.