Jesuits call for repeal of 2nd Amendment

[NYC_SKP]

7. This article is almost two years old. February 25, 2013.

Wow, you're really having fun with bringing the Gungeon stuff into the Religion group, aren'tcha?

Yesterday it was an Episcopalian church, now it's Jesuits?

Why not post these in the appropriate fora?

And, FWIW, the Second Amendment is not going to be repealed.

I'll just copy and paste one of the comments from your link:

Jack Klompus | 1/7/2014 - 3:51pm

This is a naive and appalling editorial unworthy of the level of intellect that I have come to expect from the Jesuits. It's interesting that the main and compelling reason for a responsibly armed citizenry, holding the tyranny of the state at bay, is dismissed in one sentence as a "remote and fanciful possibility."
Based on what evidence can you assert that the possibility of the state rising to the level of tyranny is "remote" other than your own, dare I say, faith? Could it be possible that state tyranny is held at bay by the existence of the very amendment you call for repeal?

Do you truly believe that we as human beings are beyond electing earthly leaders whose proclivities are bent toward imposing prejudicial legal sanction against members of different groups including religious ones?
It is ironic that you consider the possibility of tyranny "remote" yet you fail to map out a plan for the disarmament of the average citizen. Do you believe that people will simply accept this repeal of the 2nd Amendment and willingly hand over their arms to representatives of the state. What if they do not? I assume that under the threat of force they will have their weapons confiscated. Sounds to me like this "remote and fanciful possibility" has just become a real issue, direct, and close. Will you be ministering to the new occupants of the prisons that refused to turn in their weapons?

In the post repeal world, as you call it, you have your vision of those who will, in your kind benevolence, be permitted(?) to possess firearms, including those with "morally reasonable purposes." Who is going to sit in judgment of and determine the moral reasonableness of one's purposes? Your loopholes, exceptions, and vague categories of acceptability all but render the effect of your repeal laughably toothless. In the end, this silly, vapid, and intellectually unserious piece smacks of little more than empty posturing. You can do better, Jesuits, much much better.