Abp. of Santa Fe & NM temp gun law

[Irenaeus]

New Mexico's Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a 30-day public health order a few days ago - "an emergency order to suspend the right to carry firearms in most public places around Albuquerque."

According to Politico: 'The Catholic Church also weighed in. Lujan Grisham “has been consistent in addressing gun safety through legislation and is not now attacking the Second Amendment. She knows the law,” Santa Fe Archbishop John C. Wester said in a statement.'

Yet many gun control advocates, the ACLU, and even a significant number of Democrats reportedly are strongly criticizing the order. I'm sorry to read of Abp. Wester's take on this.

[gherkin]

Apart from whatever happens with the lawsuit, it has been made perfectly evident that no law enforcement officers will be actually enforcing this against legal gun carriers, and nor would the prosecutor prosecute.

The whole situation is absurd.

[Mrs. Timmy]

I heard the governor herself (in an interview with CNN that was excerpted on the radio this morning) do the weakest double-down I've ever heard when directly asked about the constitutionality of her actions, especially in the context of her prior profession as an attorney. Both her verbals and non-verbals screamed that she doesn't actually think it'll withstand scrutiny, but she's hoping some strand of spaghetti will stick.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Mmmmmmmm ... spaghetti.

[Vern Humphrey]

I hate to say this, but bishops have a bad habit of entering political discussions in matters where they have no expertise or special knowledge. Here in Arkansas, our bishop said the Ukrainians were not waging a just war, "because they can't win."

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

He might be wrong on the facts, but he is right on the principle.

[Irenaeus]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

[Riverboat]

. . . nor would the prosecutor prosecute.

The whole situation is absurd.

As it turns out, the state attorney general has no intention of enforcing this and said as much in a letter to his fellow Democrat in the governor's mansion: "Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence."

If only all elected officials would heed the part I highlighted. "Absurd" is an understatement.

[gherkin]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

I feel free to speak for Fr. Kenobi due to the fact that we invariably disagree: hence, I can simply say the opposite of the truth, and I will no doubt get at Fr. Kenobi's thoughts.

Given that, I think you must note that Fr. Kenobi's post was a reply to Vern and not to the OP. Vern's post was about a bishop speaking about a particular war; the bishop claimed that one side has no hope of winning, and hence it is unjust for that side to prosecute the war. Fr. Kenobi says that this is a correct application of the principles in question, for part of traditional just war theory is that there is a chance of success. That leaves open the question of whether the bishop's evaluation of the actual chances (or otherwise) of success are correct in this particular case.

Note that although, of course, I completely disagree with Fr. Kenobi, I nontheless point out that just war theory does traditionally hold that one must have a chance of success, and I also point out that the factual question is distinct from that question on the principles.

[gherkin]

If only all elected officials would heed the part I highlighted. "Absurd" is an understatement.

Evidently, this case pushed things a bit too far.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

I feel free to speak for Fr. Kenobi due to the fact that we invariably disagree: hence, I can simply say the opposite of the truth, and I will no doubt get at Fr. Kenobi's thoughts.

Given that, I think you must note that Fr. Kenobi's post was a reply to Vern and not to the OP. Vern's post was about a bishop speaking about a particular war; the bishop claimed that one side has no hope of winning, and hence it is unjust for that side to prosecute the war. Fr. Kenobi says that this is a correct application of the principles in question, for part of traditional just war theory is that there is a chance of success. That leaves open the question of whether the bishop's evaluation of the actual chances (or otherwise) of success are correct in this particular case.

Note that although, of course, I completely disagree with Fr. Kenobi, I nontheless point out that just war theory does traditionally hold that one must have a chance of success, and I also point out that the factual question is distinct from that question on the principles.

I agree with this anonymous author.

[Vern Humphrey]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

I feel free to speak for Fr. Kenobi due to the fact that we invariably disagree: hence, I can simply say the opposite of the truth, and I will no doubt get at Fr. Kenobi's thoughts.

Given that, I think you must note that Fr. Kenobi's post was a reply to Vern and not to the OP. Vern's post was about a bishop speaking about a particular war; the bishop claimed that one side has no hope of winning, and hence it is unjust for that side to prosecute the war. Fr. Kenobi says that this is a correct application of the principles in question, for part of traditional just war theory is that there is a chance of success. That leaves open the question of whether the bishop's evaluation of the actual chances (or otherwise) of success are correct in this particular case.

Note that although, of course, I completely disagree with Fr. Kenobi, I nontheless point out that just war theory does traditionally hold that one must have a chance of success, and I also point out that the factual question is distinct from that question on the principles.

But when you have the facts wrong, what happens to the principle? A principle can only be applied if it fits the facts.

[gherkin]

But when you have the facts wrong, what happens to the principle? A principle can only be applied if it fits the facts.

When you have the facts wrong, the principle stays exactly what it always is: a principle. It is just plain true that classical just war theory holds as one element that you must have a chance of success. That doesn't vary from case to case. What varies from case to case is whether there is in fact some chance of success. If you happen to judge that factual matter incorrectly, then you're going to draw false conclusions from your true principles precisely because you're combining the true principles with false empirical claims.

Also, just as a quick note, Father didn't say that the bishop had his facts wrong. He said he might be wrong on the facts.

[peregrinator]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

There must be at least a reasonable possibility of winning in order for a war to be just.

[Riverboat]

There must be at least a reasonable possibility of winning in order for a war to be just.

The Founding Fathers of our nation chose to fight the British in spite of the overwhelming odds. Am I wrong to say that the American Revolution was a just war?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

They had a reasonable possibility of victory.

It occurs to me that one source of confusion might be that saying that Ukraine's side is unjust implies that the Russian's side is just. This is not so--it is possible for both sides of a conflict to be in it unjustly.

[Riverboat]

I have another question: What if a country were attacked by a neighboring country, say Australia decided to take over Fiji or Timor-Leste, with the intention of enslaving all the residents to increase the production of coconuts which are needed for a Green Machine which utilizes the milk to power up the energy grid.

They have no chance of winning, but why should they simply acquiesce?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I had the same thought (not the details, but in general), and the best I can come up with because of the loss of life in a futile struggle. That's a guess on my part--I haven't studied this deeply.

[Doom]

Please clarify, Fr. Kenobi.

There must be at least a reasonable possibility of winning in order for a war to be just.

This principle literally makes no sense when it is a defensive war. By this principle, the Poles had a moral obligation to surrender to the Nazis without even attempting to resist and the Chinese had no moral right to resist the aggression of Japan.

[Vern Humphrey]

When you have the facts wrong, the principle stays exactly what it always is: a principle.

What goes up must come down is a principle. How does that apply to Electric Vehicles?

The point is, the principle is an abstraction. It is wrongly applied to this case because the Ukrainians ARE winning -- at least enough to hang on to most of their territory.