P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Registrations and background checks.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I expected as much, even though you said further regulations would increase criminal possessions of guns, WITHOUT ANY CITATIONS OR EVIDENCE.
You answer questions with questions with demands. It’s a discussion brother; not an inquisition.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The founding fathers knew what they were doing, building a secular country. The men of the Church know what they’re doing guiding us towards a divine kingdom. One is much more important than the other.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Background checks are already required and registration is mandatory in several states.
Where is the evidence that these have had any correlating effectiveness?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
40% of criminals stated they bypassed background checks and registration requirement through private sales, and family members. If you can’t see that number would diminish by requiring background checks for all sales, then you don’t want to see it.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
It’s a simple matter of logic. Why would further laws keep fire arms out of criminal hands? Criminals would hardly be deterred by laws - now would they. Not to mention the black mark (which already exists) would increase exponentially.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You seem to show respect for the founding fathers, for the rights you believe they’ve given you, and at the same time reject the men of the Church as offering any moral guidance on living in the secular world, because they suggest controls needed.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Nothing you are proposing would significantly deter gun crimes.
How Criminals Get Guns:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Gee - as a supposed law enforcement veteran, I’m surprised you didn’t know any of this.:ehh:
Funny that.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Really? If you register owners, similar to vehicle registrations, you have tracing abilities for accountability. If background checks are required of all sales, it would be either through licensed gun dealers, or courthouses. Those private sellers now are not ‘breaking laws’. That needs to change. Remember, laws keep the honest people honest. At the very least, those who are turned down by gun dealers, would also be turned down in private sales.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Are the USCCB speaking from an infallible position?
No.
Is this a Prudential Judgement?
Yes.
Have they cited any evidence to indicate that they are well informed of the salient facts and analysis pertinent to this topic?
No.
Do they have a history of such reckless uninformed positions?
Yes.
I.E. Homosexual priests. Pedophile rehabilitation. Embracing Liberation Theology. Backing the disaster that is universal health care. And on and on.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Here it is again:
How Criminals Get Guns:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl…ocon/guns.html
Like I said: As a supposed law enforcement veteran - I’m surprised that you are ignorant of this sub culture.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You cannot say something won’t work, if you don’t try it, so that type statement is not factual, unless you have evidence?
Gee, enough condescension. I’m done discussing the topic with you. I don’t lie about what I’ve done, or do, and find your insinuation insulting.
What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family or the street?
B
BroomWagon
Guest
I thought you made some very good points and nobody take this wrong, I’ve found that sometimes when one is complimented, others might object. I’m so much a novice on guns, I readily admit, this is one subject where I can only watch mostly as to what is being said. But you did put up some very compelling statements… to show a hint of possibly being a bit aggravated.You cannot say something won’t work, if you don’t try it, so that type statement is not factual, unless you have evidence?
Gee, enough condescension. I’m done discussing the topic with you. I don’t lie about what I’ve done, or do, and find your insinuation insulting.
What percentage of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family or the street?
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
What?
Uhm yes you can. You can extrapolate from data analysis and predict the probable outcome. It’s done quite frequently in civilian, bureaucratic, and military institutions.
But what you are suggesting is an experiment of societal engineering that will have long lasting and devastating implications.
In other words - you’re insane.
C
Cor_Cordis
Guest
Was that your version of turning the other cheek?
Would you care to try 70 times 7?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
But what the good Bishop, perhaps because of his experience and viewpoint as an American, may not have contemplated is the history of the world and the question: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. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Seems there maybe a disagreement on interpretation.
Those rights were given by a secular government, or ‘Caesar’. Give to Caesar, give to God…
What happens when the legitimate authority not only fails in its grave duty to defend those it is responsible for, but becomes the threat? This really does happen. The holocaust was real, the Soviet disarming and starvation of millions really did occur, the killing fields of Cambodia really did happen, etc. etc. I don’t believe those people were different than myself or those around me.
Who takes on that grave duty then? How can anyone step in if they have been stripped of the means?
And more importantly, would those tragedies have occurred if the general population had remained well armed?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Any gun that is used in the commission of a crime is an “assault weapon”. A baseball bat that is used in the commission of a crime is an “assault weapon”. “Assault weapon” is code word for politicians that means “a scary thing that we, the state, need to get control of to create a political issue”.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Or, what if I agree to sell my Ruger MkII pistol to my next door neighbor for $200? He gives me cash, I give him the gun. It is a private transaction. And if you can “regulate” this sort of thing, what stops the federal government from regulating the private sale of brownies, or furniture, or sports equipment, or anything for that matter? Do we really want the federal government scrutinizing every single aspect of our lives? I don’t.
- Status