S
SamH
Guest
What poster said it was limited to Americans?
Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life
- Status
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
The framer’s of the constitution believed in natural rights vice government granted rights. They cited nature’s God and an over-riding morality as the foundation for legitimate government, recognizing certain fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, self-defense etc. Hence, the justification for armed insurrection against the British government cite’s this concept:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Code:
***We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights***...
S
stevegravy
Guest
In light of what happened in Boston Monday what are the learned Bishop’s opinion on high capacity pressure cookers?
How about universal background checks and waiting periods for buyers of pressure cookers?
When will Senator Frankenfinkelstien propose legislation banning scary looking military grade assault pressure cookers?
When will the senate act to protect the children? We must do it to protect the children and for the greater good!
America needs pressure cooker free zones!
How about universal background checks and waiting periods for buyers of pressure cookers?
When will Senator Frankenfinkelstien propose legislation banning scary looking military grade assault pressure cookers?
When will the senate act to protect the children? We must do it to protect the children and for the greater good!
America needs pressure cooker free zones!
S
scipio337
Guest
Of course, the founding fathers were deists, but did believe self defense to be one of those “unalienable” rights.
The Catechism supports this.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Now you’re being silly. You think any of this is about about security or safety? The US government isn’t serious about security, ergo our immigration policy and proposed policy–
I mean, even after the experience of 9-11 we’re not even ensuring that illegal aliens don’t run flight schools for other illegal aliens on expired visas.
gao.gov/assets/600/592598.pdf (page 6)
And rats, even to catch this operation some nosy local cop (the most likely to encounter them) actually checked up on, and was allowed to check up on his suspicions about immigration status. Our Attorney General Holder is doing his level best to put an end to that kind of thing!!
Or that Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al Queda operatives can’t get into the country and stay.
mccaul.house.gov/uploads/Final%20PDF%20Line%20in%20the%20Sand.pdf
“Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol regularly apprehends aliens from the 35 “special interest” countries “designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.”6 From Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, there were 1,918 apprehensions of these special interest aliens at our Southwest border”
And we only catch about what, 30% of the low paying folks entering? The terrorists pay much more. Don’t worry though, these folks will also be covered by any amnesty program as any other illegal entrant.
Pressure cookers, guns, whatever- it ain’t about security or saving lives.
E
Ender
Guest
A-bishop-said-it-so-it’s-right … a-bishop-said-it-so-it’s-right … It is difficult to debate with someone who holds this perspective. One would have thought the sex abuse crisis would have demonstrated that bishops too can make mistakes.
I have repeatedly tried to get you or anyone else to identify the moral question involved here but without success. If this is a moral issue then surely someone should be able to explain what moral choices are before us. Is it a sin to own (e.g.) an AR-15? Is it a sin to oppose the laws that Bishop Blair supports? If my beliefs are sinful then you have a moral obligation to correct my error so I can mend my sinful ways. How am I sinning? … and if my position is not sinful then where is the moral issue?
My comments are either valid or invalid and challenging the reason I make them is irrelevant. My nature may be as evil, self-serving, and vicious as you could image but it would have no effect on the strength or weakness of my argument.
Ender
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
All ball-bearings will be laser-etched with serial numbers.
[Might be a problem getting the ball-bearings to roll properly, though/]
G
grammylinda
Guest
To be fair to Bishop Blaire he must be very concerned and frustrated by what is happening in his diocese. Stockton and Modesto and many other cities in his diocese have been overrun with drug and gun violence.Most of the problems have come from the influx of illegal immigrants into the central valley of California. Many of them are good people coming for a better life. A great many of them are thugs, criminals and members of drug cartels selling illegal drugs and guns.The city of Stockton is now bankrupt and is cutting back on services.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It justifies, and defines, self defense. It also speaks of …one who is responsible for the lives of others…‘those who legitimately hold authority…civil community entrusted to their responsibility.’
No where does it specify a certain weapon, or possession of a weapon, as an unalienable right.
As we discuss the outspoken men of the Church, I believe they are certainly aware of what the Catechism states, and it’s exact interpretation and implication. I say outspoken, since there are some who believe that those who do not specifically address the issue might not support their fellow clergy.
One has to selectively interpret the Catechism, and then deny those men of the Church who speak out, to deny supporting any measure of gun control.
S
scipio337
Guest
Did I mention weapons? No I mentioned self defense. The founding fathers considered it a inalienable right, which is why it’s part of the “Bill of Rights”. I’m not “selectively” interpreting the Catechism to determine self defense supports life.
Prodigal Son1:
Yes, we deny them like Peter denied Christ.
Are you serious?
Even the USCCB has admitted that faithful Catholics will disagree:
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/handguns.shtml
I
ishii
Guest
Who has been in control in California for the past 20 years or more? The answer of course is the Democrats. And I think in any discussion of the gun crime issues that cities have one has to consider who has been in charge and what the policies have been. As for gun-control having any effect whatsoever on gang violence, I think it’s pretty clear that Gang and thugs will get their guns one way or another and gun-control only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with the bishop or any bishop when it comes to matters of policy: Such as what should the tax rate be or how best to help the poor in terms of public policy and yes how to instill a culture that values life.
Ishii
S
Sporkbeard
Guest
Wow… you’d think they’d be tired of being wrong. We actually need less gun control. And less government in our lives.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I tend to agree with the men of the Church who have specifically referenced more restrictive controls.
I have said I’m a gun owner and don’t see the ‘great’ inconvenience of controls, especially universal background checks and registrations.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Have you been reading the horror stories … of legitimate gun owners being targeted for harassment?
For example, during Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans gun owners had their guns arbitrarily confiscated … eventually, after a big legal battle, the guns were returned, but they had been stored improperly by the police and many of the guns had been ruined.
I
ishii
Guest
You have a lot of faith in the altruism and motives of our federal govt.
I don’t.
Furthermore, what good will background checks and registrations do?
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Which is why I don’t trust state or federal authorities when they say gun control and registration of gun owners is “for our own good.” Of course liberals who trust the federal government with our tax dollars and think they’re using it to truly help the poor will probably fall for anything. But when it comes to defense spending, war on terror, etc. they don’t trust the federal government. Strange.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Have you missed where I explained this in a response to this question before?
If a percentage of criminals obtain guns through private sales, would that percentage decrease if sellers were required to submit the transaction to background checks, registrations, for the buyers, assuming a majority of sellers have a law abiding intent?
P
pnewton
Guest
The letterhead is not a USCCB letterhead. This is untrue. The letterhead is:
3211 FOURTH STREET NE • WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 • 202-541-3160 WEBSITE: WWW.USCCB.ORG/JPHD • FAX 202-541-3339
Bishop Blaire is the Chairman of this committee and he signs it with that title. This is exactly why I do not trust posters here to interject their** opinions** of what a bishop can and cannot do. These opinions are colored too much by political positions and personal preferences. You were wrong about even the letterhead.
Swords are not the issue. Guns are. Sola scriptura really does have its drawbacks.
M
markomalley
Guest
The letterhead is not a USCCB letterhead. This is untrue. The letterhead is:
Bishop Blaire is the Chairman of this committee and he signs it with that title. This is exactly why I do not trust posters here to interject their** opinions** of what a bishop can and cannot do. These opinions are colored too much by political positions and personal preferences. You were wrong about even the letterhead.
Swords are not the issue. Guns are. Sola scriptura really does have its drawbacks.
Right there on the letterhead.
Apology accepted.
On edit: two other points:
- guns didn’t exist in the NT. Swords did.
- As far as competency, please read post #33, where I quote from (and link to) Apostolos Suos, Pope John Paul II’s Motu Proprio regarding the teaching function of Episcopal Conferences.
- The very nature of the teaching office of Bishops requires that, when they exercise it jointly through the Episcopal Conference, this be done in the plenary assembly. Smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.
As well as the Complementary Norms issued in the above Motu Proprio:
Art. 1. – In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the * recognitio* of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.
Code:Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.
Having said the above, please don’t take my opinion. I don’t want you to do so. That’s why I cite sources and link to those sources when they are on line.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is also hard to debate someone who makes up what others say. No one here has said a thing anything remotely close to your first sentence
Then try this. Life is more important than time, convenience or even politics. If one is to approve of any item that takes life, then it need be balanced by an issue as great as that of life. Arguments from self-defence and defense of others are valid. Arguments from convenience, politics, money, fun, are not. The argument of the sex abuse crisis is simply uncalled for. No Catholic should be guilty of that, nor should any reasoning person fail to see such an obvious ad hominem attack. There is no evidence that Bishop Blaire has ever been guilty of sort of sex scandal.
- Status