I can not see that as very Christ-like. The early martyrs were willing to die rather than deny their Lord. Should we be willing to disregard the safety of others for our politics? Remember that when we do this to others, we do to Jesus.
I’ll need several, left and right handed.
And we go full circle back to the initial statement of the bishop regarding the need to foster a culture of life. (though he or no one else here has suggested we ban all guns)
I foster a culture of life in several ways, both financially and with volunteer hours, so my conscience is quite clear.
Seems an intentional blind eye to how the culture of life, or death, applies, as spoken by the men of the Church.
This debate is not now and never has been about which side cares about the safety of others and which side doesn’t. This type of argument however has become such a foundational part of liberal thought that it really is impossible to debate any issue at all without it coming up. At its most basic level this mindset sees every argument in the terms “I’m good, you’re bad.”
Actually liberals claim that they obviously care more about the safety of others because they want to make them more safe by eliminating guns. Why do you think we have gun free zones at schools? Their willingness to put other people’s children in a location that is illegal to protect shows how more much they care.
What part of “Thou shalt not judge.” is unclear to you? Perhaps Aquinas can clarify that statement a bit.Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. (ST II-II 60,2-1)
Ironically, I was thinking the same thing, which you just demonstrated with your labeling of liberals. “Conservatives good, liberals bad.” is no more logical than the reverse.
When it comes to saving lives, you are absolutely correct. It is the single most moral argument there is for gun ownership. In an ideal world, this would serve as the hub of all decisions on how much control is too much and how much is not enough.
This is of course true. The only difference is that this has never been one of my arguments. Besides, the claim a conservative would make is “Conservatives are right, liberals are wrong.”
There were seven mass shootings in Australia in the 18 years prior to gun control laws being introduced in 1996. In the eighteen years since? One mass shooting. One. With a massive two fatalities as opposed to the average of nearly eleven fatalities each during those seven shootings of the prior 18 years.
And yet the Columbine massacre happened while a full-blown AWB was in place no?
Yes, results both intended and unintended. You are aware that rape and other violent crime rose in Australia after the gun laws were enacted? At the same time crime rates in the US, as gun laws were relaxed, dropped?
other policy choices like banning AR15 – also off the table for reasons described in the case. Heller is a good read for anyone dealing with gun grabbery, it shoots down most of their misconceptions and destroys many of their arguments. grabbers mostly argue from emotion. this is cure.
It’s not easy when some people place guns above all things.
When one tries to discuss other controls like background checks, they will bring up ‘banning.’that’s because the latest political fight was … a political fight. and you lost it. you might have won modest reforms if Obama didn’t eagerly parade the Newtown families around like trophies but you got outmaneuvered and buried in the backlash.It’s not easy when some people place guns above all things.
Society lost, in my opinion, it was not personal. To attempt to take it further really seems like a lack of charity to me. So, make it ‘you’ and ‘me’ if you want, but the lack of charity confirms my beliefs are correctly placed.
all I see is a lot of sour grapes on the part of the political losers in this fight, trying to be reasonable after the fact, and after the time being reasonable would have made all the difference.