People have stood up for those things they view as important in this life. As you see ‘sour grapes’ others see boasting and unnecessary arrogance, even though the issue can be changed at any time.
I see the link of gun control using the language of the gun grabbers to moral / Christian mandates as arrogant and unhelpful.
The use of a 3-D printer to print a gun … it’s here already, now.I’ve looked into printing my own (or at least an ar-15 lower receiver), but the technology just isn’t there for the tolerances required nor would I trust a home printed trigger assembly with my life.
Yet. The technology is getting there.
Machining one yourself is an option but I lack the expertise and the initial investment is too great. I’ve seen dvd’s to mill your own AR or AK receiver, but thats not feasible for most people. i do think 3d printing will change that in the future.
I really question the motivations behind you insisting on using the term gun grabbers repeatedly. I own guns, and have repeatedly posted that fact. Even though I own guns, I don’t idolize them, or place them above the welfare of other people.
Heller did not say what you say. It does not mean that no restrictions can be placed, only that those restrictions can not overreach to where one is not allowed to keep a handgun in one’s home. As far as the “gun grabbery”, that terms makes as much sense as “death dealer” for those that own guns for protection. Both are inaccurate exaggerations. Yet if either term seems offensive, then the Golden Rule would indicate neither tern should be used.
The NRA playbook must have a chapter on snappy catch phrases to avoid real conversation. I live in a heavily armed area and very few people I have spoken with have any problems with extended background checks. They also are not fearful of “gun grabber,” because they know that no one would want that job.
Interesting, it’s definitely a baby step but promising nonetheless, thanks for sharing it. Reminds me of the zip guns dropped into France by the Americans during WW2.
Since the church has said nothing whatever about gun laws, but has in fact recognized the right of individuals to own and use weapons in self defense, there is no relevant doctrine to conform to. As for believing the laity is more expert in this area that is of course true.
No one questions the sincerity of those few bishops who have spoken out in favor of stricter gun controls, but the best solutions to the problem are not determined by intent, otherwise all of our problems would be resolved. There is no more reason to believe the bishops know how best to resolve this issue than how best to balance the budget or fix their cars. It is an area that requires expertise, not good intentions.
my experience is with the competitive shooters who actually use their guns on a regular basis. no one I know favors extended background checks.
The issue is for the dignity of lives, in consideration of those who have lost their lives. That makes it a moral issue. The bishops have not precisely stated how to accomplish, but to support measures. All those measures are being brushed aside, for the material tools of death.
yeah, that’s an approach that gonna work. now I really want to engage in a meaningful dialog about my “material tools of death”.
I’m naming my next AK-47 “Death Dealing Prodigal Son” in his honor.
Does this apply to gang members and drug dealers?
This has absolutely nothing to do with the dignity of life or consideration for those who have been killed. The question is not whether we should respect the sanctity of life but what particular laws are best suited to accomplish competing goals; that is, what will be the effect of a law forbidding or mandating particular actions? Regardless of our intentions, actions always have unintended consequences and specific laws often play out in unexpected ways and it is surely valid to question whether bishops - and anyone else not thoroughly knowledgeable - would be expected to know the answers. It is also valid to challenge their involvement in an area so far beyond their competence.
They have made no specific recommendations because they are aware of how thin the ice is beneath their feet when they wander off into areas of lay responsibility. They want to be heeded even though they know we have no obligation to do so, so they speak in generalities and let people like yourself argue specifics with the implication that this is what the church demands. I “support measures”. I’m sure everyone on the thread “supports measures.” They happen to be different measures than the ones you support but they are every bit as valid.
You own guns - how many people have you killed with them? If they are simply tools of death why do you own them unless you intend to kill someone and if you don’t intend to kill anyone and you use them for different purposes then it is no more valid to call them materials of death than to give that label to knives and baseball bats.
Easy access to guns has cost innocent people their lives. It was not a natural death. So, I disagree with you. The right to own a gun does not come without responsibilities. Our obligation exists on a communal level as well. That’s how controls are applicable, and in consideration of recent mass shootings.
When our prelates speak guidance and it’s received as being on thin ice, I don’t see that as their problem. This issue has been politicized, but not by them.
I really wonder if people actually believe the semantic gymnastics they use in reference to what guns were invented, and improved, for. The reason this debate goes on today is the mass death brought about through the use of those tools.
you own, in your words, “tools of death”? what would a Good Catholic need with tools of death whose only purpose is to slaughter?
Easy access to cars kills 40,000 people per year in the U.S. alone. AND maims another 400,000 or so.
We can make decisions based on our own personal interests, or the in the interest of all people. Our intent is clear to Him, and I don’t believe He gives considerations to legalistic talking points, or ‘snap’ cliches.
Points that have been discussed ad nauseam. What were each of those designed to do?