Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
… While people would not support controls, lives are lost because of, how the bishops say, an easy access to guns.

… .
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, folks support the gun control lives in Chicago which cost lives, they supported the gun control lives in China, Germany, Russia, Camboida etc. etc. etc.

And those gun controls cost many, many lives. That’s a reality.

So, don’t tell me that working to disarm victims is the only moral choice. There is a grave consideration in what those gun control laws can and have lead to in the real world. Not theoretical benefits but true disasters.

It is not moral to ask, or demand, other people to sacrifice their lives by abiding by gun control laws which render them defenseless. Pushing for others to comply with laws which are just as, or more likely, to lead to loss of life is not moral. Folks in Chicago live with the restrictive gun laws, the law abiding at the mercy of the criminal, their lives at risk to appease others ideas and wishes about how those rules should work.

Now is when you go back to saying you only want better background checks, and then gradually move to discussions of hand-guns and ‘assault weapons’.

I’m with you on background checks which don’t lead to registries, and better care and identification of the dangerously mentally ill.
 
styrgwillidar said:
I’m sorry, folks support the gun control lives in Chicago which cost lives, they supported the gun control lives in China, Germany, Russia, Camboida etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...
This is guilt by association logic fallacy, like the NRA and North Korea being the only one to opposed restrictions on international gun trade.
And those gun controls cost many, many lives. That’s a reality.
Click to expand...
Again, a logical fallacy. Claiming your opinion is a fact (or reality) does now change that it is still an opinion.
 
Ender said:
An abortion is intrinsically evil. Owning a gun is not.
Ender
Click to expand...
Abortion clinics are not intrinsic evil. That’s the same thing. Not all uses of clinics are intrinsically evil, not all uses of guns are intrinsically evil. We work to limit the death of innocents in one, and we should be supportive with the other.
 
Ender said:
An act of sacrifice that is ineffective may make us feel good but it won’t solve the problem. You are still speaking in generic terms; I have asked for specifics which you have so far utterly failed to provide.
Click to expand...
Background checks would be minor inconveniences to law abiding citizens. That would be a very small sacrifice. Some things are not responded to because this has more than been addressed in this thread. It is questionable to come in on the end of a thread and say someone has ‘utterly failed’ to do anything, if you haven’t read through the thread.
Ender said:
I’m more concerned about being effective than ineffectually expressing concern.
Click to expand...
What we have to watch for is delaying while we debate and risking other innocents. In light of so many incidents recently it seems that we could find agreements on some of the most basic controls, like background checks.
Ender said:
Now we’re getting down to it: you are judging the motives of others and - surprise! - you find them sinful.
Click to expand...
Every suggestion in the way of controls has been argued against in this thread. While some say, ‘you won’t find anyone who disagrees with background checks,’ they somehow miss those posts that argue against background checks. You tell me what the motives are when one can say they agree, but have nothing to say when others argue against it, and act like it’s not on these forums?
Ender said:
We have controls and lives are lost because those controls are ineffective against criminals. The bishops have no idea whatever about whether more controls would be any more effective than the ones already in existence.
You say this as if it was fact instead of merely an opinion. You are upset because your political agenda is being frustrated.
I have rarely encountered someone so impervious to facts.
  • Consensus is irrelevant, no bishop can speak for another.
  • We have no obligation to assent to prudential judgments.
  • Most bishops (mine included) have been silent on the issue.
Oh, and you still have not specified a single proposal that we have a moral obligation to support, which is another way of saying this is not a moral issue.

Ender
Click to expand...
Where the bishops concede they are not the experts in putting together and interpreting the controls, some on these threads are not the moral experts on living in a secular world. The authoritative men of the Church are.

I have repeatedly explained my view and what guides it. It is not the political view, or agenda. It is only made political in what seems an justification to say we are right in dismissing the bishops calls. The bishops are not speaking politically. They guide morally for the dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death. They just happen to speak morally on an issue partisans find more important.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Abortion clinics are not intrinsic evil. That’s the same thing. Not all uses of clinics are intrinsically evil, not all uses of guns are intrinsically evil. We work to limit the death of innocents in one, and we should be supportive with the other.
Click to expand...
Abortion clinics are intrinsically evil by virtue of the fact that they perform abortions.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Abortion clinics are not intrinsic evil. That’s the same thing. Not all uses of clinics are intrinsically evil, not all uses of guns are intrinsically evil. We work to limit the death of innocents in one, and we should be supportive with the other.
Click to expand...
I notice you quote a few Bishop when they agree with you, but from the Pope on down, abortion is an intrinsic evil, you disagree. I’ve never read anywhere that the abortion clinics themselves are not evil, only you. If an abortion clinic refers women to another clinic for health care, but still kills millions of babies then they are not evil, is this what you are saying? We work to limit the deaths, 52 million killed, is limiting deaths. Please don’t work any harder at it, mankind will not survive your compassion. You equate the killing of the innocent, your words, with a persons right to defend there family and themself. How strange.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I have repeatedly explained my view and what guides it. It is not the political view, or agenda. It is only made political in what seems an justification to say we are right in dismissing the bishops calls. The bishops are not speaking politically. They guide morally for the dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death. They just happen to speak morally on an issue partisans find more important.
Click to expand...
Right now, increased gun control is, indeed, a political issue. There is legitimate disagreement about it. Nearly any gun control proposal could be made based on the speculation that it might save somebody. But there has been, in this thread, no evidence at all to establish that my selling a gun to a friend or giving it to my son or daughter presents any hazard to the public. If the administration itself, with all its resources and desire to limit the gun rights of citizens, can’t demonstrate it, then it’s nothing but guesswork.

Since defending oneself is a natural and moral right we all have, one ought to give good reasons for limiting it if one proposes doing so. That has not been done in this thread

It is wrong to claim “the bishops” say something they do not say. You and Obama are proposing, among other things, the requirement that all person-to-person sales, trades and gifts require a background check of the receiver. Being unable to lay a proper secular foundation for the proposal, you attempt to use the bishops in the 2000 text as your authority; something even Obama hasn’t attempted. But the bishops as a group do not back your proposal, not in 2000 and not now.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
. While people would not support controls, lives are lost because of, how the bishops say, an easy access to guns.

We’ve been called to love one another, and make sacrifices for one another. These sacrifices are no more than minor inconveniences for the law abiding, and minor sacrifices for the benefit of society.

We have a consensus of men of the Church that speak one way only. One might could make a prudential argument if there was debate among them. That’s not there.
Click to expand...
If you feel morally bound by anything in the 2000 text, why have you not given up your own guns?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
When did I become the topic of the thread?

When reading the document, note it does not say sensible measure to controls the sale of firearms, the use the term sensible in reference to the regulation of handguns. In reference to the sale and use of firearms they said they support measure to control the sale and use of firearms.

Also, I believe you misunderstood the ‘footnote.’ It speaks of handguns being eliminated, not a total eradication.

As you said, I believe everyone should read the document for themselves. 😉
Click to expand...
You aren’t the topic, though one of your arguments has become the topic.

The thread is ostensibly about Bp. Blaire’s statement. The thread went astray and off topic when, instead of sticking with Bp. Blaire’s statement or making a fact-based pitch for your proposal that person-to-person sales, trades and gifts of guns require background checks of the receiver, you argued that the bishops supported your proposal in 2000 when they didn’t.
 
twoshoes said:
I notice you quote a few Bishop when they agree with you, but from the Pope on down, abortion is an intrinsic evil, you disagree. I’ve never read anywhere that the abortion clinics themselves are not evil, only you. If an abortion clinic refers women to another clinic for health care, but still kills millions of babies then they are not evil, is this what you are saying? We work to limit the deaths, 52 million killed, is limiting deaths. Please don’t work any harder at it, mankind will not survive your compassion. You equate the killing of the innocent, your words, with a persons right to defend there family and themself. How strange.
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. I do not disagree with the bishops. You misunderstand what I am saying. As posted in another post, abortions are also performed in hospitals. Does that make hospitals intrinsically evil? It’s the use of things that becomes evil. Numbers are not the factor. As we are to work to limit abortions in every way possible, we are to work to limit the loss of dignity of life for all.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Right now, increased gun control is, indeed, a political issue. There is legitimate disagreement about it. Nearly any gun control proposal could be made based on the speculation that it might save somebody. But there has been, in this thread, no evidence at all to establish that my selling a gun to a friend or giving it to my son or daughter presents any hazard to the public. If the administration itself, with all its resources and desire to limit the gun rights of citizens, can’t demonstrate it, then it’s nothing but guesswork.

Since defending oneself is a natural and moral right we all have, one ought to give good reasons for limiting it if one proposes doing so. That has not been done in this thread

It is wrong to claim “the bishops” say something they do not say. You and Obama are proposing, among other things, the requirement that all person-to-person sales, trades and gifts require a background check of the receiver. Being unable to lay a proper secular foundation for the proposal, you attempt to use the bishops in the 2000 text as your authority; something even Obama hasn’t attempted. But the bishops as a group do not back your proposal, not in 2000 and not now.
Click to expand...
The moral issue is saving lives from the misuse of guns, and that misuse can be attributed to the easy access, as the bishops state.

Back to the argument of what the bishops say and what they do not. I have provided the links so anyone can see what the body of bishops agree to. What lacks is the disagreement from any bishop.

What I and Obama? Like the bishops, I have no authority, or expertise, in legislating and interpreting amendment rights. That’s something the bishops have left to the legislators, and I agree with them. Who has specifically said ‘common ground with Obama’ or ‘agree with Obama’ on gun controls? Cardinal Dolan and the Vatican Chief Spokesman have mentioned the president.

Working against the measure to control the sale of all firearms is at odds with the 2000 call from a full body of bishops.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If you feel morally bound by anything in the 2000 text, why have you not given up your own guns?
Click to expand...
Because the call for removal from society is for handguns. I own hunting rifles and if the bishops called for the full eradication, I would certainly give consideration. Yet, they call for measures to control the sale and use of all firearms, and that is rejected by many on these forums. Why is that? We only pick what we can use to debate against a view that agrees with them on certain points to make the view wrong, while maintaining a view at odds in other parts?

This is differentiated by the bishops calling for support of measures to control the sale and use of firearms, then they go on to call for sensible regulations of handguns. In the same document, the bishops reference a desire of the removal of handguns from society, with exceptions (law enforcement, military, etc.)
 
Ridgerunner said:
You aren’t the topic, though one of your arguments has become the topic.

The thread is ostensibly about Bp. Blaire’s statement. The thread went astray and off topic when, instead of sticking with Bp. Blaire’s statement or making a fact-based pitch for your proposal that person-to-person sales, trades and gifts of guns require background checks of the receiver, you argued that the bishops supported your proposal in 2000 when they didn’t.
Click to expand...
Please explain what supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms means to you?
 
Ridgerunner said:
You aren’t the topic, though one of your arguments has become the topic.

The thread is ostensibly about Bp. Blaire’s statement. The thread went astray and off topic when, instead of sticking with Bp. Blaire’s statement or making a fact-based pitch for your proposal that person-to-person sales, trades and gifts of guns require background checks of the receiver, you argued that the bishops supported your proposal in 2000 when they didn’t.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep wasting your time? Put him on your ignore list.
 
I for one support “sensible regulation” of firearms.

Good thing we already have that!
 
pnewton said:
This is guilt by association logic fallacy, like the NRA and North Korea being the only one to opposed restrictions on international gun trade.

Again, a logical fallacy. Claiming your opinion is a fact (or reality) does now change that it is still an opinion.
Click to expand...
Are you a holocaust denier? Germany did put in place gun controls including registries, those registries were used to confiscate guns from the Jews. Many of those Jews were killed.

Do you deny that Russia/Soviet Union implemented gun control and starved millions of their own people?

Do you deny all of the other similar situations in Cambodia, China etc.? Yes, I know we like to think of ourselves as just naturally superior to all other people around the world. We’d like to believe that we would never make the same mistakes, that Americon could never do those kinds of things- we’re superhumans.

It is a moral choice for me to decide to render myself defenseless. It is even admirable to be so devoted to peace that one refuses to own or use firearms. It is not moral, IMHO, for me to force others into accepting my choices about the value of their lives, force my risk assessment on them.

Again, background checks make sense, waiting periods make sense, although I don’t know of any data showing their effectiveness, if that’s the extent of Bishop Blaire’s comments than no problem. But it seems that just like the recent gun law that was rejected- the laws always go beyond that. And those proposals never address the tragedies that are invoked to justify them. Well, this wouldn’t have stopped Colombine, Sandy Hook, Virgina Tech, etc. but we need to do it. Why not discuss the fact these shootings always occur in gun-free zones? Sensible gun laws in response to tragedies should address their causes, gun-free zones and the mentally deranged as opposed to being used to enact a wish-list of laws not related to these tragedies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top