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:
Working against the measure to control the sale of all firearms is at odds with the 2000 call from a full body of bishops.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t, and enlisting the bishops in 2000 in support of Obama in 2013 is breathtakingly wrong.

Some people perhaps believe the moral instructions of the bishops of the U.S. are, or ought to be coextensive with Obama’s ideology. But they’re not. The bishops in 2000 were not even aware of Obama’s proposals.

You, yourself, admit that the bishops in 2000 made no specific legislative proposals, and for the very good reason that they did not. Obama and you do have specific proposals. Since existing regulations are poorly enforced, one can legitimately believe it’s best to use the tools that exist than to hastily enact new laws principally affecting the law-abiding and the application of which nobody can fully predict. That’s particularly true when the Obama proposals seem designed to interfere with the exchange of guns between law-abiding citizens without ever showing why they should.

But because of the Boston bombings, Obama’s gun control proposals are almost certainly dead for now, just as this thread should be.
 
SamH said:
Why do you keep wasting your time? Put him on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
Because, as often happens with other subjects, there are those who profess the faith, yet lead others astray with their own interpretation of scripture, of what the Church says or doesn’t say, of what the bishops are saying, or aren’t saying, or even with their own sense of righteousness. Weary of the argument as we all are, we still have to be apologists for the sake of those who will listen to reason.
 
JMJSHJ said:
They can cooperate with intrinsic evil by virtue of the fact that they perform abortions.
Click to expand...
The same as misuse of hospitals can take place, a misuse of guns can take place; either for intrinsic purposes.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No it isn’t, and enlisting the bishops in 2000 in support of Obama in 2013 is breathtakingly wrong.

Some people perhaps believe the moral instructions of the bishops of the U.S. are, or ought to be coextensive with Obama’s ideology. But they’re not. The bishops in 2000 were not even aware of Obama’s proposals.

You, yourself, admit that the bishops in 2000 made no specific legislative proposals, and for the very good reason that they did not. Obama and you do have specific proposals. Since existing regulations are poorly enforced, one can legitimately believe it’s best to use the tools that exist than to hastily enact new laws principally affecting the law-abiding and the application of which nobody can fully predict. That’s particularly true when the Obama proposals seem designed to interfere with the exchange of guns between law-abiding citizens without ever showing why they should.

But because of the Boston bombings, Obama’s gun control proposals are almost certainly dead for now, just as this thread should be.
Click to expand...
You are the one associating the bishops call with Obama. Despite what administration is in control, the bishops make this call on behalf of society, so that all may enjoy a dignity of life from conception until natural death. You point this out by the timing of the original call from the bishops in 2000.
 
Tigg said:
Because, as often happens with other subjects, there are those who profess the faith, yet lead others astray with their own interpretation of scripture, of what the Church says or doesn’t say, of what the bishops are saying, or aren’t saying, or even with their own sense of righteousness. Weary of the argument as we all are, we still have to be apologists for the sake of those who will listen to reason.
Click to expand...
This is why all are invited to read the documents to see for themselves what the bishops have called for.
 
Obama Second Term: 1) Benghazi 2) IRS targeting Conservative Groups and 3) Unbudging congress. Solution: Take away guns.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Please explain what supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms means to you?
Click to expand...
Current laws.

But then, we don’t enforce them. Perhaps we should.

For starters, what if we actually punished those who use guns in crimes. I see where recently Rahm Emanuel called for extending the minimum punishment for commission of a serious gun crime to three years (hardly seems enough) and further called for actually making people serve their time for doing it. Presently in Illinois, they serve about half, or six months, of their sentence.

And then we might want to consider prosecuting felons who attempt to illegally obtain firearms. In 2010, I believe,44 out of 15,000 were prosecuted.

And, of course, perhaps the government would want to stop providing weapons to drug dealers, possibly even seriously investigate the Justice Dept for authorizing it.

Oh, and then maybe even allow disclosure of mental health records showing serious antisocial inclinations.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You are the one associating the bishops call with Obama. Despite what administration is in control, the bishops make this call on behalf of society, so that all may enjoy a dignity of life from conception until natural death. You point this out by the timing of the original call from the bishops in 2000.
Click to expand...
Oh no. Not even close.

I don’t do that at all. In 2000 the bishops, in a document which, by canon law (which you admit) is NOT binding on Catholics, they called for sensible regulation. They had no specific proposals at all. That’s a far cry from the specific Obama proposals which you support and pretend that the bishops support it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Current laws.

But then, we don’t enforce them. Perhaps we should.

For starters, what if we actually punished those who use guns in crimes. I see where recently Rahm Emanuel called for extending the minimum punishment for commission of a serious gun crime to three years (hardly seems enough) and further called for actually making people serve their time for doing it. Presently in Illinois, they serve about half, or six months, of their sentence.

And then we might want to consider prosecuting felons who attempt to illegally obtain firearms. In 2010, I believe,44 out of 15,000 were prosecuted.

And, of course, perhaps the government would want to stop providing weapons to drug dealers, possibly even seriously investigate the Justice Dept for authorizing it.

Oh, and then maybe even allow disclosure of mental health records showing serious antisocial inclinations.
Click to expand...
Nothing is really objectionable in your list, in my opinion. Currently though, we have gaps in background checks for some sales. What would be your suggestion on closing those gaps that are attributed to private sales? Also, should an investigation of the Justice Dept include activities prior to the current administration?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh no. Not even close.

I don’t do that at all. In 2000 the bishops, in a document which, by canon law (which you admit) is NOT binding on Catholics, they called for sensible regulation. They had no specific proposals at all. That’s a far cry from the specific Obama proposals which you support and pretend that the bishops support it.
Click to expand...
Why do you parse the bishop’s statement? They specifically called for support for measures to controls the sale and use of all firearms. The ‘sensible,’ you seem to make applicable to their entire call, was on the regulation of handguns. Supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms is specific, in itself.

Yes, it’s not binding on Catholics. I choose to accept their guidance, especially when a majority of them agree as a full body of bishops. It seems, those who deny any binding, do so based on their own volition, without the documented support of any bishop.

I didn’t convert to the authoritative Church, in 1985, to place my views over the views of the authoritative men of the Church. Christianity is not something to be viewed through the secular lens, placing things of this world before the teachings, and guidance, of the authoritative Church.

When it comes down to it, none of the teachings are ‘forced’ on men.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Nothing is really objectionable in your list, in my opinion. Currently though, we have gaps in background checks for some sales. What would be your suggestion on closing those gaps that are attributed to private sales? Also, should an investigation of the Justice Dept include activities prior to the current administration?
Click to expand...
A full congressional investigation of “Fast & Furious” should go wherever it leads. When a Justice Department hands weapons to drug dealers, something is very wrong; just as wrong as handing weapons to Al Quaeda in Libya is wrong.

In the absence of the government having any idea whether any private sales have resulted in any deaths, there is no evidentiary basis for the government, e.g, forcing me to do a criminal background check on my daughter if i give her a gun or investigating myself if I happen to inherit one.

And that’s particularly true when we do know the government does not enforce the gun laws on its books and punishes people very lightly for serious gun crimes or doesn’t punish them at all.

It appears the government is not serious about pursuing gun criminals for the most part, but in potentially making criminals out of presently law-abiding citizens. That being the case, I believe any additional regulation should be shelved.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t put words in the mouths of the bishops. I provide as close to what they actually say as possible, and have invited everyone to read it for themselves.
Click to expand...
There we go then, you are interpreting what the Bishops say and presenting your version as factual.

Thanks for finally admitting it.😉
 
Ridgerunner said:
A full congressional investigation of “Fast & Furious” should go wherever it leads. When a Justice Department hands weapons to drug dealers, something is very wrong; just as wrong as handing weapons to Al Quaeda in Libya is wrong.

In the absence of the government having any idea whether any private sales have resulted in any deaths, there is no evidentiary basis for the government, e.g, forcing me to do a criminal background check on my daughter if i give her a gun or investigating myself if I happen to inherit one.

And that’s particularly true when we do know the government does not enforce the gun laws on its books and punishes people very lightly for serious gun crimes or doesn’t punish them at all.

It appears the government is not serious about pursuing gun criminals for the most part, but in potentially making criminals out of presently law-abiding citizens. That being the case, I believe any additional regulation should be shelved.
Click to expand...
Statistics have shown that 40% of criminals obtain guns through family and friends. So what is the major inconvenience to submitting to a background check for the law abiding citizen?

The government is not serious because of the lobby from outside.
 
iamrefreshed said:
There we go then, you are interpreting what the Bishops say and presenting your version as factual.

Thanks for finally admitting it.😉
Click to expand...
What? Really? Providing the correct text of what they say, and inviting everyone to read it for themselves is a ‘private interpretation’ and presenting of my version?

It seems to be a spinning of what I say, as if it detracts from the reality of what the bishops say. That seems to be a presenting other than what is said. 🤷

People read it for yourselves.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Nothing is really objectionable in your list, in my opinion. Currently though, we have gaps in background checks for some sales. What would be your suggestion on closing those gaps that are attributed to private sales? Also, should an investigation of the Justice Dept include activities prior to the current administration?
Click to expand...
So, after all of your posturing gun control is just a political game for you?

Shame on you for involving the Bishop’s in your charade!:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top