Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

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!

No, it’s not political posturing. I’ve said that repeatedly. My view is based on scriptures, and Church teaching which includes the views of the bishops. I asked a poster a direct question referencing one of their points.

Let’s try and keep the discussion on topic. I am not the topic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

And what are those “family and friends”, knowingly providing guns to criminals? Wrong category. Family and friends know a person’s background. If the recipient is a felon, they know it. They probably won’t do background checks anyway. Why would they call attention to the sale by doing that?

And if the government only prosecutes 44 out of 15,000 felons who attempt the purchase of guns WITH background checks, what’s the likelihood they will prosecute them if they obtain one through a family member?

But how many criminals obtain guns from people who don’t know they are criminals? Nobody knows.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And what are those “family and friends”, knowingly providing guns to criminals? Wrong category. Family and friends know a person’s background. If the recipient is a felon, they know it. They probably won’t do background checks anyway. Why would they call attention to the sale by doing that?

And if the government only prosecutes 44 out of 15,000 felons who attempt the purchase of guns WITH background checks, what’s the likelihood they will prosecute them if they obtain one through a family member?

But how many criminals obtain guns from people who don’t know they are criminals? Nobody knows.

The hopes are that the truly law abiding sellers would willfully participate. Could we expect 100%? No. No law has worked 100%.

Enforcement is a problem, but one we can stand together on. That’s what impact legislators; majorities.

So, nobody knows, so we can dismiss the calls from the men of the Church? We do our part because it is the right thing to do. It would have no impact on the law abiding citizen, than what would amount to any more than minor inconveniences. We can’t fight crime divided. That’s what’s happening in delaying all actions because we might have the best solution. We stand divided, and gun violence wins everyday.

 

[SamH]

And what are those “family and friends”, knowingly providing guns to criminals? Wrong category. Family and friends know a person’s background. If the recipient is a felon, they know it. They probably won’t do background checks anyway. Why would they call attention to the sale by doing that?
.

Agreed, and its already illegal to sell/give a firearm to someone you know can’t legally own one.

You can face up to ten years in federal
prison if you receive or possess a firearm or
ammunition and are —

• • a convicted felon whose rights have
• not been restored;
• • a fugitive from justice;
• • an illegal alien or a lawfully admitted
• alien under a non-immigrant visa;
• • a dishonorably discharged military
• veteran;
• • an unlawful drug user;
• • a person who has been judged as
• mentally defective or committed to a
• mental health institution;
• • subject to a domestic restraining order; or
• • have a prior convicton for domestic
• assault.

**Even if you are not a prohibited person, but
you give a gun or ammunition to someone
you know or have reason to believe **fits any
of the above descriptions, you can face up
to ten years in federal prison.

justice.gov/usao/mn/downloads/Firearms%20MN_10.19.10.pdf

But of course they’ll follow the background check law…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Agreed, and its already illegal to sell/give a firearm to someone you know can’t legally own one.

justice.gov/usao/mn/downloads/Firearms%20MN_10.19.10.pdf

But of course they’ll follow the background check law…

It’s been shown, through a link on this thread where an undercover report shows, that private sales happen at gun shows where names are not even exchanged. I have had opportunities to purchase guns through Facebook postings, where money talks. This precipitates easy access to guns for anyone, including criminals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The hopes are that the truly law abiding sellers would willfully participate. Could we expect 100%? No. No law has worked 100%.

Enforcement is a problem, but one we can stand together on. That’s what impact legislators; majorities.

So, nobody knows, so we can dismiss the calls from the men of the Church? We do our part because it is the right thing to do. It would have no impact on the law abiding citizen, than what would amount to any more than minor inconveniences. We can’t fight crime divided. That’s what’s happening in delaying all actions because we might have the best solution. We stand divided, and gun violence wins everyday.

The truly law abiding person who gives his son a rifle will willfully participate in doing a background check on his son, you mean? I suppose most would because they would be criminalized if they didn’t, not because it makes any sense to criminalize them for failing to do it.

So what’s the government going to do if this administration has its way with that? Enforce an unnecessary law against otherwise law-abiding citizens because it can, or is it finally going to enforce laws against felons having guns? Probably the former, because it’s easier to catch otherwise honest people who don’t know how to be criminals. But it’s outrageous to threaten the law-abiding with criminal prosecution when it has no demonstrable reason to do it and when the government doesn’t prosecute real criminals that it knows about.

Regarding the men of the Church, I have repeatedly said that I don’t have a problem with what the bishops said in 2000. They actually had no recommendations as to specific legislation, so we have no idea what each of them had in mind, if anything specific at all. They only spent three sentences on guns out of a very large text about crime and punishment for crime.

But again, I think the Tsarnaev brothers put this whole issue to bed, at least for now, because too many people were given the opportunity to contemplate what they might have been able to do if the brothers had come to their doors during their armed escape.

 

[SamH]

The truly law abiding person who gives his son a rifle will willfully participate in doing a background check on his son, you mean? I suppose most would because they would be criminalized if they didn’t, not because it makes any sense to criminalize them for failing to do it.
.

According to the media that person is a border line criminal too. Who but a man of violence gives his son a rifle?

But that’s why all three of my son’s now have AR15s.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The truly law abiding person who gives his son a rifle will willfully participate in doing a background check on his son, you mean? I suppose most would because they would be criminalized if they didn’t, not because it makes any sense to criminalize them for failing to do it.

So what’s the government going to do if this administration has its way with that? Enforce an unnecessary law against otherwise law-abiding citizens because it can, or is it finally going to enforce laws against felons having guns? Probably the former, because it’s easier to catch otherwise honest people who don’t know how to be criminals. But it’s outrageous to threaten the law-abiding with criminal prosecution when it has no demonstrable reason to do it and when the government doesn’t prosecute real criminals that it knows about.

Regarding the men of the Church, I have repeatedly said that I don’t have a problem with what the bishops said in 2000. They actually had no recommendations as to specific legislation, so we have no idea what each of them had in mind, if anything specific at all. They only spent three sentences on guns out of a very large text about crime and punishment for crime.

But again, I think the Tsarnaev brothers put this whole issue to bed, at least for now, because too many people were given the opportunity to contemplate what they might have been able to do if the brothers had come to their doors during their armed escape.

How many people with criminal records inherit guns? How many people give guns to their children who have criminal records? It’s still a minor inconvenience to have a background check performed for the law abiding citizen. Now, this thought skirts the real issue of private sales where even names are not exchanged. Transferred between family members could be made exempt. The exact legislation should be up to the legislators.

Enforcement should be a united call among all, and not an excuse to leave gaps in existing, or non-existing, laws.

They had specific recommendations. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. To suggest nothing be done does not address the problem, or offer support. Experts should weigh in with ‘sensible’ regulations. Right now, people claiming to be expert, are on the political sidelines fighting anything be done.

Speculation. Law enforcement caught both criminals. Then there’s the problem of assuming everyone is equally proficient with firearms. The situation could have created a dangerous cross-fire for neighbors. Examples of inept people with guns are out there.

 

[scipio337]

…Regarding the men of the Church, I have repeatedly said that I don’t have a problem with what the bishops said in 2000. They actually had no recommendations as to specific legislation, so we have no idea what each of them had in mind, if anything specific at all. They only spent three sentences on guns out of a very large text about crime and punishment for crime…

Clearly, the Bishops statement was in support of background checks for gifts to family members, and loaning guns to friends and family for hunting or target shooting.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Clearly, the Bishops statement was in support of background checks for gifts to family members, and loaning guns to friends and family for hunting or target shooting.

Nonsensical statements detract from sensible approaches. If that were truly a part of a legislation, where was the support to remove, or restructure, the proposed legislation? It seems the nonsensical statements are only made to avoid discussing any proposals at all.

 

[scipio337]

Nonsensical statements detract from sensible approaches. If that were truly a part of a legislation, where was the support to remove, or restructure, the proposed legislation. It seems the nonsensical statements are made to avoid discussing any proposals at all.

Perhaps you could ask the Senate leadership, who has shelved the bill. The Senate proposed the bill for cloture without amendments, and shelved the bill after that vote failed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps you could ask the Senate leadership, who has shelved the bill. The Senate proposed the bill for cloture without amendments, and shelved the bill after that vote failed.

Who influences the politicians? We don’t stand together as Americans to demand ‘sensible.’ Some of us fall into the partisanship, doing nothing but enjoying the one side blocking the other, and we all live with nothing being accomplished. That is not supporting the bishop’s call, and is often questionable in light of some of the self interest arguments; e.g. inconveniences, economical, etc. Some are evident in this thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How many people with criminal records inherit guns? How many people give guns to their children who have criminal records? It’s still a minor inconvenience to have a background check performed for the law abiding citizen. Now, this thought skirts the real issue of private sales where even names are not exchanged. Transferred between family members could be made exempt. The exact legislation should be up to the legislators.

Enforcement should be a united call among all, and not an excuse to leave gaps in existing, or non-existing, laws.

They had specific recommendations. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. To suggest nothing be done does not address the problem, or offer support. Experts should weigh in with ‘sensible’ regulations. Right now, people claiming to be expert, are on the political sidelines fighting anything be done.

Speculation. Law enforcement caught both criminals. Then there’s the problem of assuming everyone is equally proficient with firearms. The situation could have created a dangerous cross-fire for neighbors. Examples of inept people with guns are out there.

I don’t know how many people inherit guns, but based on what I have seen, it cannot fail to be in the millions of people.

“Support measures to control…” Hard to imagine how more non-specific one could get.

If one exempts family members from the background check, what are you wanting to prevent, knowing that nobody has a clue how many people have died, if any, because somebody sold a gun to somebody else outside a gun show?

It does not matter how the Tsarnaev situation ended up. Law enforcement had two cities locked down, schools closed for safety and all, out of fear of Tsarnaev. What matters politically is that people in those cities, and undoubtedly across the country, were put to wonder what resources they could bring to bear if a Tsarnaev came through their door or window, or attempted to do so. Undoubtedly, to many, the mental answer was “none”. How many people then remedied that ‘none" by obtaining a firearm or resolving to get one? We dont’ know, but I know for sure the incident would have motivated me to get one, hunkered down in my home with my children, trying to figure out whether I could stop a man with automatic weapons by trying to hit him with a chair. How many who already owned a gun resolved that gun control legislation stop in its tracks? Plenty, no doubt, or it would not be tabled by the Democrats, at least for now.

 

[scipio337]

Who influences the politicians? We don’t stand together as Americans to demand ‘sensible.’ Some of us fall into the partisanship, doing nothing but enjoying the one side blocking the other, and we all live with nothing being accomplished. That is not supporting the bishop’s call, and is often questionable in light of some of the self interest arguments; e.g. inconveniences, economical, etc. Some are evident in this thread.

That the proposed bill ‘supported the bishops’ call’ is you own judgement is merely you inserting your own partisanship into the topic.

Sorry, I need to stay out of this thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who influences the politicians? We don’t stand together as Americans to demand ‘sensible.’ Some of us fall into the partisanship, doing nothing but enjoying the one side blocking the other, and we all live with nothing being accomplished. That is not supporting the bishop’s call, and is often questionable in light of some of the self interest arguments; e.g. inconveniences, economical, etc. Some are evident in this thread.

Oh? Should we not have self-interest? Why not?

How about if we, as Americans, stand together in favor of actually enforcing the laws presently in existence before going off on some new legislative endeavor that few really want anyway?

For myself, I am quite glad the Repubs and Dems in the House and Senate have decided to leave the matter alone for now. Why should I leap on an Obama wagon whose wheels have come off when Congress clearly doesn’t want to repair it?

And, again, there was nothing specific about the “bishops’ call”. For all we know, they were interested in actual enforcement or allowing access to the mental records of the insane. Do you really think requiring me to do a background check on my daughter before giving her a .410 as a gift, is what they had in mind? Do you think they wanted background checks before I could trade one inherited gun to my brother in exchange for another I liked more?

What we’re really talking about here is “Obama’s call”, not that of the bishops.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t know how many people inherit guns, but based on what I have seen, it cannot fail to be in the millions of people.

“Support measures to control…” Hard to imagine how more non-specific one could get.

If one exempts family members from the background check, what are you wanting to prevent, knowing that nobody has a clue how many people have died, if any, because somebody sold a gun to somebody else outside a gun show?

It does not matter how the Tsarnaev situation ended up. Law enforcement had two cities locked down, schools closed for safety and all, out of fear of Tsarnaev. What matters politically is that people in those cities, and undoubtedly across the country, were put to wonder what resources they could bring to bear if a Tsarnaev came through their door or window, or attempted to do so. Undoubtedly, to many, the mental answer was “none”. How many people then remedied that ‘none" by obtaining a firearm or resolving to get one? We dont’ know, but I know for sure the incident would have motivated me to get one, hunkered down in my home with my children, trying to figure out whether I could stop a man with automatic weapons by trying to hit him with a chair. How many who already owned a gun resolved that gun control legislation stop in its tracks? Plenty, no doubt, or it would not be tabled by the Democrats, at least for now.

What you call non-specific is specific in itself. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. That doesn’t mean sit back and say, ‘it’s non-specific’ therefore we don’t know, or are not obligated, to do anything. Doing nothing is negligent in face of the gun violence that goes on daily in this country.

As for exempting family members from background checks, I was trying to find some common ground on which we could agree, since you brought up in family transactions, whether selling or giving. As for gun shows, it’s easy to deny the possibility of guns being purchased ,without even name exchanges, and used in a criminal activity. It’s like asking for a negative to be proven. The same would be said for asking someone to prove that criminal activity ever happened with those guns. It is a distinct possibility, and the loophole is still open.

As for the terrorist situation you present, even in the face that all gun owners are not equally proficient, is a way to say, ‘anything can happen anytime and we must all be ready.’ That does not address the problem of easy access, that many of the men of the Church have addressed. It does however open doors to people who are not proficient and could cause more problems than solutions. We don’t know in this instance, because the law enforcement did a commendable job in taking the perpetrators.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That the proposed bill ‘supported the bishops’ call’ is you own judgement is merely you inserting your own partisanship into the topic.

Sorry, I need to stay out of this thread.

I respectfully disagree. Cardinal Dolan spoke on gun controls, and giving the expertise to those who legislate, and interpret. I have referred to it several times. No one can deny the bishops have not made a call for support. I have referred everyone to read the language for themselves. That is not my judgement, but my recommendation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What you call non-specific is specific in itself. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. That doesn’t mean sit back and say, ‘it’s non-specific’ therefore we don’t know, or are not obligated, to do anything. Doing nothing is negligent in face of the gun violence that goes on daily in this country.

As for the terrorist situation you present, even in the face that all gun owners are not equally proficient, is a way to say, ‘anything can happen anytime and we must all be ready.’ That does not address the problem of easy access, that many of the men of the Church have addressed. It does however open doors to people who are not proficient and could cause more problems than solutions. We don’t know in this instance, because the law enforcement did a commendable job in taking the perpetrators.

On and on, but the bishops did not, and do not, endorse Obama’s proposals or yours. You admitted that earlier.

You also admitted earlier that even if the bishops in the 2000 meeting had specific proposals (which, of course, they didn’t) they wouldn’t be morally binding on Catholics.

Are you seriously saying nobody was at risk while Tsarnaevs were running around the neighborhoods with fully automatic weapons and murder in their hearts? They even told the kidnapped driver they would have killed him if he had been Christian. It’s only by the Grace of God that neither of them killed people in their homes after killing people on the street.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On and on, but the bishops did not, and do not, endorse Obama’s proposals or yours. You admitted that earlier.

You also admitted earlier that even if the bishops in the 2000 meeting had specific proposals (which, of course, they didn’t) they wouldn’t be morally binding on Catholics.

Are you seriously saying nobody was at risk while Tsarnaevs were running around the neighborhoods with fully automatic weapons and murder in their hearts? They even told the kidnapped driver they would have killed him if he had been Christian. It’s only by the Grace of God that neither of them killed people in their homes after killing people on the street.

I agree with the bishops, who made a specific call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. I have repeated that, over, and over. It just so happens that Obama is in office, and his initiatives were well received by men of the Church.

To clarify, again, I stated that I find the guidance of the bishops, especially a full body without any disagreeing statements from ANY bishop, is binding on myself. I subject myself to their authority. I also have stated that I believe that guidance to be moral guidance, and explained, in detail, why.

I have spent much of our discussion clarifying, and providing documentation to meet the changes you raised the bar on each time. I thought we were close to agreeing, with the exemptions I found as somewhat reasonable, and then you asked what would be accomplished with those exemptions. It seems, no matter what, you’re going to disagree with me generally.

It was by the Grace of God. An armed society had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for the discussion, but we don’t need go any further.

 

[Tigg]

That the proposed bill ‘supported the bishops’ call’ is you own judgement is merely you inserting your own partisanship into the topic.

Sorry, I need to stay out of this thread.

What happened to the closing of a thread after 1,000 posts? At this point, I’m hoping it will be shut down!!