Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

With the greatest respect, your son or grandson have as much potential as anyone else to be or become criminals intent on harm or seriously mentally disturbed. I fail to see that they should have greater rights to own a deadly weapon than anyone else merely because they are related to you.

I do not claim a greater right than anyone else. I only claim the right guaranteed to all by the Constitution. It is because others want to take that right away that I addressed this thread.

Before disarming those who are sane and who have done nothing criminal, it would possibly be a good idea to actually enforce the gun laws presently on the books. Those do relate to criminals’ and insane people possessing them. It is one of the ignored facts in this debate that law enforcement people, by and large, know who the criminals and the dangerously insane are.

 

[ProVobis]

Satan must love it when liberals take away guns.

No, Satan loves it when we worship guns.

 

[meltzerboy]

youtube.com/watch?v=FdAs1qBOO1s

Here is the actual effect of gun control-- the law abiding individual is reduced to a stick to defend themselves. That’s it. That is what gun control achieves. A limitation on the person who isn’t the problem— Forcing them to be more vulnerable to evil.

Sorry, that ain’t supporting a culture of life.

The criminal is always looking for an edge, if it isn’t a gun it’s a knife, or superiority in numbers, whatever. The UK has seen firearm violence increase-- they are an island nation and the criminals still get firearms.

And the same folks who will render others vulnerable by taking away guns, will, as in England move onto knives when, inevitably, crime does not drop, when violence does not drop. But then, reducing crime and violence has never been the objective of gun control measures.

Why is the mere mention of gun control automatically equated to taking away guns from law-abiding citizens? Gun control or restrictions mean reducing the probability that guns will get into the wrong hands: not only those of criminals, but those of dangerously mentally disturbed people (not all mentally disturbed people are dangerous, let alone criminals). And with fewer guns (such as assault weapons) in circulation, criminals are limited in terms of the availability of certain kinds of gun.

With regard to protection from home invasion, families should have a means of defense and no one is suggesting that should be taken away from them; however, people talk about home invasion (or government invasion) as if this were an everyday occurrence.

Amendment rights? It’s still there, but in modified form, just like freedom of speech, the press, and so on. There is not, never was, nor should be absolute freedom in any domain.

 

[Nandarani]

Agree that Bishops speaking on this issue can be influential to the flock but I hope the flock knows better.

My understanding is that we already HAVE enough laws on the books about background checks, etc. Registration will lead to confiscation. Our laws were originally modeled on Switzerland’s. For those who don’t know the Swiss gun laws they include, but are not limited to - this is just what I can recall…
**1. Annual visits by ‘officials’ to see whether they can find the weapons you’ve hidden. If they can, you are fined.
2. Hiking trail and roadside caches of weapons and grenades.
3. Highway perches, called 'redoubts" which I do not know how to spell, where snipers can stay.
4. Every single person trained to shoot, including elderly people who didn’t learn early.

The Swiss, admittedly, have a lot to protect. There is QUITE A LOT OF QUESTION whether this country still does.**

Switzerland hasn’t been invaded in a very very very long time and has the lowest crime rate in the world.

Weapons taken from elderly people in remote areas alarms them, at least the prospect of that happening does. Weapons will remain with those who want to control others, whether criminals or the government type of … well, criminals.

To those who want no one to be armed using concealed carry in church - I’ve listened to a caller all exercised about that on a Catholic broadcast recently, certainly we do not want to be mown down in church. I’m adding this in ‘edit mode’ - just in case my meaning isn’t clear: people use concealed carry to shoot ot the person who is mowing down others.

Sandy Hook was heavily heavily contrived and planned for three years. Unmistakable use of certain actors has been proven and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The other shootings recently = same thing. Involvement by government, unlikely scenarios such as the arming of the apartment of ‘the joker’ in the theater shooting so considerable that no one outside of a highly trained military person could have laid the explosives

Many things happen in COLORADO: school shootings, theater shooting, etc. This is because that is the real center of the government of this country. There are highly trained and sophisticated resources of all kinds there, generally hidden beneathe the radar.

The government wants to disarm the country. There is a push coming from dual citizens in this country (notice those people who are * most *vociferously promoting what - I’ll leave you to guess of which nationality or stripe) to disarm the majority culture. It is entirely ironic, as Israel has guns in schools; you can see this first hand by going into youtube and watching the videos. We are heading into an economic crisis of epic propportions. The government wants people weak and dependent, and certainly unarmed.

I’m originally from NY - not familiar with guns at all BUT have learned the purpose of the second amendment. If we lose it, bye bye FIRST AMENDMENT.

 

[LilyM]

I do not claim a greater right than anyone else. I only claim the right guaranteed to all by the Constitution. It is because others want to take that right away that I addressed this thread.

Before disarming those who are sane and who have done nothing criminal, it would possibly be a good idea to actually enforce the gun laws presently on the books. Those do relate to criminals’ and insane people possessing them. It is one of the ignored facts in this debate that law enforcement people, by and large, know who the criminals and the dangerously insane are.

You ARE saying that your children and grand kids should have greater rights and easier access to your weapons than at least some of the other people who might obtain those guns from you.

Guns should not be put in the hands of people who have not been background checked for criminal history and mental health issues full stop. Doesn’t matter who they are, how they obtain the guns or why you might want to make it comparatively easy for them.

 

[pnewton]

Agree that Bishops speaking on this issue can be influential to the flock but I hope the flock knows better. I am really surprised at the number of Catholics that think they are so much smarter than all every bishop. On poster above even made the statement that the bishop was “wrong” showing that at least one poster does not grasp the concept of right or wrong when it comes to opinion. Likewise, here we have a case of another poster that thinks himself more knowledgable than the bishop, but refers to the Swiss crime rate, which is irrelevant to the topic, instead of the murder rate, which, by the way is something the Swiss are not at the top

Switzerland hasn’t been invaded in a very very very long time and has the lowest crime rate in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
But more to the point, since the bishop was not speaking of Switzerland, but rather the United States, not the homicide rate of the United States compared to the rest of the technologically advanced countries, remembering that we are the highest (by twice) per capita country in the world (really number one, not the fake thing like the Swiss) in gun ownership.

So the number one country in owning guns leads most of the world in homicides. Look at the countries with greater homicide rates. This is the company we keep when it comes to murder. Then tell me again about how the lay people know better than this bishop, or every bishop, when it comes to the value of life.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Does anyone seriously think that criminals will submit to a background check?

If cocaine is easily smuggled into the United States, what makes anyone think that guns cannot be smuggled into the United States?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I am really surprised at the number of Catholics that think they are so much smarter than all every bishop. On poster above even made the statement that the bishop was “wrong” showing that at least one poster does not grasp the concept of right or wrong when it comes to opinion. Likewise, here we have a case of another poster that thinks himself more knowledgable than the bishop, but refers to the Swiss crime rate, which is irrelevant to the topic, instead of the murder rate, which, by the way is something the Swiss are not at the top

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
But more to the point, since the bishop was not speaking of Switzerland, but rather the United States, not the homicide rate of the United States compared to the rest of the technologically advanced countries, remembering that we are the highest (by twice) per capita country in the world (really number one, not the fake thing like the Swiss) in gun ownership.

So the number one country in owning guns leads most of the world in homicides. Look at the countries with greater homicide rates. This is the company we keep when it comes to murder. Then tell me again about how the lay people know better than this bishop, or every bishop, when it comes to the value of life.

That’s not what the charts show.

And Japan has a huge suicide rate and often multiple murder-suicides are called suicide.

 

[grammylinda]

I am a parishoner in the Diocese of Stockton. Bishop Blaire is my bishop. I do not agree with him on this issue. I support the Constitution of the United States and our 2nd Amendment rights. I am also a member of the NRA. I am a member of that organization for one reason only. I know that Communist countries first succeed in disarming their citizens . President Obama is a Communist. I am a 64 year old Grandmother of 3. I will do everything I can to prevent my beloved Grandchildren from living under Communism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Does anyone seriously think that criminals will submit to a background check?

If cocaine is easily smuggled into the United States, what makes anyone think that guns cannot be smuggled into the United States?

If background checks are required of sellers, and buyers, it could have an impact.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am a parishoner in the Diocese of Stockton. Bishop Blaire is my bishop. I do not agree with him on this issue. I support the Constitution of the United States and our 2nd Amendment rights. I am also a member of the NRA. I am a member of that organization for one reason only. I know that Communist countries first succeed in disarming their citizens . President Obama is a Communist. I am a 64 year old Grandmother of 3. I will do everything I can to prevent my beloved Grandchildren from living under Communism.

No one, that I’ve seen, is suggesting disarming Americans. The focus is on specific type guns, as used in some of the most recent mass shootings.

 

[matt1985]

Having shot an ar 15 at a gun range I would say I agree. An AR 15 is very dangerous. One can have a possibility of surviving a gunshot from a smaller weapon, but ar 15 and ar 15 variants carry too much fire power. I went to a range with my friend’s friend and had a good time. I just think that given how many actual lives are at stake because of the availability of these types of weapons, they should be banned and taken away.

Let assault weapons be rented at gun ranges and be returned if people need to shoot for fun. There is no need for an assault weapon or variant at home.** Perhaps guns need to be rented out to hunters and shooters at ranges rather than kept at home.** I think this is a compromise people can live with.

 

[Robertanthony]

Does anyone seriously think that criminals will submit to a background check?
If cocaine is easily smuggled into the United States, what makes anyone think that guns cannot be smuggled into the United States?

 

[ProVobis]

President Obama is a Communist. I am a 64 year old Grandmother of 3. I will do everything I can to prevent my beloved Grandchildren from living under Communism.

Oh, please. You if anyone should remember everyone opposing LBJ’s Vietnam War was labelled a communist. I really doubt people know what real communism is like. My dad could have told them.

 

[pnewton]

That’s not what the charts show.

And Japan has a huge suicide rate and often multiple murder-suicides are called suicide.

Which part do you question, America is number one in gun ownership or all the homicide rates? (Not Japan. That is only one country and not the one mentioned.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

You ARE saying that your children and grand kids should have greater rights and easier access to your weapons than at least some of the other people who might obtain those guns from you.

Guns should not be put in the hands of people who have not been background checked for criminal history and mental health issues full stop. Doesn’t matter who they are, how they obtain the guns or why you might want to make it comparatively easy for them.

It is already illegal for persons with felony records to have guns. It is already illegal for people to knowingly sell or give guns to people with felony records. It is already illegal for a person under guardianship to have a gun. It is already illegal to sell or give a gun to a person who is under guardianship. It is already illegal for a person under an order of protection to have a gun. What is not illegal is to give or sell a gun to a person who is dangerously mentally imbalanced but who is not a felon or under guardianship. But if any laws are passed prohibiting that, they will also have to amend a recent amendment to HIPAA which prohibits disclosure of mental health records to any national data base. You may recall that the James Holmes’ psychiatrist would not release his records even after the shootings, and certainly didn’t do it beforehand.

Present gun control laws are very little enforced. Why do you not focus on enforcing the laws that exist, and perhaps allowing disclosure of mental health records of persons exhibiting psychotic conditions to law enforcement instead of focusing on people who have never done anything?

Why, indeed, is this administration doing that? When it focuses on law abiding citizens instead of dangerous persons, it suggests a motivation to simply remove all guns from citizens’ hands.

 

[YADA]

I believe this Bishop is entitled to his opinion. As a Marine Corp veteran - I took an oath to defend this country and its constitution from all enemies - foreign and domestic …

Part of that defense was to defend his right to his opinion.

The 2nd Amendment is part of that constitution and our heritage.

Some people believe that we have a 2nd Amendment for hunting, self protection or collecting something … In fact - we have the 2nd Amendment specifically to keep us free government tyranny … We fought a war of independence to free us from our [then] government and the lack of respect for its subjects that government afforded … Our freedom was bought at a price … the price was the life and blood of some and the hardship, blood, seat and tears of all who stood for freedom. The right of the people to have and bear arms without government infringement is exactly what keeps us free and why our founding fathers authored the 2nd Amendment.

I find it ironic that our government spends time figuring out who, if and when to arm the oppressed citizens of other countries … then actually spends millions of dollars arming the chosen citizens in order aid them in their fight for freedom from tyranny and dictator rulers … most recently think of the Arab world Egypt, Libya, Syria …

While at the same time our government wants to dis-arm its own citizens …

We are the freest citizens in the world [which has its cost too - in tragedies perpetrated by sinful people] precisely because we have the right to bear arms …

Our freedom has made America and the world a far safer place then it would be without us … not perfect - but safer …

 

[Ridgerunner]

Having shot an ar 15 at a gun range I would say I agree. An AR 15 is very dangerous. One can have a possibility of surviving a gunshot from a smaller weapon, but ar 15 and ar 15 variants carry too much fire power. I went to a range with my friend’s friend and had a good time. I just think that given how many actual lives are at stake because of the availability of these types of weapons, they should be banned and taken away.

Let assault weapons be rented at gun ranges and be returned if people need to shoot for fun. There is no need for an assault weapon or variant at home.** Perhaps guns need to be rented out to hunters and shooters at ranges rather than kept at home.** I think this is a compromise people can live with.

An AR15 is not as powerful as the standard 30-06 deer rifle by quite a bit. Nor, at close range, is it as deadly as a 12 gauge shotgun, the standard quail gun.

Of course, you make it abundantly clear that you simply don’t want anybody to have what you think of as an “assault rifle”, which is nothing but a single shot rifle that doesn’t have to be reloaded or re-cocked after every shot. That would eliminate all deer rifles and a lot of shotguns. Virtually every pistol operates the same way.

But then, you don’t want anybody to have any kind of rifle, perhaps any kind of gun, so I guess we know where you stand.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No one, that I’ve seen, is suggesting disarming Americans. The focus is on specific type guns, as used in some of the most recent mass shootings.

Nobody thought Obamacare would end up forcing Catholic institutions to provide their employees with abortifacients either, but it did.

 

[markomalley]

Why is the mere mention of gun control automatically equated to taking away guns from law-abiding citizens? Gun control or restrictions mean reducing the probability that guns will get into the wrong hands: not only those of criminals, but those of dangerously mentally disturbed people (not all mentally disturbed people are dangerous, let alone criminals). And with fewer guns (such as assault weapons) in circulation, criminals are limited in terms of the availability of certain kinds of gun.

With regard to protection from home invasion, families should have a means of defense and no one is suggesting that should be taken away from them; however, people talk about home invasion (or government invasion) as if this were an everyday occurrence.

Amendment rights? It’s still there, but in modified form, just like freedom of speech, the press, and so on. There is not, never was, nor should be absolute freedom in any domain.

For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein has called for just that. See this video from her appearance on 60 minutes a few years ago. I see nothing from her that indicates she’s changed that position.

If you actually look, you will see that there are a number of pundits who are calling for just that. Most Members of Congress, even left wing ones, will not publicly espouse that position, as they recognize, as with most leftist tactics, it’s better to be incremental in their approach. Ban so-called assault weapons this time. Handguns next time. Force background checks on buying ammunition this time. Confiscate guns from those who have had prescriptions for antidepressants or other medications next time. And so on.

The end goal is the same. That great leftist commentator Bill Maher probably expressed the opinion of many in Congress.