“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
A total ban on firearms is exactly what the goal is and there is no denying it.
Interesting. I was not aware of some of this, so thank you.
From somebody who used an M-16 (the full auto mil-spec version of an AR-15), it’s not a really good weapon (in my opinion). I don’t want to focus so much on the weapon, but on the round.
Which kind of violence do you mean: war, abortion, rape, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, hate crimes?
All of those and more. Most anti-gunners I’ve seen do not care about stopping city violence in general. Why actually address the social and economical issues of poverty areas where a lot of crime happens when they can just pass ineffective laws and prosecute the law abiding instead of criminals?
You are mistaken to think that the bishops do not work against abortion. There is more than one issue in a secular world, and our bishops speak on many of them.
Actually, your first statement is incorrect: in the UK the murder rate is the lowest since 1972, and violent crime is at its lowest since 1978. People often quote sensationalist and innaccurate media reports produced by polictical parties - the facts are very different:
My point is that the same cannot be said of the bishop’s comments because it is assumed that when a bishop speaks it is not merely his personal opinion of correct vs incorrect like you and I would give but of moral vs immoral. That implication is inherent in any comment he makes even in this case where there is no basis for it.
There is no consensus whatever even among American bishops, let alone within the entire church. In fact it would seem that most bishops have had the good sense not to address an issue so far outside their competence.
So the bullet enters and flips and moves around, possibly striking several organs?
Seems we have a consensus on those that speak out, some of who represents committees. How we live in a secular world is inside their competence.
And we know how far Ms. Feinstein’s ‘desire’ went, or will go. Now, in reality how does stricter background checks, or registrations, adversely affect one’s ability to defend? That’s where the issue has primarily gone.
Hasn’t there been some back stepping on that issue? We speak in realities. Most posters are against stricter background checks, or registrations. Let’s speak on why that is.
This is not a good idea, at all, and isn’t something I can live with. Does the 2nd Amendment mention “renting”?
I am surprised at the number of bishops who cannot separate practical from moral concerns and at the number of Catholics who take their political opinions seriously.
Well I too think the bishop’s opinion was wrong (incorrect). I also think he was wrong (mistaken) in offering an opinion in the first place as it was wrong (improper) to suggest there is a question of right or wrong (sinful) involved in determining the best approach to reducing the number and severity of violent incidents. I also think his assertion that greater restrictions on gun ownership will contribute to a culture of life to be wrong (utterly bogus).
Your claim was that there was a consensus within the church, not that there was a consensus within a committee somewhere within the bowels of the USCCB.
This is just vague enough to sound reasonable but the question is not “living in a secular world” but rather the much more specific “what gun control laws should we have?” And that question is no part of their competence nor should we look to them for solutions. This is a lay problem and it is not only our right but our responsibility to address it.
What do you mean by “too much” firepower? How do you define that?
Really. [sarcasm]