Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Background checks are already in place. This is a non issue.

Background checks are in place for all sales? No. They are not required of private sales, an if you look at the investigative video, from CNN, you’ll see purchases made at gun shows where not even names were exchanged.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well I’m afraid you’ve decided to be obstinately blind.

I myself support “measures to control the sale and use of firearms”.

However, unlike you, I have not put words into the Bishops mouths by speculating what those measures are when they self-admitedly do not know themselves.

Those with ears should hear.

Apparently, you are earless.

I have not put any words in the bishops mouths, as I’ve told you repeatedly. It seems somethings are only said to make it personal. I guess my view is stronger than we thought.

 

[Lapey]

Show me one bishop that disagrees with the 2000 statement, or who criticizes it for being vague. That document was approved by a full body of bishops.

I already did, several times…my bishop has not made this binding to the diocese’ faithful; neither has any other bishop. The responsibility of proof is on you.

 

[Lapey]

Background checks are in place for all sales? No. They are not required of private sales, an if you look at the investigative video, from CNN, you’ll see purchases made at gun shows where not even names were exchanged.

So by changing this law and close this supposed loophole, will felons conduct background checks on felons? Also, where is the evidence of these type rare situations led to crime. They do not.

 

[Lapey]

I have not put any words in the bishops mouths, as I’ve told you repeatedly. It seems somethings are only said to make it personal. I guess my view is stronger than we thought.

But you have and you refuse to accept what has been explained to you. Unless a bishop issues the directive to his diocese, in other words issues the directive to follow some idea, then his flock is not bound by the conferences’ resolution.

You can continue if you like but you are mistaken.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Show me one bishop that disagrees with the 2000 statement, or who criticizes it for being vague. That document was approved by a full body of bishops.

It’s so general that even I don’t disagree with it. Nor do I think anyone on here would either.

Show us one bishop who specifically says I am morally obligated to run a background check on my son before I give him a rifle. Not even Bp Blaire says that.

As I have said more times than I care to count in this awful, repetitive thread, those seeking to impinge on any freedom of the law-abiding should feel obligated to demonstrate convincingly that it will serve a beneficial societal purpose to do so.

That has not been done in this thread.

It’s always back to attributing things to the bishops that they have not said. Probably that’s because there IS no demonstrable societal benefit in requiring me to run a background check on my son before giving him a rifle, or being obliged to get a background check on my brother before trading a gun with him or running a background check on myself before allowing myself to inherit my father’s pistol.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Background checks are in place for all sales? No. They are not required of private sales, an if you look at the investigative video, from CNN, you’ll see purchases made at gun shows where not even names were exchanged.

They’re in place for all LEGAL, Dealer to Private Party sales.

That CNN video was staged from what i remembered, they video taped legal transactions, than recoiled in horror as they played them out of context.

If background checks on private party transactions were that important, the left shouldn’t have destroyed their opportune chance of implementing them by attempting to thrown the kitchen sink in as well. They had a chance. I even feel its a travesty that part wasn’t enacted, as it is prudent and reasonable. Unfortunately, the legislation couldn’t be kept at that, which made it a mockery and travesty.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have not put any words in the bishops mouths, as I’ve told you repeatedly. It seems somethings are only said to make it personal. I guess my view is stronger than we thought.

No, weaker.

Where is the defense of requiring me to run a background check on my son before giving him a rifle made on its own merits?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I already did, several times…my bishop has not made this binding to the diocese’ faithful; neither has any other bishop. The responsibility of proof is on you.

You are free to choose. The proof is there, and in what I consider simple terms, by a full body of bishops. There are no dissenting, or clarifying, voices on the subject from any bishop. I accept what they say, and will support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They’re in place for all LEGAL, Dealer to Private Party sales.

That CNN video was staged from what i remembered, they video taped legal transactions, than recoiled in horror as they played them out of context.

If background checks on private party transactions were that important, the left shouldn’t have destroyed their opportune chance of implementing them by attempting to thrown the kitchen sink in as well. They had a chance. I even feel its a travesty that part wasn’t enacted, as it is prudent and reasonable. Unfortunately, the legislation couldn’t be kept at that, which made it a mockery and travesty.

They don’t even have the votes to pass it in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are free to choose. The proof is there, and in what I consider simple terms, by a full body of bishops. There are no dissenting, or clarifying, voices on the subject from any bishop. I accept what they say, and will support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

We ALL support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. It’s when specific proposals are made that people can, and have every moral right, to disagree. The “full body” of bishops had no specific proposals whatever.

 

[Sehnsucht]

It’s so general that even I don’t disagree with it. Nor do I think anyone on here would either.

Show us one bishop who specifically says I am morally obligated to run a background check on my son before I give him a rifle. Not even Bp Blaire says that.

As I have said more times than I care to count in this awful, repetitive thread, those seeking to impinge on any freedom of the law-abiding should feel obligated to demonstrate convincingly that it will serve a beneficial societal purpose to do so.

That has not been done in this thread.

It’s always back to attributing things to the bishops that they have not said. Probably that’s because there IS no demonstrable societal benefit in requiring me to run a background check on my son before giving him a rifle, or being obliged to get a background check on my brother before trading a gun with him or running a background check on myself before allowing myself to inherit my father’s pistol.

This basically.

When crafting legislation in a free and equal society the question should never be “Why do you need guns?” or “Why shouldn’t we do this?” the question should be “What is the least restriction of liberty on our citizens that we must impose for the safe functioning of society?”

Restricting the right to bear arms doesn’t have empirical proof to reduce gun crimes, and if the uptick of violent crime following the ban in the UK on firearms (prior of course to the Labour government deciding to alter the way they calculate their statistics), may in fact have negative outcomes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, weaker.

Where is the defense of requiring me to run a background check on my son before giving him a rifle not made on its own merits?

Well, it certainly seems I draw a lot of personal criticisms, condemnations, and specific wording that I consider only to inflame. The bars been raised and met, and statements from the bishops clarified. When I said that exceptions for certain transfers could be made, it became ‘it won’t work if that is allowed.’ But, you keep repeating the same objections, that have been addressed.

When so many ‘political’ objections are made, it’s clear where the nerve has been struck on those who state those type objections.

We’re all responsible to run our own race, and we’re all free to choose how we’re going to do that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This basically.

When crafting legislation in a free and equal society the question should never be “Why do you need guns?” or “Why shouldn’t we do this?” the question should be “What is the least restriction of liberty on our citizens that we must impose for the safe functioning of society?”

Restricting the right to bear arms doesn’t have empirical proof to reduce gun crimes, and if the uptick of violent crime following the ban in the UK on firearms (prior of course to the Labour government deciding to alter the way they calculate their statistics), may in fact have negative outcomes.

What is more important to Christians? Liberty of a secular government, or living our lives for others?

 

[InigoMontoya]

They don’t even have the votes to pass it in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

I think they might have been able to get it through, a few months ago, had they limited it to just that. Requiring an FFL dealer to act as an intermediary, similar to how it’s required with private party pistol transactions in many states. It would have been hard to argue that would be unduly burdensome, or intrusive, and it would be reasonable to presume that it could make an effective difference. If nothing else, it would end the rally of the left screaming about loopholes. IMO.

I think that could have passed, I also think its reasonable. Unfortunately the left tried to tie it with firearm registration and other nonsense, which led to a colossal failure - thankfully.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We ALL support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. It’s when specific proposals are made that people can, and have every moral right, to disagree. The “full body” of bishops had no specific proposals whatever.

Support measures to control the sale an use of firearms is specific. When we have loopholes that allows an easy access to guns for anyone and people argue against universal background checks, something is blocking their view, in my honest opinion.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The bishops have called for measures to control the sale and use of firearms, Measures, such as background checks, that would not impact owning, carrying, or having a concealed weapon permit.

I’ll post again so the lurkers can see your terrible disservice to the Bishops as you put words into their mouths.

Can you post where the Bishops call for background checks that are not in place today?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So by changing this law and close this supposed loophole, will felons conduct background checks on felons? Also, where is the evidence of these type rare situations led to crime. They do not.

Hopefully “law abiding” sellers would feel obligated to participate forcing buyers into background checks. It’s common sense to recognize there’s a gap in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. You want proof, where a gun violence perpetrator obtains a gun, circumventing the background checks, and then publicly states, 'I committed this crime with an illegally purchased gun?" Right.

The Pope recently spoke on living our lives for others, or…

 

[Sehnsucht]

What is more important to Christians? Liberty of a secular government, or living our lives for others?

Considering that unless freely chosen a choice means nothing, the absolute duty of a Christian ought to be to protect liberty and secular government.

Freedom is a greater good than mere existence, and love compelled isn’t really love.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Support measures to control the sale an use of firearms is specific. When we have loopholes that allows an easy access to guns for anyone and people argue against universal background checks, something is blocking their view, in my honest opinion.

Frankly, at this point, I doubt the honesty of your opinion.

Your continued placement of your ideas into the Bishops mouths is shameful.