Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[SamH]

How many does ‘don’t usually’ cover? Are you saying that criminals wouldn’t take advantage of a private sale to gain a gun?

According to the justice department they usually don’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

According to the justice department they usually don’t.

The shooter that attacked the first responders gained possession through a straw purchase. I don’t know if they ‘negotiated’ the price.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

There are many on the Left who say tighter controls on the Freedom of Speech will quiet the “religious extremists Catholics” speaking against homosexual and abortion “rights”. How do the bishops feel about their primary constitutional right being attacked? The bishops, when issuing a sectarian/political opinion, are no more credible nor have any more influence than any other citizen.

 

[scipio337]

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

The link provides the video story they ran a few days ago. They stated there were 3 instances where the sellers requested ID, and refused the sale.

Thank you. I wasn’t claiming you “made it up”, but wanted somehthing I could watch myself.

 

[pete_29]

Restoring God to the center is placing on faith in Him, and not of ourselves armed with guns.

It also means placing our faith in Him and not politicians.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It also means placing our faith in Him and not politicians.

It does, but it does not remove the bishops that have spoken out to support stricter controls, or would you say we should place our faith in Him and not politicians on ALL issues?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you. I wasn’t claiming you “made it up”, but wanted somehthing I could watch myself.

No problem. Like everyone else, I am at the mercy of the media for information. The same as they can be accused of ‘slants,’ conservative news sources can ‘slant’ simply by refusing the same type reporting. It’s hard to have access to truly unbiased information.

When a hidden camera story is provided as a source, we see that it is immediately dismissed because ‘criminals don’t usually…’ I thought it was common knowledge that some criminals have large amounts of money, of which full price on a weapon is nothing but the cost of doing business for them.

The same dismissals were received on a Bureau of Justice poll of criminals, even in the face of the shooter who killed first responders admitted obtaining his AR15 through a straw purchase, in a letter.

Statistics should not be dismissed simply because we don’t like the outcome. There is a problem; we all know that. For me, as a gun owner, I don’t see the problem with stricter background checks, and registrations, at the very least. I am ‘up in the air,’ so to speak, on the issue of banning certain weapons. I don’t see those certain weapons as useful, or sportsman like, for hunting, which is my primary use of guns, and they seem to instigate a certain air of ‘power’ with some people; that I believe is evident in the people with some type problem that cause them to seek these weapons out for mass destruction. With that said, I don’t see this debate as ‘all or nothing,’ as it seems some present it. There is a compromise, in my honest opinion. I also believe, as Christians, we are called to make sacrifices for the benefit of others, and background checks, and registrations, are minor inconveniences, in the face of the problems we’ve seen in recent months.

 

[scipio337]

No problem. Like everyone else, I am at the mercy of the media for information. The same as they can be accused of ‘slants,’ conservative news sources can ‘slant’ simply by refusing the same type reporting. It’s hard to have access to truly unbiased information.

When a hidden camera story is provided as a source, we see that it is immediately dismissed because ‘criminals don’t usually…’ I thought it was common knowledge that some criminals have large amounts of money, of which full price on a weapon is nothing but the cost of doing business for them.

The same dismissals were received on a Bureau of Justice poll of criminals, even in the face of the shooter who killed first responders admitted obtaining his AR15 through a straw purchase, in a letter.

Statistics should not be dismissed simply because we don’t like the outcome. There is a problem; we all know that. For me, as a gun owner, I don’t see the problem with stricter background checks, and registrations, at the very least. I am ‘up in the air,’ so to speak, on the issue of banning certain weapons. I don’t see those certain weapons as useful, or sportsman like, for hunting, which is my primary use of guns, and they seem to instigate a certain air of ‘power’ with some people; that I believe is evident in the people with some type problem that cause them to seek these weapons out for mass destruction. With that said, I don’t see this debate as ‘all or nothing,’ as it seems some present it. There is a compromise, in my honest opinion. I also believe, as Christians, we are called to make sacrifices for the benefit of others, and background checks, and registrations, are minor inconveniences, in the face of the problems we’ve seen in recent months.

I don’t dismiss the information, but like to see the original source, especially when it runs contrary to my own personal experience.

If I could turn in all of my guns, with the guarantee that an incident like this would never happen, or that it would reduce overall gun deaths, I certainly would. But as many have pointed out, only 18% of gun deaths are from the lawful owner of the weapon, and in this case, straw purchases and stolen weapons are the main culprits.

We have 22,000 gun laws in this country. I don’t think 22,001 laws will solve anything, especially when it is as poorly crafted and invasive as the recently proposed one.

 

[Cider]

How many times are people going to post these polls that clearly have nothing at all to do with the actual content of the proposed bill? I’ll answer myself. They’ll keep doing it as long as the uninformed fall for the bait and switch.

 

[Sporkbeard]

What you seem to fail to grasp… is criminals will still be able to get guns. Matter of fact… they can get guns easier and cheaper. The law would’ve changed nothing save to make it worse for law abiding ppl to get guns.

Anyway… thankfully it failed.

There are no background checks for private sales, which is the cause of attention on gun shows. So, they have background checks, but not in all instances.

I am law abiding and have no qualms about any of these type changes. I purchased a gun a week ago. The background check was no problem for me, and I see it as a small inconvenience, or sacrifice made for the sake of society.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…

I also believe, as Christians, we are called to make sacrifices for the benefit of others, and background checks, and registrations, are minor inconveniences, in the face of the problems we’ve seen in recent months.

…

The minor incovenience of registration of guns in Germany in 1932 was the precursor and enabler of disarmament of Jews in 1938.

I believe as Christians we need to be aware of the actual likely outcomes of our actions. Know history, understand evil. Disarming victims doesn’t help any of the problems we’ve seen in recent months.

Even the proponents of these inconveniences have admitted they would not have prevented Sandy Hook, or Colombine, or Virginia Tech, or Aurora – even though those were cited as justifications. Including dragging the victims and their families into it. So what’s the real purpose? Why aren’t we debating laws which actually would reduce the probablity of those incidents? Why did they wrap up all kinds of things into this law instead of sticking to the basic issues. 90% of Americans support background checks, bu the devil is in the details of what exactly that means and how it’s carried out.

• A short concise law directed specifically at background checks, strictly prohibiting a gun registry database would pass easily. This conglomeration of amendments didn’t do that, and in fact provided loophole wording allowing maintaining registries. Which is part of the reason SAF and CCRKBA initially supported it, but then withdrew their support.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What you seem to fail to grasp… is criminals will still be able to get guns. Matter of fact… they can get guns easier and cheaper. The law would’ve changed nothing save to make it worse for law abiding ppl to get guns.

Anyway… thankfully it failed.

So because criminals will still get guns, we shouldn’t try to limit how many of them get guns?

Murderers still kill people, rapists still rape, robbers still rob, guess we should give up on those too?

 

[BroomWagon]

The Obama administration sent fast and furious guns to Mexico where innocent people were killed, so I would be wary of this legislation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The minor incovenience of registration of guns in Germany in 1932 was the precursor and enabler of disarmament of Jews in 1938.

I believe as Christians we need to be aware of the actual likely outcomes of our actions. Know history, understand evil. Disarming victims doesn’t help any of the problems we’ve seen in recent months.

Even the proponents of these inconveniences have admitted they would not have prevented Sandy Hook, or Colombine, or Virginia Tech, or Aurora – even though those were cited as justifications. Including dragging the victims and their families into it. So what’s the real purpose? Why aren’t we debating laws which actually would reduce the probablity of those incidents? Why did they wrap up all kinds of things into this law instead of sticking to the basic issues. 90% of Americans support background checks, bu the devil is in the details of what exactly that means and how it’s carried out.

• A short concise law directed specifically at background checks, strictly prohibiting a gun registry database would pass easily. This conglomeration of amendments didn’t do that, and in fact provided loophole wording allowing maintaining registries. Which is part of the reason SAF and CCRKBA initially supported it, but then withdrew their support.

Sorry, I don’t believe because one party, or another, holds power in this country is equal to the controlling forces that caused the holocaust. We are, and have always been, a free country. Conspiracy theories like that are a disgrace to all that have given their lives for the sake of a free country, in my opinion.

Scriptures and the Church teaches sacrifices for the sake of others. Once again, it’s not all or nothing. A full ban on all guns would never pass. Only specific guns were being looked at, so disarming ‘victims’ is not the reality it’s being played out to be.

Because some speculate nothing could have prevented any of the tragedies, we should do nothing?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Obama administration sent fast and furious guns to Mexico where innocent people were killed, so I would be wary of this legislation.

Actually, it was a department. The same department that had similar programs under the previous administration. We need to see past politics and start dealing with problems.

 

[Sporkbeard]

Hmmm… nice to know. I’ll bet most dealers there don’t tho… and I don’t trust CNN to not have made the whole thing up.

CNN just did a story on purchasing at gun shows. No IDs, much less background checks were needed. The young man purchased 3 pistols and an AR15.

There are private sales taking place between visitors, and not necessarily vendors.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hmmm… nice to know. I’ll bet most dealers there don’t tho… and I don’t trust CNN to not have made the whole thing up.

CNN is untrustworthy, but the purchases were made? Convenient.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Sorry, I don’t believe because one party, or another, holds power in this country is equal to the controlling forces that caused the holocaust. We are, and have always been, a free country. Conspiracy theories like that are a disgrace to all that have given their lives for the sake of a free country, in my opinion.

Scriptures and the Church teaches sacrifices for the sake of others. Once again, it’s not all or nothing. A full ban on all guns would never pass. Only specific guns were being looked at, so disarming ‘victims’ is not the reality it’s being played out to be.

Because some speculate nothing could have prevented any of the tragedies, we should do nothing?

I haven’t put forward any conspiracy theory. I have simply pointed out history, how men behave.

As I have repeated in many threads-- I do not believe Americans by virtue of living in this country are by nature superior to other human being on this planet.

I have had good friends die in defense of this country. Men I worked with, men I knew and knew their families. Men I was privileged to know and serve with, who took very seriously their oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.

You seem to appreciate this country, without acknowledging that part of what makes this country great-- and preserves our freedoms-- are the check and balances our founding fathers were wise enough to provide us. The did not suffer under the delusion we are superior, just men. Just as supsceptible to temptation-- history, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, particularly in the last century has proven them to be correct. An armed populace was viewed by them as a critical check and balance on government power. Legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed and respect for the liberties and rights of the individual.

Gun control is about disarming victims. That is all it accomplishes. That is all it can hope to accomplish, the willing compliance of people who will adhere to the law. Not the criminal. Not the evil. Chicago shows exactly what happons-- the lawless have the weapons, the innocent and law abiding don’t.

Again, if we want to get serious about dealing with spree shooters- we would be dealing with gun free zones, not weapon types.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I haven’t put forward any conspiracy theory. I have simply pointed out history, how men behave.

As I have repeated in many threads-- I do not believe Americans by virtue of living in this country are by nature superior to other human being on this planet.

I have had good friends die in defense of this country. Men I worked with, men I knew and knew their families. Men I was privileged to know and serve with, who took very seriously their oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.

You seem to appreciate this country, without acknowledging that part of what makes this country great-- and preserves our freedoms-- are the check and balances our founding fathers were wise enough to provide us. The did not suffer under the delusion we are superior, just men. Just as supsceptible to temptation-- history, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, particularly in the last century has proven them to be correct. An armed populace was viewed by them as a critical check and balance on government power. Legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed and respect for the liberties and rights of the individual.

Gun control is about disarming victims. That is all it accomplishes. That is all it can hope to accomplish, the willing compliance of people who will adhere to the law. Not the criminal. Not the evil. Chicago shows exactly what happons-- the lawless have the weapons, the innocent and law abiding don’t.

Again, if we want to get serious about dealing with spree shooters- we would be dealing with gun free zones, not weapon types.

Please explain to me how background checks, and registrations disarm the law abiding citizens?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Please explain to me how background checks, and registrations disarm the law abiding citizens?

• I don’t have a problem with background checks, as I’ve said before- as long as they don’t become an excuse for registrations.
• I do, based on history, have a problem with registrations. They are historically a prelude to confiscation.