Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I pointed out before, to fire a projectile.

Now, perhaps you could explain how how universal background checks (80%+ of guns used in crimes are purchased illegally or through straw purchases) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.

It’s been previously posted that the 1994 bans had no measurable effect.

Denial, does not change history. Guns were invented for destruction. Changes were made to maximize it’s potential to kill.

I have explained background checks, and the lack of through private sales.

It’s a bad world we live in. We will always have to work to overcome evil. Leaving society, or parts of, in danger is a choice we have, or not. Arguing, laws don’t work is apathetic, and the same as giving up. We are a people of hope, for all and not just ourselves.

 

[scipio337]

Denial, does not change history. Guns were invented for destruction. Changes were made to maximize it’s potential to kill.

I have explained background checks, and the lack of through private sales.

It’s a bad world we live in. We will always have to work to overcome evil. Leaving society, or parts of, in danger is a choice we have, or not. Arguing, laws don’t work is apathetic, and the same as giving up. We are a people of hope, for all and not just ourselves.

Gunpowder predates the weapon itself for a few centures. The original use was for fireworks to ward off evil spirits, and some perceived health benefits.

I’m a pragmatist, along with being a person of hope, and I don’t think anyone, not you, or the bishop, or the President have sufficiently given enough evidence to curtail our Bill of Rights. I’m willing to give suggestions for laws a chance, but so far, we’re running on some type of perceived benefit that isn’t there.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Gunpowder predates the weapon itself for a few centures. The original use was for fireworks to ward off evil spirits, and some perceived health benefits.

I’m a pragmatist, along with being a person of hope, and I don’t think anyone, not you, or the bishop, or the President have sufficiently given enough evidence to curtail our Bill of Rights. I’m willing to give suggestions for laws a chance, but so far, we’re running on some type of perceived benefit that isn’t there.

And you would be correct.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Gunpowder predates the weapon itself for a few centures. The original use was for fireworks to ward off evil spirits, and some perceived health benefits.

I’m a pragmatist, along with being a person of hope, and I don’t think anyone, not you, or the bishop, or the President have sufficiently given enough evidence to curtail our Bill of Rights. I’m willing to give suggestions for laws a chance, but so far, we’re running on some type of perceived benefit that isn’t there.

Bill of Rights > fellowman?

Bill of rights does not prevent government regulations. They are not eternal rights.

 

[scipio337]

Bill of Rights > fellowman?

Bill of rights does not prevent government regulations. They are not eternal rights.

First, you would have to prove that suspending parts of the Bill of Rights would have an effect on our fellowman. This should be the starting point.

Those amendments are the closest thing to “human rights” we have, and I would say there would need to be a pretty big compelling interest required to suspend it.

If we act to suspend any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, should we just apply it haphazardly?

“In order to cut down on the number of terrorism attacks at home and abroad, saying anything negative about Islam or Muhammed is no longer allowed”. Would that work? Would it save lives if we make it illegal for a pastor in Florida from burining a Qu’ran?

 

[SamH]

Criminals > law abiding citizens?

 

[10gr8kids]

So we try and legislate one, and just overlook the other?

One is already legislated. If it were legal to kill innocent people with a gun that would be immoral and would require us to work to legislate it. If abortion were made illegal, no one would try to outlaw the surgical instruments used to perform abortions.

 

[SamH]

Everyone knows that if you disarm the law abiding the criminal element will follow suit - or will they? I can’t seem to figure out how all these mass shootings happen in gun freezones…

Shouldn’t they happen at gun shows?

 

[10gr8kids]

First, you would have to prove that suspending parts of the Bill of Rights would have an effect on our fellowman. This should be the starting point.

This would definitely have an effect on our fellowman, that it would be a GOOD effect is highly unlikely.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Gunpowder predates the weapon itself for a few centures. The original use was for fireworks to ward off evil spirits, and some perceived health benefits.

I’m a pragmatist, along with being a person of hope, and I don’t think anyone, not you, or the bishop, or the President have sufficiently given enough evidence to curtail our Bill of Rights. I’m willing to give suggestions for laws a chance, but so far, we’re running on some type of perceived benefit that isn’t there.

No, from the perspective of the people pushing this there is a definite benefit-- more law abiding will be disarmed, gun ownership will become more onerous and therefore, more folks may be discouraged from owning a weapon. From their perspective, those are benefits. It is why they admit there proposals wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook, or Colombine, or Aurora, or lower crime. Because that’s not the goal. Disarmament is- regardless of whether it lowers crime or not.

In fact, from their perspective laws or regulations which actually do lower crime rates or prevent spree killings are detrimental. Because then they would be unable to push for even stricter gun laws. It is beneficial to their purpose for gun crime to continue because their position will be the last round of controls weren’t strict enough so additional laws will be required.

 

[pnewton]

Your opinion is incorrect.

Ender

This is too priceless! This statement is indicative of, well, life, the universe and everything.

Now you guys can return to patting each other on the back for your agreement in your disagreement with this bishop.

 

[ishii]

Abortion is evil, and Catholics are obligated, forbidden even, to participate. It is a life issue. When a madman picks up a gun and takes the lives of a group of innocent people, it is equally evil. Our duties for life are the same for all people, from conception until natural death. We don’t limit ourselves to a single issue. We speak out on all.

You are presenting a false comparison. The correct comparison is this: It is legal for a doctor to kill a baby inside the womb. It is also legal to own and use a gun. The former is evil; The latter is not evil but a right that ought to be protected. To see somebody compare these two issues as if they are morally equivalent is to glimpse the inside of the mind of a liberal. It is not a pretty sight.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Now you guys can return to patting each other on the back for your agreement in your disagreement with this bishop.

For the record, disagreeing with the bishop on gun control is not the same as disagreeing with the bishop on the abortion issue. One is an issue related to an opinion of what is the best policy. The other is a clear instruction based on faith and morals regarding the sanctity of life. Big difference. I hope that it’s clear now

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First, you would have to prove that suspending parts of the Bill of Rights would have an effect on our fellowman. This should be the starting point.

Those amendments are the closest thing to “human rights” we have, and I would say there would need to be a pretty big compelling interest required to suspend it.

If we act to suspend any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, should we just apply it haphazardly?

“In order to cut down on the number of terrorism attacks at home and abroad, saying anything negative about Islam or Muhammed is no longer allowed”. Would that work? Would it save lives if we make it illegal for a pastor in Florida from burining a Qu’ran?

We have a higher calling than a bill of rights given us by a worldly government.

Gun controls are not a loss of the bill of rights. Universal background checks would have no impact on a law abiding citizen, and is not a loss of a right. Even if it’s a small impact, it makes it a bit harder for criminals to get weapons through private sales. Right now, a criminal with a pocket full of cash can add culpability to a law abiding citizen who trusts a face, and a hand full of cash. As it is right now, law abiding citizens are arguing against the simplest measures, because of partisanship. Partisanship, misuse of a bill of rights, money, guns, etc. is coming before the welfare of others. Of that, which has our higher calling called us to love, as He loves us?

Your last paragraph could simply be addressed by following the example of our Pope. Craziness begets craziness.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Everyone knows that if you disarm the law abiding the criminal element will follow suit - or will they? I can’t seem to figure out how all these mass shootings happen in gun freezones…

Shouldn’t they happen at gun shows?

Did you miss the news a few weeks ago when there were accidental shootings at the gun show? People were running over each other to get out, as opposed to ‘defending.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are presenting a false comparison. The correct comparison is this: It is legal for a doctor to kill a baby inside the womb. It is also legal to own and use a gun. The former is evil; The latter is not evil but a right that ought to be protected. To see somebody compare these two issues as if they are morally equivalent is to glimpse the inside of the mind of a liberal. It is not a pretty sight.

Ishii

It is a correct comparison. Abortion is evil, and a madman picking up a gun and killing an innocent person is equally evil. The laws of the this country, the same that gave you gun rights, has made it legally right for abortions to exist.

There are no pretty sights in politics, from what I’m seeing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For the record, disagreeing with the bishop on gun control is not the same as disagreeing with the bishop on the abortion issue. One is an issue related to an opinion of what is the best policy. The other is a clear instruction based on faith and morals regarding the sanctity of life. Big difference. I hope that it’s clear now

Ishii

What is made clear is not a pretty sight.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[scipio337]

We have a higher calling than a bill of rights given us by a worldly government.

Obviously.

Gun controls are not a loss of the bill of rights. Universal background checks would have no impact on a law abiding citizen, and is not a loss of a right. Even if it’s a small impact, it makes it a bit harder for criminals to get weapons through private sales. Right now, a criminal with a pocket full of cash can add culpability to a law abiding citizen who trusts a face, and a hand full of cash. As it is right now, law abiding citizens are arguing against the simplest measures, because of partisanship. Partisanship, misuse of a bill of rights, money, guns, etc. is coming before the welfare of others. Of that, which has our higher calling called us to love, as He loves us?

Are you sure you aren’t the one arguing from a point of partisanship? You haven’t begun to establish how these laws would reduce gun crime. Period.

First, you would have to show how universal background checks (80%+ of guns used in crimes are purchased illegally or through straw purchases) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.

That’s the starting point of the conservation, PS. You’re arguing from a point that it’s a forgone conclusion, when clearly it isn’t.

No one is opposed to keeping guns away from convicted criminals, etc. Once you establish how your proposed bill would do that, we can start to see how they can be applied in the least invasive way to law abiding citizens.

Your last paragraph could simply be addressed by following the example of our Pope. Craziness begets craziness.

It’s a valid analogy on what rights we are willing to give up on claims that it will save lives. I would say the amount of empirical support is pretty equal.

 

[scipio337]

It is a correct comparison. Abortion is evil, and a madman picking up a gun and killing an innocent person is equally evil. The laws of the this country, the same that gave you gun rights, has made it legally right for abortions to exist.

There are no pretty sights in politics, from what I’m seeing.

So those laws are equally immoral? One of those laws protects a fundamental right (self defense), while the other denies a basic right (life), it isn’t a correct comparison. You just equated gun ownership to “madman picking up a gun and killing an innocent person”.

“Correct”??

You continue to make some analogy that gun ownership, or opposition to gun laws is immoral.

Which Bishop has claimed this?

 

[Ender]

This is too priceless! This statement is indicative of, well, life, the universe and everything…

It occurred to me at the time I posted that that it was likely to raise an eyebrow or two but my objective was not quite as simpleminded as it might appear. The question of whether statements from individual bishops or committees of the USCCB are to be considered the opinions of all US bishops or even a consensus of bishops has a right or wrong answer. An opinion as to whether chocolate is better than vanilla does not.

Prodigal Son has repeatedly insisted, despite equally repeated citations of church documents contradicting his position, that accepting or rejecting the opinions expressed by the handful of bishops who have spoken out on gun control is a moral choice. That is a statement about fact, it is not merely an opinion. And, as a matter of fact, it is incorrect.

I am not interested in debating the issue with PS any longer but I am concerned that others who read this thread may be mislead by his assertions and that was why I made my comment.

Bringing some levity to your day was an unintended side benefit.

Ender