Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Matters of life and death, even in our relationship to our fellowman, are moral issues. The politicization of Newtown was not one-sided, or we wouldn’t hear the partisan arguments surrounding it, one way or the other. So, there is no ‘moral’ high ground for not supporting any controls aimed at limiting the number of criminals, who have easy access to guns. Also, it’s not me, personally, it is the common good of all people, including those who have no interest in arming themselves.

Every time I see ‘gun grabbers,’ it makes me think quite the opposite. Guns are not saviors, and the discussion is about controls, not banning. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
its an academic discussion only. if the president hadn’t been so badly advised, his people might have won some concessions.

asserting that any second amendment advocate – especially a Catholic – considers a gun as a “savior” is a false and cheap ad hom.
 
Fairwinds said:
its an academic discussion only. if the president hadn’t been so badly advised, his people might have won some concessions.

asserting that any second amendment advocate – especially a Catholic – considers a gun as a “savior” is a false and cheap ad hom.
Click to expand...
Compromise comes from two sides.

Kind of like a repeated ‘grabbers’ association with those who are tying to discuss controls only? :rolleyes:
 
Fairwinds said:
the gun grabbers include in their numbers extremists who want to ban as much as possible, even if its outside constitutional limits and the President who may or may not be in their ranks is willing to exploit tragedies to get what he wants. they lost. game over for now.

F/
Click to expand...
Agreed. While the gun grabbers have a friendly force in the White House they forget that he’s not a fanatic about like most of them. Once the political advantage to him was lost Obama lost interest.
 
SamH said:
Agreed. While the gun grabbers have a friendly force in the White House they forget that he’s not a fanatic about like most of them. Once the political advantage to him was lost Obama lost interest.
Click to expand...
that’s it in a nutshell.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Compromise comes from two sides.

Kind of like a repeated ‘grabbers’ association with those who are tying to discuss controls only? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
its too late for compromise. you made a play and lost. you’ll get another chance some day. just not today.
 
Fairwinds said:
its too late for compromise. you made a play and lost. you’ll get another chance some day. just not today.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a mistake to think it is over. I? It’s not a game, at least to some. It shows a lack of respect for victims, in my honest opinion.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I think it’s a mistake to think it is over. I? It’s not a game, at least to some. It shows a lack of respect for victims, in my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
its a political game, and you lost, but you’ll have another chance. what gun grabbers and/or Obama did to use those families for political ends is outrageous and if anyone should be shamed, its the grabbers. for you to suggest that we second amendment supporters do not show respect and compassion for the victims and their families is just as uncalled for.

F/
 
Fairwinds said:
its a political game, and you lost, but you’ll have another chance. what gun grabbers and/or Obama did to use those families for political ends is outrageous and if anyone should be shamed, its the grabbers. for you to suggest that we second amendment supporters do not show respect and compassion for the victims and their families is just as uncalled for.

F/
Click to expand...
There are no losers for the ‘game’ I play, at least until we have been judged. Thanks for your ‘contribution’ to a constructive discussion. There’s no need to repeat ourselves in a circular discussion. It seems to lead to confusion, since it’s evident you misinterpreted my intent. I don’t enter into these discussions to offend anyone.
 
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” John Philpot Curran’s

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” unknown

You can discuss semantics. I don’t consider the stripping of my liberties and freedoms or depriving my descendants liberties and freedoms to be a game.

There are those who sincerely are pushing for nothing more than expanding background checks. There are others whose goal is civilian disarmament and every gun law is a stepping stone on that path. This is clearly evidenced by pushing gun laws which will have no affect on crime.

I will not cooperate, and I will actively oppose those measures which simply result in people being more vulnerable, at greater risk, defenseless.
 
Geist said:
…The level of cognitive dissonance required for you to praise gun laws and then state Chicago is dangerous due to easy access to guns is truly mind-boggling.

If criminals want guns, they will get guns. There is no stopping it. Chicago proves this amply no?
Click to expand...
I had to read it twice to get it myself. “Chicago has had some of the toughest gun laws in the country for over 2 decades, therefore, easy access to firearms is the cause of high murder rates in Chicago”.

Then again, there is this:

http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/Talibam_Chicago_Peace_Time_Cover.jpg
 
scipio337 said:
I had to read it twice to get it myself. “Chicago has had some of the toughest gun laws in the country for over 2 decades, therefore, easy access to firearms is the cause of high murder rates in Chicago”.
Click to expand...
The thing is, reality is on our side. To contradict reality I suppose one must subject their sense of reason to many a twist and turn. 🤷
 
pnewton said:
Geist;10680783:
I believe there are plenty of people here with enough knowledge of firearms to understand the importance of training. Pulling the trigger does nothing, if the safety is on, there is no round in the chamber or it is not pointed at the intended target.
Click to expand...
I would have assumed this falls under “common sense” but I have been accused of being overly optimistic before.
I do believe the victim of most domestic violence have more control over their safety than any law, much less some gun law. This does not equate to blame. It is** you**
Click to expand...
who use that word.

Yes, you are blaming the victim. You think a woman with no means of support can just walk out of the door from an abusive man scot free? What will she eat? Where will she sleep? If she is allowed to have friends and family that is the first place he will look no? Homeless shelters are often as dangerous as where they just came from, if not more so.

The strings of control in an abusive relationship are more complex than you seem to understand.
I myself choose to pass no judgment. I think a reasonably intelligent person recognizes the only moral “blame” has to be the person that commits the crime, neither the victim nor any statue. I think that pro-gun advocates are hypocrites if they point the finger at those wanting tighter controls abusing Newtown, when they themselves exploit other incidents.
Click to expand...
Alas, the equivalency just isn’t there. When something like Newton happens your position is to use it punish gun owners in the name of “doing something”. The fact that something will not work is not considered.

We use them to remind people they have the right to self-defense.

Yours strips away freedom and choice, ours just reminds people that have freedom and choice. Do note we never wish to require people to own guns, only they do so if they choose.
Click to expand...
 
Geist said:
… The fact that something will not work is not considered. …
Click to expand...
Well, forgive me for being a bit more cynical, I believe that many politicians and activists are well aware that these laws will not lower crime and will provide less vice greater safety. They have an almost religious antipathy to firearms and seek to eliminate them regardless of real world effects. See, it’s about their good intentions and how superior they are vice the actual results.

Hence, they take the 90% support for background checks and throw that label on a law that would do far more.

Now, here’s an article an a universal background check proposal that I could support- if the article is accurate. I’m looking for the actual proposal.

thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/#more-222983

But the problem will be that this bill, if it does proceed, will be loaded down with a lot of other things turning it into something I can’t support.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
OR THIS … put a “gun free zone” sign on the front of your house.

lead the way; show us how it’s done.
pnewton said:
Why would anyone want to lead the way into stupidity?
Click to expand...
Please note: I didn’t say that.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
OR THIS … put a “gun free zone” sign on the front of your house.

lead the way; show us how it’s done.

Please note: I didn’t say that.
Click to expand...
I consider posting any sign to burglars that would encourage a break-in to be very foolish. I have no desire to be a leader in any sort of foolishness, especially since this sign would be untrue in my case. I do not consider any suggestion that one post such a sign to be very well thought out, nor should this suggestion be a consequence for being of a different political opinion.
 
Geist said:
Yes, you are blaming the victim.
Click to expand...
You keep using that word. I do not think you are using it correctly.
The strings of control in an abusive relationship are more complex than you seem to understand.
Click to expand...
Untrue. No more will I say on this.
Alas, the equivalency just isn’t there.
Click to expand...
Using tragedy for political gain is the common thread. But then you are even incorrect in your assumption about my wanting to use Newtown to " punish gun owners in the name of doing something," which, of course, I do not want to do. It is mistaken in three ways.
 
pnewton said:
I consider posting any sign to burglars that would encourage a break-in to be very foolish. I have no desire to be a leader in any sort of foolishness, especially since this sign would be untrue in my case. I do not consider any suggestion that one post such a sign to be very well thought out, nor should this suggestion be a consequence for being of a different political opinion.
Click to expand...
[Sorry … do not understand what you just wrote.]

[are you saying that putting “no gun zone” signs at the schools, and at the movie house, and at the college campi was a bad idea … an invitation to trouble from nutjobs?]

[Please be clear.]
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte RCMS
OR THIS … put a “gun free zone” sign on the front of your house.
.
Click to expand...
Monte_RCMS said:
are you saying that putting “no gun zone” signs at the schools, and at the movie house, and at the college campi was a bad idea … an invitation to trouble from nutjobs?
Click to expand...
No. I said putting such a sign in front of, on the premises, posting a bill, on one’s house, residence, domicile, dwelling, is silly, odd and ridiculous.

The suggestion that one should do so to lead the way if they believe in any stricter gun control than oneself is not a suggestion one should take seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top