Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

But the Church teaches us we have a right to defend ourselves, the children of Sandy Hook were not killed by automatic weapons so this doesn’t even apply.

The Church teaches that a ‘legitimate authority’ has a right to defend the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. A school of children falls under that description, unless one wants to argue that those children were responsible to defend themselves.

Automatic, semi-automatic, we all know what weapons are being discussed. Semantics doesn’t remove that reality.

 

[Fairwinds]

The Church teaches that a ‘legitimate authority’ has a right to defend the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. A school of children falls under that description, unless one wants to argue that those children were responsible to defend themselves.

Automatic, semi-automatic, we all know what weapons are being discussed. Semantics doesn’t remove that reality.

exactly. the scope of the ban expands.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“tools of death” is another way of saying “assault weapons” is another kind of way of demonizing whatever one intends to ban.

Before the term ‘assault weapon’ was used, guns were invented to kill. They have been redesigned over the years to maximize efficiency of killing.

Irony in seeing ‘demonizing’ used by one who repeats ‘grabber’ over, and over.

And yet again, one who argues gun rights turns a discussion of controls back to ‘bans.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

exactly. the scope of the ban expands.

Back to bans, over and over. Must stay on bans to avoid controls like background checks. I got it.

 

[BroomWagon]

Kansas to prosecute Federal Agents who enforce Federal Gun Laws

The Hill reports that Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback just signed into law a statute that “bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines.”

Moreover, the new law makes it a felony for federal authorities to attempt to enforce federal gun control laws, treaties, or rules related to firearms within Kansas state lines. Federal agents would not be arrested but will be prosecuted on “a complaint-and-summons basis.”

Naturally, U.S. Attorney general Eric Holder is furious. Already he has sent a letter to Brownback promising, “The United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing the law.”

This is good. If the State legislates, that is one thing, the Democrats and their pro-infanticide platform have no moral authority in this.

 

[Fairwinds]

Back to bans, over and over. Must stay on bans to avoid controls like background checks. I got it.

see the thread topic. it says “Bishop”. the bishop in question wants to ban ARs. it says so in post 1.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Points that have been discussed ad nauseam. What were each of those designed to do?

The logic of my points is impeccable.

I will be pleased to repeat them as needed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

see the thread topic. it says “Bishop”. the bishop in question wants to ban ARs. it says so in post 1.

Are ARs the only guns you can use to ‘chip’ clay targets?

See, it’s not an eradication of all guns. The specific guns the bishops address are those picked up by the most recent mass shooters, and used against the innocents of society.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

see the thread topic. it says “Bishop”. the bishop in question wants to ban ARs. it says so in post 1.

Oh yes, it says bishop, chairman speaking on behalf of a committee, and on a website representing the USCCB.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Before the term ‘assault weapon’ was used, guns were invented to kill. They have been redesigned over the years to maximize efficiency of killing.

Irony in seeing ‘demonizing’ used by one who repeats ‘grabber’ over, and over.

And yet again, one who argues gun rights turns a discussion of controls back to ‘bans.’

Guns, per se, are not invented to kill. If that were the case, then there would be no small caliber guns and every discharge of a gun would cause a death.

If you, as a Catholic, intend to kill, then possession by you of a gun would be a deliberate mortal sin.

A gun is a device that expels a projectile.

However, if you, as a Catholic, intend only to stop a crime … by intimidating a home invader into leaving OR by enabling you to force a criminal down to the floor and stay there … then there is no intention to kill.

Since you claim to be an expert of some sort in firearms, I am mystified at your use of the term “assault weapon” in any context. Because to the best of our collective knowledge, the term “assault weapon” only means “scary looking” …

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Guns, per se, are not invented to kill. If that were the case, then there would be no small caliber guns and every discharge of a gun would cause a death.

If you, as a Catholic, intend to kill, then possession by you of a gun would be a deliberate mortal sin.

However, if you, as a Catholic, intend only to stop a crime … by intimidating a home invader into leaving OR by enabling you to force a criminal down to the floor and stay there … then there is no intention to kill.

Guns were invented for destruction.

False statement, unless your argument is that there are no legitimate uses of guns whatsoever? I have explained that, rather recently as a matter of fact.

Are all on the same level of responsibility? No. We can’t make a generalized argument under the guise of ‘rights.’

 

[BroomWagon]

This is fine for the Bishop to say this but there can be no Federal gun laws until a president whose administration ran fast and furious guns to Mexico is out of office. Only laws at the state level should be respected and thank goodness, officials at the state level have spoken on this.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Guns were invented for destruction.

False statement, unless your argument is that there are no legitimate uses of guns whatsoever? I have explained that, rather recently as a matter of fact.

Are all on the same level of responsibility? No. We can’t make a generalized argument under the guise of ‘rights.’

Sorry, I just don’t understand what you just wrote.

If you believe that a gun is for destruction, then you can’t have one. Because by your belief and statement, you intend to cause destruction.

The only thing a gun can do, is when someone pulls the trigger mechanism, it, as a mechanical device, sends forth a projectile. And that is all.

Your introduction of the word “rights” does not fit at all with what I wrote … non-sequitor …

My post did not mention the wording of the Second Amendment:

Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Fairwinds]

Are ARs the only guns you can use to ‘chip’ clay targets?

if you don’t know the difference between an assault rifle and a target shotgun, I’m certain you don’t actually own any “tools of death”, or at the very least you should’t own one.

See, it’s not an eradication of all guns. The specific guns the bishops address are those picked up by the most recent mass shooters, and used against the innocents of society.

the bishop’s not going to get his wish. the bottom line is you and he are going to have to live with not having ARs grabbed and no Catholic is obligated to follow his desires.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is fine for the Bishop to say this but there can be no Federal gun laws until a president whose administration ran fast and furious guns to Mexico is out of office. Only laws at the state level should be respected and thank goodness, officials at the state level have spoken on this.

Oh, we’ve found another way to dismiss guidance from a bishop? No. Different things happen in various departments under all administrations, irregardless of partisanship. That’s what this type argument is, politicizing one area to advance a personal interest in another. While the investigation may have been in err, it was an attempt to control illegal uses of guns, however sloppy it was. Similar programs were in existence prior to this administration.

We are a nation, of individual states. What you argue for leaves easy access available. Criminals are not stupid and feel confined by borders. If all they have to do is cross a state line, they will do it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry, I just don’t understand what you just wrote.

If you believe that a gun is for destruction, then you can’t have one. Because by your belief and statement, you intend to cause destruction.

The only thing a gun can do, is when someone pulls the trigger mechanism, it, as a mechanical device, sends forth a projectile. And that is all.

Your introduction of the word “rights” does not fit at all with what I wrote … non-sequitor …

My post did not mention the wording of the Second Amendment:

Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Spin and twist, if I can belittle another in their view, it will invalidate all points?

Are there legitimate uses for guns? Yes. I can’t make it any clearer. Were guns invented for efficiency in killing? Yes. Are there legitimate uses to kill? Yes.

Post didn’t mention rights, so let’s add it again. Your rights are not dominant over the rights of others. A right to own a gun does not guarantee responsible and safe ownership, among all people. That’s what the arguments of generalized rights is. They may be incompetent, but it’s their right to own a gun, even if through their negligence another person picks it up and kill a group of people

The 2nd amendment does not prevent government regulation. It’s that simple. The second amendment is not God given, it was granted through men forming a government.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

if you don’t know the difference between an assault rifle and a target shotgun, I’m certain you don’t actually own any “tools of death”, or at the very least you should’t own one.

the bishop’s not going to get his wish. the bottom line is you and he are going to have to live with not having ARs grabbed and no Catholic is obligated to follow his desires.

Semantics. It’s been explained. Trying to belittle me personally, and my knowledge of weapons is a false assumption on your part, and doesn’t address the points of the discussion. As I’ve said, that type tactic speaks to the character of a view.

The bishop’s guidance will be ignored, bottom line, his guidance will be legalistically parsed and dissected until justification of freeing ourselves from any obligation can be rationalized. And, yet again, you make it bans, as if it’s an eradication, which it’s not. There was a call to support controls. Everything he suggested is dismissed because one part just doesn’t fit a personal view, or so it seems among some.

 

[Fairwinds]

Semantics. It’s been explained. Trying to belittle me personally, and my knowledge of weapons is a false assumption on your part, and doesn’t address the points of the discussion. As I’ve said, that type tactic speaks to the character of a view.

The bishop’s guidance will be ignored, bottom line, his guidance will be legalistically parsed and dissected until justification of freeing ourselves from any obligation can be rationalized. And, yet again, you make it bans, as if it’s an eradication, which it’s not. There was a call to support controls. Everything he suggested is dismissed because one part just doesn’t fit a personal view, or so it seems among some.

the bishop called for a ban. first post.

if you had played your cards right, you’d have those trivial changes in the rejected senate bill. but you didn’t and you shot yourselves in the foot. learn from your total defeat.

that said, your claim that we Catholic gun owners are trying to free ourselves from any obligation is a flat out lie, a falsehood and an uncharitable claim for you to make.

 

[Fairwinds]

…The 2nd amendment does not prevent government regulation. It’s that simple.

that’s another strawman, no gun owner here makes that claim. you’ve been corrected a dozen times on this.

what we don’t want is your idea of regulation and grabbery.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the bishop called for a ban. first post.

if you had played your cards right, you’d have those trivial changes in the rejected senate bill. but you didn’t and you shot yourselves in the foot. learn from your total defeat.

that said, your claim that we Catholic gun owners are trying to free ourselves from any obligation is a flat out lie, a falsehood and an uncharitable claim for you to make.

Below is provided to help you with exactly what the bishops ‘called for.’

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

Immediately preceding that list, the wording says:

In their memory and for the sake of our nation, we reiterate our call made in 2000, in our statement, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, for all Americans, especially legislators, to:

ALL Americans, especially legislators. That includes Catholics. It seems some place the two separate, without Catholic always superseding the other.

Yet again, if ‘I’, to make it personal. I, neither you, were players in a game, to boast winning as if our part was some unique skill of accomplishment. You make it sound as if it has become ‘scriptures’ that cannot be readdressed.

I’m done with the off topic, and often condescending tone. We don’t have to discuss the issue with each other. It seems you are not going to change your view, and based on what you present in this discussion, and the character behind it, I can assure you, I am not swayed by your arguments.