Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ender]

The guidance of the bishops is clear, as they have articulated.

The guidance of the bishop who supported the gun law debated in the Senate was misguided, as pretty much everyone recognizes.

Here we go again. Let’s generalize the flaws of controls, and in the meantime private sales continue with no background checks, or tracing, necessary.

I made no comment whatever about controls, private sales, or anything else you mentioned here. Your responses have nothing whatever to do with my comments. Do you actually read everything before you respond?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The guidance of the bishop who supported the gun law debated in the Senate was misguided, as pretty much everyone recognizes.
I made no comment whatever about controls, private sales, or anything else you mentioned here. Your responses have nothing whatever to do with my comments. Do you actually read everything before you respond?

Ender

I cannot reconcile calling a bishop’s guidance ‘misguided,’ without some authority behind the statement. Pretty much everyone here has proven not to represent a majority overall.

Yes, I read and see the arguments. If through summarizing you feel I didn’t address your points, I apologize. I, as you, are under no obligation to agree with each other; however, that doesn’t invalidate the arguments made against our posts.

 

[pnewton]

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

As opposed to “gun-grabber”? I find your criticism of this type of rhetoric to be, at minimum, ironic.

 

[Fairwinds]

As opposed to “gun-grabber”? I find your criticism of this type of rhetoric to be, at minimum, ironic.

goose/gander. if your side seriously wanted moderate reforms, your side shouldn’t have taken the approach it did since last December. you lost, now you’ll have to deal with the fallout you created. the president has been the best guns salesman this country has ever seen.

 

[ishii]

goose/gander. if your side seriously wanted moderate reforms, your side shouldn’t have taken the approach it did since last December. you lost, now you’ll have to deal with the fallout you created. the president has been the best guns salesman this country has ever seen.

Sort of woke up a sleeping giant. Obama’s arrogance and overconfidence knows no bounds - and it causes him to over-extend sometimes. This happened with Obama care too - unfortunately it didn’t result in its repealing. If you look at some accounts of those who interacted with him before he started running for office you will find a committed leftist ideologue.

Ishii

 

[Fairwinds]

Sort of woke up a sleeping giant. Obama’s arrogance and overconfidence knows no bounds - and it causes him to over-extend sometimes. This happened with Obama care too - unfortunately it didn’t result in its repealing. If you look at some accounts of those who interacted with him before he started running for office you will find a committed leftist ideologue.

Ishii

what I wish didn’t happen is this run on ammunition. its hard to find 12ga birdshot in the quantities I need. its all this stockpiling.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Throughout this discussion I have used what the bishops have said, how I see some scriptures as applicable, and even the Catechism. I have said that I view the guidance of the bishops as moral guidance, and how I try to view the issue through a spiritual eye. I have said that I have heard prayer intentions in the Church for the victims of gun violence, but never heard an intention for gun rights.

Most of the arguments, in rebuttal, have been secular. Some have hung onto a small piece of the Catechism, seemingly placing their interpretation over that of the bishops. Other arguments have been personally directed at me, my faith, and my sincerity of what I believe. In short, arguments against controls lack any spirituality I feel comfortable drawing a connection to, in order to consider the other view, as a Christian.

We have a higher calling to place all our faith and trust in. Nothing of ourselves, or that we can use on this earth, deserves the same faith and trust.

Since the beginning of the Church there has been divisions, but it was always put forth to the men of the Church to make decisions. The multitudes didn’t set upon the Apostles for their decisions in Acts, and we certainly shouldn’t be challenging them on what they call moral today.

 

[BroomWagon]

Throughout this discussion I have used what the bishops have said, how I see some scriptures as applicable, and even the Catechism. I have said that I view the guidance of the bishops as moral guidance, and how I try to view the issue through a spiritual eye. I have said that I have heard prayer intentions in the Church for the victims of gun violence, but never heard an intention for gun rights.

Most of the arguments, in rebuttal, have been secular. Some have hung onto a small piece of the Catechism, seemingly placing their interpretation over that of the bishops. Other arguments have been personally directed at me, my faith, and my sincerity of what I believe. In short, arguments against controls lack any spirituality I feel comfortable drawing a connection to, in order to consider the other view, as a Christian.

We have a higher calling to place all our faith and trust in. Nothing of ourselves, or that we can use on this earth, deserves the same faith and trust.

Since the beginning of the Church there has been divisions, but it was always put forth to the men of the Church to make decisions. The multitudes didn’t set upon the Apostles for their decisions in Acts, and we certainly shouldn’t be challenging them on what they call moral today.

I believe Jesus also taught us to love our fellow man and to respect and not judge others, to not bear false witness and speak negatively of others. Of course, we all do this.

**1 Corinthians 13:6-7

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Revelation 21:5
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe Jesus also taught us to love our fellow man and to respect and not judge others, to not bear false witness and speak negatively of others. Of course, we all do this.

Where did you get that in the post you quoted?

 

[pnewton]

goose/gander. if your side seriously wanted moderate reforms, your side shouldn’t have taken the approach it did since last December. you lost, now you’ll have to deal with the fallout you created. the president has been the best guns salesman this country has ever seen.

I do not have a side. That puts me at odds with groups like the NRA that have a side. I do believe, along with 90% of Americans in background checks. In a democracy, if something does not change, this will eventually be universal. I also would never support a ban on handguns (or all firearms). As a matter of fact, I have owned one my entire adult life. If a law is struck down because it is poorly written, then I want that to happen. It can always be corrected and re-introduced.

What I do not care about is how convenient it is to buy a gun if it affects the safety of society in the least. The convenience arguments here simply have no value for me. I see the akin to wanting to remove school zones so traffic doesn’t slow.

 

[ishii]

goose/gander. if your side seriously wanted moderate reforms, your side shouldn’t have taken the approach it did since last December. you lost, now you’ll have to deal with the fallout you created. the president has been the best guns salesman this country has ever seen.

Liberals talk a good game about being “moderate” and for only sensible gun control, e.g. But they indeed have a side - don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I am very wary of the people who say: " I don’t take sides" - they are basically phony - trying to portray themselves as “above the fray” and “non-partisan.” They are just as partisan as anyone else, but don’t admit it. Even moderate conservatives might say that some gun control makes sense and say, “by golly I own a gun” but what they don’t understand is that the current push by Obama is nothing more than an effort to exploit a tragedy to impose his agenda - which ultimately does NOT include gun ownership rights.

Ishii

 

[Fairwinds]

I do not have a side. That puts me at odds with groups like the NRA that have a side. I do believe, along with 90% of Americans in background checks. In a democracy, if something does not change, this will eventually be universal. I also would never support a ban on handguns (or all firearms). As a matter of fact, I have owned one my entire adult life.

this is what I’d do, if I were a gun grabber given the chance to draft “background check” rules knowing that 90% of the population is allegedly for it. meaning this is what the grabtastic Obama administration will do, or do something like it.

I’d use tactics that the democratic party used back in the day when it was an adjunct of the KKK, sorry, got that backwards, when the Klan was an adjunct of the Party and the Black vote had to be suppressed. then, they used poll taxes, residency requirements, literacy tests etc., to make exercising the right so onerous that the right was nearly extinguished. now I’d make the “background check” be overly intrusive and detailed, cost $200 per purchase to defray costs, create a federal agency and give a non-medical examiner the power to go through hitherto private medical records and make a determination whether the applicant were sane or healthy enough to own a gun without publishing the discretionary standards, and probably a dozen other back door ways that I could come up with given another five minutes to think about it.

I know how exactly how this game is played. the Administration starts a moral crusade exploiting a tragedy, gathers low information fellow travelers. then a one page statute passed by Congress requires hundreds of pages of federal rules to implement, all made by a federal regulatory agency acting under the direction of the Administration with potentially little or no judicial oversight. you haven’t grabbed guns, but you’ve done indirectly what you cannot do directly.

but it won’t happen, because of how badly the Administration and its shills dropped the ball this time. you’ll have to wait a while.

F/

 

[Fairwinds]

Liberals talk a good game about being “moderate” and for only sensible gun control, e.g. But they indeed have a side - don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I am very wary of the people who say: " I don’t take sides" - they are basically phony - trying to portray themselves as “above the fray” and “non-partisan.” They are just as partisan as anyone else, but don’t admit it. Even moderate conservatives might say that some gun control makes sense and say, “by golly I own a gun” but what they don’t understand is that the current push by Obama is nothing more than an effort to exploit a tragedy to impose his agenda - which ultimately does NOT include gun ownership rights.

Ishii

they’re no more moderate than we are. but here I’m being honest and they’re not. the more or less reasonable balance we have in gun law today is the result of partisan bickering and compromise. the fact is, they lost the last battle is part of that process, but they can’t face that fact honestly. no one can put on shining white armor and lead a moral crusade and then get knocked off the high horse and offer a compromise.

 

[ishii]

this is what I’d do, if I were a gun grabber given the chance to draft “background check” rules knowing that 90% of the population is allegedly for it. meaning this is what the grabtastic Obama administration will do, or do something like it.

I’d use tactics that the democratic party used back in the day when it was an adjunct of the KKK, sorry, got that backwards, when the Klan was an adjunct of the Party and the Black vote had to be suppressed. then, they used poll taxes, residency requirements, literacy tests etc., to make exercising the right so onerous that the right was nearly extinguished. now I’d make the “background check” be overly intrusive and detailed, cost $200 per purchase to defray costs, create a federal agency and give a non-medical examiner the power to go through hitherto private medical records and make a determination whether the applicant were sane or healthy enough to own a gun without publishing the discretionary standards, and probably a dozen other back door ways that I could come up with given another five minutes to think about it.

I know how exactly how this game is played. the Administration starts a moral crusade exploiting a tragedy, gathers low information fellow travelers. then a one page statute passed by Congress requires hundreds of pages of federal rules to implement, all made by a federal regulatory agency acting under the direction of the Administration with potentially little or no judicial oversight. you haven’t grabbed guns, but you’ve done indirectly what you cannot do directly.

but it won’t happen, because of how badly the Administration and its shills dropped the ball this time. you’ll have to wait a while.

F/

Brilliant, Fairwinds, in how you expose the tactics of the left/gun brabber/anti-2nd amendment folks. What gets me are the people who take Obama’s words at face value and believe that honest, fair background checks are all they are after and that a more sinister endgame is not part of it all. You’d think that Catholics on this forum who have seen what Obama has done on healthcare would have no trust for him at all on any issue.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

Another bishop connects a ‘culture of life’ to more restrictive gun laws. The article states the bishop represents a bishop’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

What these bishops are saying is very true and as they have been appointed to teach, rule and sanctify, Catholics are bound to pay attention.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Claiming to know how the game works, while generalizing support for controls as being on a ‘high horse’ and a moral crusade, is still secular arguments against a view being weighed through spiritual means.

One can tell how arguments are weighed, through how they are delivered.

Pope Francis at Mass: fighting evil with meekness and humility

(Vatican Radio) “Let us always remain meek and humble, that we might defeat the empty promises and the hatred of the world.” This was the message of Pope Francis on Saturday morning during the homily at Mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Humility and meekness are the weapons we have to defend ourselves from the hatred of the world. This was the focus of Pope Francis during his homily, which centered on the struggle between the love of Christ and the hatred of the prince of this world. The Lord, he said, tells us to be not afraid when the world hates us as it hated Him:
“The way of the Christians is the way of Jesus,” he said. “If we want to be followers of Jesus, there is no other way: none other than that, which He indicated to us - and one of the consequences of this is hatred – it is the hatred of the world, and also the prince of this world. The world would love that which belongs to it. [But Jesus tells us], ‘I have chosen you, from the world’: it was precisely He, who rescued us from the world, who chose us - pure grace! With His death, His resurrection, He redeemed us from the power of the world, from the power of the devil, from the power of the prince of this world. The origin of the hate [we experience], then is this: that we are saved. It is that prince who does not want that we should have been saved, who hates.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

Words have meaning.

No spin and twist.

The discussion is not helped when some people change the meaning of the words.

Precision in language is absolutely essential.

How will the defenders defend?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

ANOTHER 3-D printer article … easy-to-make guns … makes anti-gun-laws totally pointless

andygreenberg/ 2013/05/03/ this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos

forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/03/this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

 

[Monte_RCMS]

ANOTHER 3-D printer article … easy-to-make guns … makes anti-gun-laws totally pointless

andygreenberg/ 2013/05/03/ this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos

forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/03/this-is-the-worlds-first-entirely-3d-printed-gun-photos/?utm_campaign=techtwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

313 comments, including this one:

Do you know what goes into a zip gun? I made one when I was 12 years old. The components can be gathered by walking down the average street. One antenna from a car is really the only component that is difficult to find. Oh, a .22 bullet. You can buy a box of those at WalMart for about $5.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How will the defenders defend?

An eradication of guns has not been proposed. There would be many types still available to defend with. Now, please answer how background checks would prevent anyone from defending?