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:
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?
Click to expand...
[Di Fi wants confiscation of all guns.][She said it with her own voice.]

a pointless requirement, for one thing.

[the best home defense weapon is an AR-15]

Only innocent victims would attempt to get a background check.

[criminals don’t bother with background checks]

And for another:

[hostile bureaucracy]
 
Tomdstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
have they been appointed to legislate? write gun laws? I’ll pay attention, I’ll give them due consideration. but unless and until the USCCB or the Vatican lays down the law, the bishop from post 1 who talks about “assault weapons” and demands banning AR15s is wrong.

F/
 
Fairwinds said:
have they been appointed to legislate? write gun laws? I’ll pay attention, I’ll give them due consideration. but unless and until the USCCB or the Vatican lays down the law, the bishop from post 1 who talks about “assault weapons” and demands banning AR15s is wrong.

F/
Click to expand...
ncregister article/guns-vs.-gun-control/

ncregister.com/site/article/guns-vs.-gun-control/

summary:

**The U.S. bishops clearly stated their support for the recently defeated gun legislation. Every Catholic should take this endorsement seriously. But it does not have the same binding effect as a teaching on a matter which is intrinsically evil, such as abortion.

Church teaching leaves room for individuals to decide for themselves what are the most prudent ways to deal with guns. In our democratic society, we vote for ballot initiatives as citizens, and we elect representatives to vote on legislation for us. The prudential judgment of the population is therefore reflected in our laws.

Some countries with tougher gun laws have higher crime rates than the U.S. A recent survey of 150,000 law enforcement officers found that only 7.6% thought that a ban on so-called “assault weapons” would reduce violent crime. Seventy-one percent thought it wouldn’t help, and 20.5% thought it would aggravate the problem. This, taken with our statistics on gun violence, suggests that the problem goes deeper than the instrument used to commit the crime.

If we want to address the problem of violent crime, we cannot ignore the sickness of violence in our culture. Whether we see it in mass shootings, acts of terrorism, the more than 1 million abortions each year or on the streets of our neighborhoods, human life continues to be completely devalued. Much of our entertainment, including movies and video games, depicts random, extreme violence.

But, most importantly, we have to be willing to address the crisis in the family. I’ve yet to hear of a perpetrator of mass atrocities who didn’t experience serious family dysfunction as a child. As more and more children are born to single mothers or cheated out of an intact family by divorce, familial dysfunction continues to increase.

The family is a child’s first experience of reality. If the family cannot offer that foundation, the child is already at a disadvantage, especially if the child is also suffering from a mental illness. Then put the child in a world where he learns at an early age that the most innocent human beings are not protected.

Add to that a steady diet of violence, particularly in video games where he himself commits the violence, and you’ve got a recipe for destruction and dysfunction that has little to do with guns. It’s about evil. And evil will use whatever means necessary to accomplish its goal.
**

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/guns-vs.-gun-control/#ixzz2SRwN9z6h
 
How about in 2010 … how of the 76,142 rejected, 93.8% (71,420) were false positives, (e.g. they werent bad guys) and of those only 44 were prosecuted resulting in 11 felons & 7 domestic violence abusers, how unimpressive, oh wait, thats the NICS & USDOJ reporting these facts yet again, hmmmmmm.

How is it that The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns “cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon.” See CBSNews 3/21/2001 report, 100% passed the background check using fake id, hmmmm, multiple other studies show the same result, hmmmm!

We see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys/theft, family straw buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.

Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys/theft at 95.52%, 1-(12% x .68%) = 3.64%, retail stores, 1-(2% x .68%) = .64% gun shows in today’s numbers, (100% – 4.48%) = 95.52%.

Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001

USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008
Brady Check report that of the 161 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1997. We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968 where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution.

Hence criminals don’t have to follow 85% of the existing gun control laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, background checks, etc….

Amazing how the criminals don’t have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do?

This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons! After all, 22,417 gun control laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn’t be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

A claim that gun shows don’t require background checks, hmmm, are private sales legal, why yes they are, hmmmmmm.

Are private sales legal to any one of the 10 categories of people identified in the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act just because they participate in a gun show, yes or no, no they aren’t, hmmmmmm.

Does the BATF allow civilains access to the NICS for anonymous private sales, yes or no, uh NO, hmmmmm, why not?

Does the NICS database have all 23.15 mil mentally ill in its databse yes or no, NO, only 2.81 mil, hmmmm.

So do all states require said data to be (name removed by moderator)ut into NICS, yes or no, NO, hmmmm.

Have you done anything to help police catch the 1.043 mil plus open felony warrants, no, why not?

How is it that mental health experts identify 50% of the current prison pop. 2.7 mil is mentally ill, yeah they do state that.

Care to prove that 50% of those 1.043 wanted on open felony warrants arent mentally ill also?

So explain again, how all these failures which are NOT MANUFACTURED LIES to enforce as noted by all that GOVERNMENT DATA are the law abiding gun owners fault, much less how adding more laws that dont apply to the bad guys to begin with would reduce violence in any fashion, no, they wont.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the same problem we see in illegal immigration, if the government would enforce the laws already written there would be no need for additional laws that won’t be enforced. The government has a very specific ax to grind and they don’t mind you losing your rights or your life to reach there goal.
 
twoshoes said:
This is the same problem we see in illegal immigration, if the government would enforce the laws already written there would be no need for additional laws that won’t be enforced. The government has a very specific ax to grind and they don’t mind you losing your rights or your life to reach there goal.
Click to expand...
the government will tell Homeland Security and the US Attorneys which immigration laws will be enforced and how to enforce them to get the result it wants.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
[Di Fi wants confiscation of all guns.][She said it with her own voice.]

a pointless requirement, for one thing.

[the best home defense weapon is an AR-15]

Only innocent victims would attempt to get a background check.

[criminals don’t bother with background checks]

And for another:

[hostile bureaucracy]
Click to expand...
One would assume law abiding citizens would participate in a law that required background checks; including those law abiding sellers. Whatever the impact, it would affect access for just anyone. As for other laws, we do what we can to save as many as we can, or we’re supposed to.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
One would assume law abiding citizens would participate in a law that required background checks; including those law abiding sellers. Whatever the impact, it would affect access for just anyone. As for other laws, we do what we can to save as many as we can, or we’re supposed to.
Click to expand...
Criminals and nutjobs would be absolutely totally unaffected.

Only innocent defenders would be impeded in any way.

Therefore do nothing to impede home defenders whose best defense is an AR-15 [and not a double barrel shotgun, contrary to the outspoken “expert”]
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Criminals and nutjobs would be absolutely totally unaffected.

Only innocent defenders would be impeded in any way.

Therefore do nothing to impede home defenders whose best defense is an AR-15 [and not a double barrel shotgun, contrary to the outspoken “expert”]
Click to expand...
Please share how background checks would impede a law abiding citizen?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Criminals and nutjobs would be absolutely totally unaffected.
Click to expand...
I simply do not believe this sort of absolute statement to be true. It defies logic. Not all criminals have underground connections with arms dealers. Neither do people who are mentally ill.
 
pnewton said:
I simply do not believe this sort of absolute statement to be true. It defies logic. Not all criminals have underground connections with arms dealers. Neither do people who are mentally ill.
Click to expand...
If cocaine is available, then guns are available.

Maybe not in YOUR circle, but certainly, without question, to any non-lawabiding person.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Please share how background checks would impede a law abiding citizen?
Click to expand...
How about in 2010 … how of the 76,142 rejected, 93.8% (71,420) were false positives, (e.g. they weren’t bad guys) and of those only 44 were prosecuted resulting in 11 felons & 7 domestic violence abusers, how unimpressive, oh wait, thats the NICS & USDOJ reporting these facts yet again, hmmmmmm.

At least 71,000 law-abiding people were impeded.

This kind of problem goes on all the time with the LEO bureaucracy.

The late Senator Ted Kennedy, RIP, was denied boarding by TSA because some criminal had the same name and information. There are numerous cases of “mistaken identity” or just plain incompetence or mischief on the part of law enforcement. Like it or not. [Mischief? Really? During Hurricane Katrina, law enforcement had a lot on their plates … so what did they do? They confiscated guns from law abiding citizens. And when the courts ruled the guns had to be returned, it turned out that the guns had been ruined.]
 
Monte_RCMS said:
If cocaine is available, then guns are available.

Maybe not in YOUR circle, but certainly, without question, to any non-lawabiding person.
Click to expand...
well… no, background checks are certain to put a final end to MS-13, Eme, the Crips, Bloods and all of the other narcotics gangs. how can it fail?
 
pnewton said:
I simply do not believe this sort of absolute statement to be true. It defies logic. Not all criminals have underground connections with arms dealers. Neither do people who are mentally ill.
Click to expand...
Agreed, not all criminals do, but they all know someone that does. As for the mentally ill, how does this affect them? The law that was proposed would have done nothing to prevent Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, or Adam Lanza from “legally” buying their weapons.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Then I guess it is futile to outlaw cocaine.
Click to expand...
Why say that? It’s illegal for a felon to own or possess a firearm, its illegal for people to own or possess cocain. What you propose is like saying background checks will solve the drug problem. :rolleyes:
 
keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1714

excerpt:

Yale criminologist John Lott, in last August 23rd’s L.A. Times, wrote about gun registration laws, “There is not even a single case where the laws have been instrumental in identifying someone who has committed a crime.”

Did you know that gun registration laws can’t be used to prosecute violent criminals? According to a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Haynes v. U.S., violent criminals need not register because of the Fifth Amendment. By applying only to the law-abiding gun owner, California’s irrational gun registration statute violates the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top