Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Fairwinds]

the purpose of those laws is to give the appearance that the problem is being address, it doesn’t matter if they work or not. this is an important part of any politician’s agenda.

the second purpose is to erect more effective barriers to gun ownership. the grabbers know that they can’t grab, outright, but they can try to regulate the second amendment into nonexistence by “reasonable” measures that “everyone” wants.

I’ll explain this again.

a one page law on background checks becomes hundreds of pages of regulations on how the checks are done, under the authority of some federal agency. the worthless checks we have now can morph into regulations that are the equivalent of gun grabbing. for example, an applicant can be made to pay an expensive fee for costs, the checks can go into medical records, the regs can go into mental health, the people making the decisions don’t have to be physicians, the person making the decision might not have to use set discretionary factors, the whole matter might be made unreviewable by courts.

F/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the purpose of those laws is to give the appearance that the problem is being address, it doesn’t matter if they work or not. this is an important part of any politician’s agenda.

the second purpose is to erect more effective barriers to gun ownership. the grabbers know that they can’t grab, outright, but they can try to regulate the second amendment into nonexistence by “reasonable” measures that “everyone” wants.

I’ll explain this again.

a one page law on background checks becomes hundreds of pages of regulations on how the checks are done, under the authority of some federal agency. the worthless checks we have now can morph into regulations that are the equivalent of gun grabbing. for example, an applicant can be made to pay an expensive fee for costs, the checks can go into medical records, the regs can go into mental health, the people making the decisions don’t have to be physicians, the person making the decision might not have to use set discretionary factors, the whole matter might be made unreviewable by courts.

F/

I guess our laws against murder, rape, robbery, drugs, etc. are all for appearances only.

Those who idolize guns will put up any argument to see any regulations fail. See how that works? I know, or hope, no one really idolizes guns, but it’s the same as repeating ‘grabbers’ to those who try to discuss controls, minus eradication. It’s not an us against them argument. Hopefully all Americans are interested in whatever deterrents to prevent gun violence from taking place.

We currently have background checks for purchases from licensed dealers. It would seem the first common sense control would be to see that all go through the same background checks, even through private sales. I think the last background check I paid for, to purchase a gun, was $5. That was in the last few weeks.

So, to protect people without mental illnesses from evaluation, we will skip mental health requirements on all people, including those who actually have some type of mental illness?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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.

There is no ultimate solution to any of it.
The object is to make it more difficult for the wrong people to get the wrong products.

 

[Fairwinds]

I guess our laws against murder, rape, robbery, drugs, etc. are all for appearances only.

Those who idolize guns will put up any argument to see any regulations fail. …

your sarcasm and repeated misrepresentation of your opponents’ comments makes any response pointless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

your sarcasm and repeated misrepresentation of your opponents’ comments makes any response pointless.

At least you see how your repeated posts are received.

 

[Tomdstone]

So, to protect people without mental illnesses from evaluation, we will skip mental health requirements on all people, including those who actually have some type of mental illness?

Not a good idea. It is much better to listen to and obey our good bishops who are calling for strict gun control laws. After all, they are the successors to the apostles and the moral leaders of our Church.

 

[Fairwinds]

Not a good idea. It is much better to listen to and obey our good bishops who are calling for strict gun control laws. After all, they are the successors to the apostles and the moral leaders of our Church.

and they are, of course, experts in the field of second amendment law.

when the USCCB or Vatican compels obedience to gun grabbing, I will obey, but not until then.

 

[SamH]

There is no ultimate solution to any of it.
The object is to make it more difficult for the wrong people to get the wrong products.

That’s fine. But why make it more difficult for the right people?

 

[SamH]

your sarcasm and repeated misrepresentation of your opponents’ comments makes any response pointless.

Now you know why he was added to my ignore list long ago.

 

[Fairwinds]

That’s fine. But why make it more difficult for the right people?

because that is the purpose for this kind of gun control is to do indirectly what the constitution prohibits from doing directly. does anyone think this administration will be satisfied with just background checks?

 

[Fairwinds]

Now you know why he was added to my ignore list long ago.

live and learn.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I guess our laws against murder, rape, robbery, drugs, etc. are all for appearances only.

So, to protect people without mental illnesses from evaluation, we will skip mental health requirements on all people, including those who actually have some type of mental illness?

Actually, the mentally ill people who shoot up our schools are well known to the police. BUT, they are not permitted to violate the rights of the mentally by putting them in mental hospitals. Even with ample due process. There are numerous “advocates” for the mentally ill who demand that the mentally ill be released into the open population. And then they run amok. And there is nothing that anyone can do … cannot require them to take their meds. Cannot institutionalize them against their will.

Read up on the scandals regarding deinstitutionalization.

 

[scipio337]

We currently have background checks for purchases from licensed dealers. It would seem the first common sense control would be to see that all go through the same background checks, even through private sales. I think the last background check I paid for, to purchase a gun, was $5. That was in the last few weeks.

Except for the facts that the very poorly thought out bill went much further than private sales, and that 80% of gun crimes are committed with guns bought through straw purchases, or on the black market.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Except for the facts that the very poorly thought out bill went much further than private sales, and that 80% of gun crimes are committed with guns bought through straw purchases, or on the black market.

Breaking it down a bit more, 40% get theirs from the black market. That leaves a lot of necessary checks still.

 

[Hovannes]

"A Person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH in some dumb *** states IS AGAINST THE LAW).

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing yet ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven’t noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves."
It is saddening to think that an archbishop would dismiss facts for politics

 

[scipio337]

Breaking it down a bit more, 40% get theirs from the black market. That leaves a lot of necessary checks still.

Straw purchases (straw buyer goes through background check, gives weapon to person who will not pass a background check) account for another 40%.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

"A Person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH in some dumb *** states IS AGAINST THE LAW).

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing yet ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven’t noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves."
It is saddening to think that an archbishop would dismiss facts for politics

How would background checks on all sales, including private sales, impact those law abiding citizens, and cripple their ability to protect themselves?

The bishop speaks on the morality of gun violence, from easy access, and the loss of innocent lives. That’s not political.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Straw purchases (straw buyer goes through background check, gives weapon to person who will not pass a background check) account for another 40%.

And private sales occur without even names being exchanged.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

"A Person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH in some dumb *** states IS AGAINST THE LAW).

And there are people in this country that somehow think passing yet ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven’t noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves."
It is saddening to think that an archbishop would dismiss facts for politics

If they had gotten rid of the “Gun Free Zone” signs, he might have decided against his killing spree owing to the uncertainty of there being or not being someone there to effectively confront or stop him.

Get rid of those schizophrenic signs … nothing but wishful thinking masquerading as effective policy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How would background checks on all sales, including private sales, impact those law abiding citizens, and cripple their ability to protect themselves?

The bishop speaks on the morality of gun violence, from easy access, and the loss of innocent lives. That’s not political.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Please share how background checks would impede a law abiding citizen?
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.]