Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do the Bishops teach us to judge the remarks of Politicians? You trodded out this comment about Romney/Ryan continually so in effect, you spoke against the Defunding of Planned Parenthood, there is no reason to doubt Planned Parenthood would have been defunded nationally as Republican Governors Perry, Walker and Christie have done. Yet, you spoke against voting for those who would have defunded planned parenthood continuously. Yet, this issue is somewhat a Democrat party issue and you expound a lot of effort to defend gun control laws.

The bishops do teach us to discern politicians. I did not speak against removing funds from Planned Parenthood. I did not vote for the democratic candidate. I voted for the most pro-life candidate out there, one who has never changed his view with his political aspirations.

I have a close eye on Gov. Christie for the next election. My only fear is he put the people ahead of politics and the far right will see to it he never gets a chance.

Now, can we return to the topic of this thread?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Easy access? No. Lanza killed his own mother to get that access. He didn’t walk into a store and buy them, and if he had, there is no reason to think he would not have passed a background check, because his psych records would not have been on it.

Adam Lanza found an easy access to guns, killed his mother, then went to the school and committed mass murder.

 

[BroomWagon]

The bishops do teach us to discern politicians.** I did not speak against removing funds from Planned Parenthood.** I did not vote for the democratic candidate. I voted for the most pro-life candidate out there, one who has never changed his view with his political aspirations.

Correct. So in other words, your view was inaction against the right to life of others. And voting for a 3rd party pro-life candidate who realistically can not do anything, yet, when Democrats whose very platform expands and supports abortion greatly, your claim is that not all Democrats support that while at the same time you would speak against Governor Romney singling out one statement in the past as well as obviously, not having a real cognizance of planned parenthood being defunded and it would be save for one of the two big parties.

I have a close eye on Gov. Christie for the next election. My only fear is he put the people ahead of politics and the far right will see to it he never gets a chance.
**
Now, can we return to the topic of this thread?**

You were the one that brought it up not me. I think anyone who debates you should remember your position is not very consistent.

Of course, it is politically expedient for you to want to return to the thread now, we rarely see you speaking against abortion, mainly speaking against someone who would have defunded it. And then, claiming to be pro-life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m only going to address your first paragraph, more precisely, I’m going to quote the president of the USCCB quoting what the full body of bishops approved, as emphasized below.

Cardinal Dolan

The second paragraph was added, not to show whose doctrine it is, but to show the agreement between moral guidance and politicians have common ground at times. It’s not ‘doctrine’, but for me it’s the right thing to do, as taught by the men of the Church. I find much more comfort being in agreement with them, than in agreement with a one sided political view. I say one sided, because there fails to be recognition when a politician does something good. There is a degree of good in all, just as there is a degree of bad in all. To condemn every single action of a politician is, in itself, partisan.

He gives the expertise, or application, to those whose responsibility it is.

This is not good. You’re combining a very general segment out of the 2000 bishops’ conference, which has no particulars at all, with the 2012 statement of one bishop. Whether intended or not, (and surely not) this is deceptive in suggesting that ALL the bishops hold the opinion one bishop held in agreeing in a very general way with Obama before Obama actually proposed particulars himself.

Then, that one bishop declares that he has no particular policy recommendations himself, and leaves it to the legislators.

The legislators have tabled Obama’s proposals because the majority doesn’t support them.

'nuff said. The legislators have spoken, and one assumes the bishop is satisfied with that, having said he would leave it to them.

You’re entitled to your own opinions, and to defend them honestly on their own merits. But don’t say the bishops have given us moral instruction on your and Obama’s specific proposals, because they haven’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Adam Lanza found an easy access to guns, killed his mother, then went to the school and committed mass murder.

Most people would not consider the necessity of killing one’s own mother “easy” access to her possessions, except to the extent that all criminals everywhere seem to think criminality is an “easy” way of life.

Nothing in your proposals or obama’s would have prevented Lanza’s doing what he did. Criminals act outside the law. That’s why we call them “criminals”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Correct. So in other words, your view was inaction against the right to life of others. And voting for a 3rd party pro-life candidate who realistically can not do anything, yet, when Democrats whose very platform expands and supports abortion greatly, your claim is that not all Democrats support that while at the same time you would speak against Governor Romney singling out one statement in the past as well as obviously, not having a real cognizance of planned parenthood being defunded and it would be save for one of the two big parties.

You were the one that brought it up not me. I think anyone who debates you should remember your position is not very consistent.

Of course, it is politically expedient for you to want to return to the thread now, we rarely see you speaking against abortion, mainly speaking against someone who would have defunded it. And then, claiming to be pro-life.

The Church does not limit us to vote for a particular candidate, especially one we cannot reconcile changes of views with political aspirations. In other words, we do not have to vote for one single party. Let’s not forget his original refusal to sign the pro-life pledge.

I brought up comparisons of intrinsic evils. Your statements mistakenly misrepresented my views.

It’s not expedient for me to want to return to the topic of the thread, it’s the rules of the forum. If you wish to rehash this past presidential election, start a thread and send me a message. You’ll see my position is as consistent as it always was.

Lastly, I would ask that you stop presupposing to know my views, or stating them other than I have.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The Church does not limit us to vote for a particular candidate, especially one we cannot reconcile changes of views with political aspirations. In other words, we do not have to vote for one single party.

No the Church does not require that but shouldn’t we follow the recommendations of our Bishops?

 

[Nandarani]

**Yes. Disarm the government: disarm the hired shepherds at all kinds of places - highway “checkpoints,” government buildings, White House guards, personal armed guards for government “officials,” members of Congress and their children, celebrities, etc. etc., disarm Pelosi (I bet she has armed personal guards of some sort, Diane Feinstein, same thing). I understand the pope is the most heavily guarded person in the world - , etc. etc. etc.

But getting back to our country’s ever increasing number of sheep controllers. Disarm the people by whom sheep are led around. Sheep are the most helpless animals - they have been bred that way, and it’s only getting worse.

Or, conversely, why not just let the false shepherds keep their guns pointed at us, Let’s exacerbate the lamentable situation and make us, by removing the last teeth in our mouths, ALL baby sheep being led to the slaughter - after being fleeced repeatedly.

Goodness gracious; not to my taste at all. EVER.

Lose the second amendment and lose the first, free speech. Look at what has been going on with bugging the Associated Press. I don’t know whether I am permitted to recommend drudgereport or not, but it is one of the most widely-read news aggregators in the world - and President Obama is coping with several crises illustrating that WE HAVE GIVEN CRIMINALS POWER; these criminals are armed. The guns are pointed at the sheep to enforce ruining their lives with policies that are designed to destroy the country on a myriad of physical, psychological and spiritual levels.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not good. You’re combining a very general segment out of the 2000 bishops’ conference, which has no particulars at all, with the 2012 statement of one bishop. Whether intended or not, (and surely not) this is deceptive in suggesting that ALL the bishops hold the opinion one bishop held in agreeing in a very general way with Obama before Obama actually proposed particulars himself.

Then, that one bishop declares that he has no particular policy recommendations himself, and leaves it to the legislators.

The legislators have tabled Obama’s proposals because the majority doesn’t support them.

'nuff said. The legislators have spoken, and one assumes the bishop is satisfied with that, having said he would leave it to them.

You’re entitled to your own opinions, and to defend them honestly on their own merits. But don’t say the bishops have given us moral instruction on your and Obama’s specific proposals, because they haven’t.

The 2000 statement is quote by Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, and Bishop Blaire, speaking on behalf of a USCCB committee. Both of their statements were made this year. Both quoted the same phrase from the 2000 document, approved by a full body of bishops.

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

“We support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns,” Bishop Blaire wrote, quoting the document.

We cannot lower the bar to a single bishop any longer, since it is proven to be more. There is no deception in the links provided, and what is said. As you and I both recommend, people should read them for themselves.

I prefer to go by ‘the men of the Church have spoken.’

When the men of the Church speak on a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death, it is moral guidance. My belief it’s moral guidance is affirmed by Bishop Blaire’s letter to the Senate leadership.

The USCCB has been working with other faith leaders and organizations urging Congress to support legislation that builds a culture of life by promoting policies that reduce gun violence and save people’s lives in homes and communities throughout our nation. In the wake of tragic events such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the failure to support even modest regulations on firearms is a failure in moral leadership to promote policies that protect and defend the common good.

As I’ve explained, over and over, the bishop’s speak on a ‘culture of life’ to save people’s lives. Also note, the bishop refers to the failure to support even modest regulations on firearms is a failure in MORAL leadership.

You can interpret these anyway you like. I prefer to submit to the authority, and example, of the men of the Church on this issue. What I have provided is where I get ‘my own merits.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Most people would not consider the necessity of killing one’s own mother “easy” access to her possessions, except to the extent that all criminals everywhere seem to think criminality is an “easy” way of life.

Nothing in your proposals or obama’s would have prevented Lanza’s doing what he did. Criminals act outside the law. That’s why we call them “criminals”.

It was easy access to begin the killing spree with his mother.

What has happened has given us indication something has to be done, in an attempt to prevent the future loss of life, no matter the percentages of effectiveness.

 

[BroomWagon]

No the Church does not require that but shouldn’t we follow the recommendations of our Bishops?

Exactly, I did not bring up abortion, however, here we have a reliance on the Bishops statements on gun controls to back up and have a sense of self righteousness, the Bible too but when it came to other matters and what the Bishops said, then, it appears a bit like a double standard, in essence, I would say “said position” is not pro-life at all. Now, if the poster brings up “life”, then it does nonetheless appear pertinent to the conversation and now saying, that case of life and following what the Bishops say is now different.

 

[Bill1940]

Expanded background checks may sound benign at first but it will really lead to draconian regulations that can turn ordinary innocent activities into crimes and our country into a police state. There are left-wing radicals who want such a government. I’ll never forget a well educated, professional government official telling me,“Bill, there are just too many people in the world today to allow them to be free”. I recall hearing of a grandfather driving into New Jersey to go duck hunting with family getting stopped by a trooper and arrested because his shotgun was in a soft case, rather than a hard case. He was convicted of a felony. New Jersey seeks even more strict laws. Will they budget for sufficient prison construction?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No the Church does not require that but shouldn’t we follow the recommendations of our Bishops?

I did, and note your innuendo otherwise. But, it’s wrong.

 

[BroomWagon]

I did, and note your innuendo otherwise. But, it’s wrong.

Yes, it’s wrong, being pro-life to some means voting for a 3rd party candidate that can not do anything and speaking against people who would have defunded the largest abortion provider in the US.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Exactly, I did not bring up abortion, however, here we have a reliance on the Bishops statements to back up and have a sense of self righteousness, the Bible too but when it came to other matters and what the Bishops said, then, it appears a bit like a double standard, in essence, I would say “said position” is not pro-life at all. Now, if the poster brings up “life”, then it does nonetheless appear pertinent to the conversation and now saying, that case of life and following what the Bishops say is now different.

So you listen to “the men of the Church have spoken” when it suits you?

Please, don’t embarrass yourself by attempting an answer that can only be deemed hypocritical.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you listen to “the men of the Church have spoken” when it suits you?

Please, don’t embarrass yourself by attempting an answer that can only be deemed hypocritical.

What is the difference of your mistaken accusation, and the stand on this issue you take now? Listen to one, but not another?

I’m not embarrassed by mistaken accusations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, it’s wrong, being pro-life to some means voting for a 3rd party candidate that can not do anything and speaking against people who would have defunded the largest abortion provider in the US.

Being pro life extends to all dignity of life from conception until natural death, on ALL issues. The Church does not say, ‘you can only, and must, vote for candidate ___________.’ You know that.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What is the difference of your mistaken accusation, and the stand on this issue you take now? Listen to one, but not another?

I’m not embarrassed by mistaken accusations.

You had to go and do it.

Sorry, I tried to save you.

I listened to both. We have sensible gun laws that need enforcing and I voted against abortion and didn’t throw away my vote.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You had to go and do it.

Sorry, I tried to save you.

I listened to both. We have sensible gun laws that need enforcing and I voted against abortion and didn’t throw away my vote.

So there are no private sale loopholes?

I didn’t throw away my vote either.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are loopholes in the purchasing of firearms. To say we already have the laws, invalidates the calls from the bishops. Those statement of reiteration were made this year. How long have those all encompassing laws been in affect?