Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Tomdstone]

Lying is not a non-negotiable,.

I read all the time about prominent people who say in court that they are not guilty, but it is clear that they have committed the crime to which they have been accused.

 

[BroomWagon]

I read all the time about prominent people who say in court that they are not guilty, but it is clear that they have committed the crime to which they have been accused.

What percentage of people do you think have lied about something in their life? Do you ever think people have ever lied about something like leaving a faucet dripping?

 

[Tomdstone]

What percentage of people do you think have lied about something in their life? Do you ever think people have ever lied about something like leaving a faucet dripping?

I don’t know. Suppose that they take you to court over having unregistered firearms. You know for sure that your firearms are not registered, but you plead not guilty. Is it all right to plead not guilty, when you know that you are guilty? Lawyers, Catholic or not, will tell you that it is OK. This is why gun control laws are not that easy to enforce. Defense lawyers are skilled at finding legal loopholes to get you out of a conviction.

 

[BroomWagon]

I don’t know. Suppose that they take you to court over having unregistered firearms. You know for sure that your firearms are not registered, but you plead not guilty. Is it all right to plead not guilty, when you know that you are guilty? Lawyers, Catholic or not, will tell you that it is OK. This is why gun control laws are not that easy to enforce. Defense lawyers are skilled at finding legal loopholes to get you out of a conviction.

Is it State Law, State Court? We know our justice system is set up for all crimes to where it is better for a guilty man to go free rather than for innocent men to be jailed.

Back to the Big Mass Shootings in Recent years.

Arizona, Jared Loughner, authorities knew about him, did not do their duty, ditto for James Holmes. Also, Adam Lanza, gun laws would not have prevented it. All of these people used pyschotropic drugs, Lanza was into violent video games. There certainly are other signs.

The state of Connecticut passed gun control laws. The states should regulate this, if one wants new laws, the state has a long history of doing it. Some of these cases showed law enforcement or the system did not enforce existing laws.

 

[BroomWagon]

The current scandal per the overreach of the IRS shows exactly why the States should handle these matters. What the IRS has been doing, intimidation is downright scary.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I don’t know. Suppose that they take you to court over having unregistered firearms. You know for sure that your firearms are not registered, but you plead not guilty. Is it all right to plead not guilty, when you know that you are guilty? Lawyers, Catholic or not, will tell you that it is OK. This is why gun control laws are not that easy to enforce. Defense lawyers are skilled at finding legal loopholes to get you out of a conviction.

A general observation- justice costs money. I know several folks who were innocent, (not of gun crimes) but the DA kept dragging out court proceedings driving the cost to defend themselves to the point they just couldn’t afford it anymore. They ended up pleading simply because they’d been driven into bankruptcy and couldn’t deal with the stress any longer.

 

[nitesnake]

Please read through the thread and you will see the multiple explanations of how I see it as a moral issue.

That’s my point. You** see it as a moral issue. The church does not.

Because you simply deny it’s moral, does not make me wrong.

Sure it does. Show me in church doctrine where is says that owning a firearm, or carrying one or having a concealed gun permit is immoral. You’re confusing a political statement by the USCCB with church law.

I need to study the Catechism? Really.

Yes. Really.

If all the Lord’s teachings are non-negotiable, why is it different for the authoritative men over His Church, that He said would be led by the Holy Spirit?

It isn’t. Like I said, you need to go back to catechism class.

Don’t tell me I don’t understand the Catechism.

Why not? You obviously don’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s my point. You** see it as a moral issue. The church does not.

Sure it does. Show me in church doctrine where is says that owning a firearm, or carrying one or having a concealed gun permit is immoral. You’re confusing a political statement by the USCCB with church law.

Yes. Really.

It isn’t. Like I said, you need to go back to catechism class.

Why not? You obviously don’t.

The men of the Church have spoken on the moral points of the issue.

No one has said that owning, carrying, or even having a concealed weapon permit is amoral. The easy access to guns has contributed to the amoral use of guns through gun violence. Are you sure you’ve read through the thread? You are arguing points not raised by the bishops. The bishops have called for measures to control the sale and use of firearms, Measures, such as background checks, that would not impact owning, carrying, or having a concealed weapon permit.

I won’t be responding to condescending inflammatory personal statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I would guess the men of the Church know the Catechism better than any of us, I’ll continue to follow their authority and interpretation.

 

[BroomWagon]

Our Church teaching tells us what the Non-Negotiables are, I suggest someone who does not respect this word, start their own religion and then they could call the issues they find of more importance “non-negotiables”, as it is, to not recognize facts seems insulting to the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Our Church teaching tells us what the Non-Negotiables are, I suggest someone who does not respect this word, start their own religion and then they could call the issues they find of more importance “non-negotiables”, as it is, to not recognize facts seems insulting to the Church.

No one has denied the non negotiable issues, but has questioned what appears to be dismissal of other issues as unimportant. Just as everything Christ taught was important, what the Church teaches is also important. Our faith is not based on the non negotiable issues only.

Suggesting someone start their own religion is wrong, and could have implications if someone actually took that advice. We have the Church for corrections.

 

[BroomWagon]

I think if someone thinks other issues should be “non-negotiable”, they should write the Bishops, also tell them that abortion has been around for 40 years so in their opinion possibly, it should be taken off the list, since apparently some people do not care to see the funding by the Federal Government taken out of the abortion industry via planned parenthood and additionally, ignoring key facts, such as Supreme Court Nominees that would have reversed Roe v Wade were denied sitting on the Supreme Court by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, that numerous abortion clinics have closed over the past 20 years: jillstanek.com/2010/11/31-us-abortion-clinics-have-closed-in-past-12-months/

And that thanks to Pro-Life Politicians, there are severe limitations to abortion in these states:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_US_State_by_State

Instead of defining our own “non-negotiables”, being insulting to politicians who have actually done something about abortion and really to anyone’s intelligence who is informed about the abortion debate and actually, running interference effectively on this issue.

And then, make the claim, one actually has “pro-life” views.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think if someone thinks other issues should be “non-negotiable”, they should write the Bishops, also tell them that abortion has been around for 40 years so in their opinion possibly, it should be taken off the list, since apparently some people do not care to see the funding by the Federal Government taken out of the abortion industry via planned parenthood and additionally, ignoring key facts, such as Supreme Court Nominees that would have reversed Roe v Wade were denied sitting on the Supreme Court by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, that numerous abortion clinics have closed over the past 20 years: jillstanek.com/2010/11/31-us-abortion-clinics-have-closed-in-past-12-months/

And that thanks to Pro-Life Politicians, there are severe limitations to abortion in these states:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_US_State_by_State

Instead of defining our own “non-negotiables”, being insulting to politicians who have actually done something about abortion and really to anyone’s intelligence who is informed about the abortion debate and actually, running interference effectively on this issue.

I guess we can’t communicate the point, or the point is being ignored. No one was placing all issues on par with each other, but was not excluding any issue. We cannot limit the Gospels, and what the Church teaches, as only the non negotiable issues. The Church teaches us on ALL issues. Murder is non negotiable, whether in an abortion clinic, or on the end of gun violence.

 

[pnewton]

Before even inconveniencing citizens, the government should have and meet the burden of demonstrating what benefit it will confer on society. .

That had nothing to do with my questions. I was neither arguing them or asking them. I was merely stating moral questions that can exist in this debate. I am sorry if you took me to mean I wanted to start a debate on them. After 1000 posts, the last thing I want to do is start a new line of debate.

 

[iamrefreshed]

The bishops have called for measures to control the sale and use of firearms, Measures, such as background checks, that would not impact owning, carrying, or having a concealed weapon permit.

These simple two sentences by you show why you have been vigorousy debated in this thread.

Simply, you put words into the mouths of the Bishops. Sentence one does not lead to sentence two. That is 100% YOUR OPINION.

Shame on you!

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, you continue to argue the point referring to Obama’s proposals. I have used the bishops calls, which were prior to his administration. It was his actions that drew comments of ‘common ground’ and ‘agreement’ from the men of the Church; Cardinal Dolan, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman. The bishops call was not political.

What you are called to produce is any bishop that disagrees with the 2000 document, or any statements from the committee chairmen, the president of the USCCB, or the Vatican Chief Spokesman.

It only seems to be a waste of time for those who ‘disagree’ with the bishops calls.

Keep coming back, and I will continue recommending people read that for themselves. I feel compelled to do that amid the allegations of deception, etc.

“Keep coming back”??? You are the one who keeps this awful thread alive by constantly suggesting that the bishops of the U.S. say something they don’t say. Others in here, myself included, feel obliged to point out to any readers that the bishops of the U.S. have never advocated your proposals requiring background checks on person-to-person sales, gifts, inheritances or trades.

Your proposals are the Obama proposals. They are central to this argument because you have made them central.

In 2000, the USCCB bishops voted on a crime communication in which they made no specific legislative proposals. In 2013, Bishop Blaire endorsed the idea of “tighter gun laws” as the topic states. It was not binding on Catholics, and is the opinion of Bp Blaire on a political subject.

Lots of gun laws have been passed since 2000. Perhaps the bishops in 2000 would have been satisfied with them; perhaps not. But in the absence of a meeting of all the bishops since 2000, nobody can know.

That’s it. There are 500+ bishops in the U.S., few of whom were bishops in 2000. The current bishops have not voted on any kind of gun proposals. Not Obamas and yours. Not anyone’s. Possibly some have political opinions like yours and Obama’s. Perhaps none do. Perhaps only Blaire and those three or four who agreed with him see a moral issue in the context of current gun laws. One would think they would if they thought it morally important.

You interpret the 2000 bishops’ statement (three nonspecific sentences) as requiring you, in conscience, to advocate background checks in person-to-person sales, trades, gifts and inheritance. The bishops never said that, but if you want to extend it that way for yourself alone, nobody cares.

It’s when you suggest that somehow a general statement in 2000 means your restrictions and Obama’s are morally binding on Catholics, that you step over the line of propriety.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Since the thread has wandered far from the original Blaire letter, perhaps it can be brought back just a bit.

This is an interesting thing Bp Blaire said:

"The bishop also asked the Senate to “resist amendments that would expand the use of minimum mandatory sentences as punishment for gun violations,” noting that increased incarceration rates can be partially attributed to “the pervasive use of minimum mandatory sentencing.”

This is 180 degrees opposite to what Rahm Emanuel wants the State of Illinois to do; that is, increase the minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and to actually enforce them.

And, of course, Congress has shelved Obama’s gun proposals, undoubtedly because of heightened public awareness of potential need for means of self-protection after the Boston massacre and related threats to civilians.

Obviously, those in government can have political views different from those of the occasional bishop who takes a personal political position.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Since the thread has wandered far from the original Blaire letter, perhaps it can be brought back just a bit.

This is an interesting thing Bp Blaire said:

"The bishop also asked the Senate to “resist amendments that would expand the use of minimum mandatory sentences as punishment for gun violations,” noting that increased incarceration rates can be partially attributed to “the pervasive use of minimum mandatory sentencing.”

This is 180 degrees opposite to what Rahm Emanuel wants the State of Illinois to do; that is, increase the minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and to actually enforce them.

And, of course, Congress has shelved Obama’s gun proposals, undoubtedly because of heightened public awareness of potential need for means of self-protection after the Boston massacre and related threats to civilians.

Obviously, those in government can have political views different from those of the occasional bishop who takes a personal political position.

Minimum mandatory sentences is something I hear O’Reilly use all the time with Jessica’s Law regarding sexual offenses against Children, because there has been documented cases where a serial child rapist will get virtually nothing.

Gun offenses are different of course but it doesn’t make sense why not having minimum mandatory is a bad thing especially if we want to take on gun violence in a serious way.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Minimum sentencing structures are certainly convoluted, that is certainly a legitimate concern. There’s certainly a legitimate argument for them though. With the ideal solution, likely being somewhere in between.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These simple two sentences by you show why you have been vigorousy debated in this thread.

Simply, you put words into the mouths of the Bishops. Sentence one does not lead to sentence two. That is 100% YOUR OPINION.

Shame on you!

What is your interpretation of “support measures to control the sale and use of firearms?”

I reject your “shaming,” and find it has nothing to do with the topic, and question the motives behind that repeated type condemnation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Keep coming back”??? You are the one who keeps this awful thread alive by constantly suggesting that the bishops of the U.S. say something they don’t say. Others in here, myself included, feel obliged to point out to any readers that the bishops of the U.S. have never advocated your proposals requiring background checks on person-to-person sales, gifts, inheritances or trades.

Your proposals are the Obama proposals. They are central to this argument because you have made them central.

In 2000, the USCCB bishops voted on a crime communication in which they made no specific legislative proposals. In 2013, Bishop Blaire endorsed the idea of “tighter gun laws” as the topic states. It was not binding on Catholics, and is the opinion of Bp Blaire on a political subject.

Lots of gun laws have been passed since 2000. Perhaps the bishops in 2000 would have been satisfied with them; perhaps not. But in the absence of a meeting of all the bishops since 2000, nobody can know.

That’s it. There are 500+ bishops in the U.S., few of whom were bishops in 2000. The current bishops have not voted on any kind of gun proposals. Not Obamas and yours. Not anyone’s. Possibly some have political opinions like yours and Obama’s. Perhaps none do. Perhaps only Blaire and those three or four who agreed with him see a moral issue in the context of current gun laws. One would think they would if they thought it morally important.

You interpret the 2000 bishops’ statement (three nonspecific sentences) as requiring you, in conscience, to advocate background checks in person-to-person sales, trades, gifts and inheritance. The bishops never said that, but if you want to extend it that way for yourself alone, nobody cares.

It’s when you suggest that somehow a general statement in 2000 means your restrictions and Obama’s are morally binding on Catholics, that you step over the line of propriety.

Again, let’s just invite everyone to read the documents, provided with the links, to see what the bishops have said.

The rest seems to be to draw incorrect connections, when I have repeated I am taking from the bishops. The first document, which calls for supporting measures to control the sale and firearms, was prior to the current administration. You and I both have stated that, yet you keep coming back to one and the same for this administration. The bar has been moved repeatedly, now it’s changed to something I have clarified.

What is your interpretation of “support measures to control the sale and use of firearms?”