Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Wow! Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms is vague in your opinion, yet you choose to argue with “resist amendments that would expand the use of minimum mandatory sentences as punishment for gun violations” as a concrete statement. It just seems to be selective interpretation in my opinion.

The shelving of the gun proposals was prior to the Boston bombing. I think you miss again on another point.

Yes, government has political views, unlike our bishops who offer moral guidance.

 

[Lapey]

Please read through the thread and you will see the multiple explanations of how I see it as a moral issue. Because you simply deny it’s moral, does not make me wrong.

I need to study the Catechism? 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?

Don’t tell me I don’t understand the Catechism. It doesn’t relate to the topic of the discussion; I am not the topic.

This is insulting. Now you want to make it a matter of morality??? Ok, let me get you straight here. I own many guns, shotguns, rifles, and hand guns. I have given my son who is 17 many guns and he uses all of mine and his to target shoot and hunt. So I am an immoral person for allowing this according to your interpretation of a statement by the USCCB from 2000 and recent references to it? Really, are you ignorant enough to think this?

Please go back and research what causes gun violence; it is because people who choose to use the weapons you evidently dislike have no moral compass, it’s not the gun or the legal gun owner who lacks morality.

I would advise you to be very careful if you intend to place a stigma of immorality to legal gun owners. If this is what you think the bishops are saying then you definitely need to go back to the CCC.

I can only hope that one day self righteous liberals like yourself will one day pick up the fight for life legitimately by fighting abortion completely, not just by a simple statement of personally being against abortion. You have exhausted more energy on this thread about trying to convince us that our bishops have said we should not own guns and/or we need more regulations that the criminals will not follow or that we are immoral people. I have bowed out of most of this argument because of your hypocrisy and ignorance. If you were truly pro-life you would spend some energy admitting and working against what Obama stands for, abortion rights in this country are much more devastating to our society than any gun freedom. Furthermore, our right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, not an old opinion. The right to an abortion is hinged on a court case that placed it in a privacy issue, not hardly a protected right under the constitution, but an add in to a clause which I can assure you the founding fathers had no clue would be used to protect this murder.

Your statements of supporting gun control appear hypocritical because you do not appear to fully stand for life. You come across in all of our conversations to stand for liberalism. We have explained to you repeatedly that these types of statements do not bind a Catholic to do or think anything; they are resolutions and can be called political statements as another poster stated it. On the other hand, abortion is intrinsically evil. It is always wrong. There is no such statement on gun rights or ownership.

 

[Lapey]

Does that make one acceptable?

Do you believe Planned Parenthood does more good than evil? Is the amount of good worth the lives they take each year? How many die form gun violence a year? In 2011 PP took over 339,000 lives of unborn children. They provide almost 27% of all abortions in this country. But they say that only 3% of their services are abortions; a very small amount compared to the 97% of health care provided to women. Are these numbers acceptable to you?

Our bishops have made very definitive statements about abortion and how we should vote where abortion is included in the discussion. Where was your voice when there was a decent chance to vote a person in who at least was against abortion in most cases? Oh yes, it was silent…except for the rants about not trusting republicans and this great statement, “republicans have made Supreme Court appointments and abortion is still legal.”

Where are our priorities? Is liberalism or conservatism more important than truth? Is rep or dem more important than truth? Right now in America sadly, it truly appears that way. To justify a vote for a pro death candidate in the name of “social justice” is blasphemy. There is no social justice in supporting a pro abortion candidate; all of the good he/she does in social justice is made evil by their support of killing children.

To dismiss an analogy of abortion and guns shows the hypocrisy contained in this thread. If you care about life, then defend it when it is not popular or easy.

Please give me your answer to this simple two part question;

What number of gun deaths has made you stand up and fight for the entirety of this thread for limitations to gun rights; and what number of babies dead would cause you to spend as much energy fighting abortion?

 

[Lapey]

So, we hold the issue ‘hostage’ until it meets our standards, politically? Until then it’s acceptable to let it continue.

What do you think has happened in the abortion issue? A moral country and people would have passed a constitutional amendment to correct that travesty in justice; Roe V. Wade.

Murder by gun is already intrinsically evil by God’s law and man’s law. The water is muddied by politics. Politics that protects the murders of millions of “little ones” compared to the politics of gun control and or gun rights to the politics of abortion is hypocrisy in itself because of the great disparity in numbers and situations. Immoral people use guns to kill illegally; it’s already illegal and it cannot be made more illegal. However, if the political hacks would get out of the way many millions of children could be saved.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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?”

I’ll leave it to those who want to read the documents; my position for three or four hundred posts. I’ll drop it right now if you will.

In direct response to your question, however:

It doesn’t matter what my interpretation of the year 2000 bishops’ communication verbiage you quoted is. Those bishops were entitled to whatever their prudential (and likely varied) specific judgments were on the matter and at the time, just as you and I are.

Having said that, and if put to it, I suspect I would be in agreement with Rahm Emanuel concerning stronger minimum sentencing for “serious” gun crimes and actual enforcement of those minimums. Bishop Blaire, of course, is entitled to think the opposite, as he apparently does. Actual enforcement of gun laws might be well to try.

I am not sure I would want any new laws on the federal level because bad federal legislation is extraordinarily difficult to reverse even when it becomes obvious that the idea was misbegotten. (like Obamacare that most oppose and which is looking more like a train wreck all the time, but which is almost impossible to undo)

Even if the various legislatures in the various states overly-restrict guns to absurd lengths (like NY when it inadvertedly and ignorantly prohibited the pistols in wide use by the police) I would support their right to legislate within their own jurisdictions. If the people don’t like what the state legislatures pass, they can change the laws because state legislators are much more responsive to their constituencies.

The most important laws affecting the potential use of guns that I would like to see implemented are not “gun laws” per se. So, I’ll leave it there.

 

[Lapey]

The Catechism, which I assume is of greater importance, calls for the regulation of guns.

The 4 most recent mass shootings happened in 4 different states.

God calls us to live for one another.

-Pope Francis

You use a reference to the CCC from a section entitled “Avoiding War” to say we need more regulations and if we oppose more regulations we are immoral. yes, I think you need to go back and learn the CCC. The USA already has regulations on guns. All of these mass shootings were done illegally. None of the suggested regulations would have stopped them. Many would say regulations allowed the shootings to happen. I am one of those people. Train and arm people in the schools and advertise this and I can assure you these sick cowards would not go back into a school to shoot children.

 

[Lapey]

And there are no loopholes in those laws!

Please provide the loophole that allowed the last four mass shootings happen in compliance with the laws considerring. Please provide the fixes that you think would close all loopholes in existing gun laws.

 

[iamrefreshed]

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.

I find it impossible and irresponsible to even try and interpret anothers vague statement.

The motive is to help lurkers and other posters here understand that you are producing your preferred solution to gun control as the Bishop’s solution.

For that I will call shame everytime.

 

[Ender]

This is a moral choice for me, because the outspoken bishops have stated it as such.

Whatever one believes to be a moral obligation becomes - for that person - a moral choice. If I believe I am obligated to keep my house at 65 during the winter then that becomes a moral obligation for me but obviously it places no such obligation on anyone else and it would be wrong of me to condemn others for failing to do what I believe is necessary. The same is true of you in this case. You apparently believe you have a moral obligation to accept the prudential judgments of bishops on any subject. That is a choice you get to make but your choice imposes no comparable moral obligation on the rest of us.

I also believe that measures to control the sale and use of guns will provide some solution to the problem.

You are justified in supporting whatever position you think will help, as is everyone else. The difference is that your position is opposed on its (perceived) weaknesses while you object to the (imagined) moral weakness of your opponents.

Roe vs. Wade as been enforce for over 40 years now. We don’t question any solution, but seek to limit it in anyway possible. The same should be for all issues the men of the Church give guidance on.

Abortion is fundamentally different than gun control; the two issues cannot be addressed with the same arguments. If you want an issue comparable to gun control then you should look to things like health care or immigration.

I am not judging anyone, but relaying the call of the bishops as I understand it.

It isn’t clear how else to interpret your insistence that those who disagree with you are failing their moral obligations.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is insulting. Now you want to make it a matter of morality??? Ok, let me get you straight here. I own many guns, shotguns, rifles, and hand guns. I have given my son who is 17 many guns and he uses all of mine and his to target shoot and hunt. So I am an immoral person for allowing this according to your interpretation of a statement by the USCCB from 2000 and recent references to it? Really, are you ignorant enough to think this?

Please go back and research what causes gun violence; it is because people who choose to use the weapons you evidently dislike have no moral compass, it’s not the gun or the legal gun owner who lacks morality.

I would advise you to be very careful if you intend to place a stigma of immorality to legal gun owners. If this is what you think the bishops are saying then you definitely need to go back to the CCC.

I can only hope that one day self righteous liberals like yourself will one day pick up the fight for life legitimately by fighting abortion completely, not just by a simple statement of personally being against abortion. You have exhausted more energy on this thread about trying to convince us that our bishops have said we should not own guns and/or we need more regulations that the criminals will not follow or that we are immoral people. I have bowed out of most of this argument because of your hypocrisy and ignorance. If you were truly pro-life you would spend some energy admitting and working against what Obama stands for, abortion rights in this country are much more devastating to our society than any gun freedom. Furthermore, our right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, not an old opinion. The right to an abortion is hinged on a court case that placed it in a privacy issue, not hardly a protected right under the constitution, but an add in to a clause which I can assure you the founding fathers had no clue would be used to protect this murder.

Your statements of supporting gun control appear hypocritical because you do not appear to fully stand for life. You come across in all of our conversations to stand for liberalism. We have explained to you repeatedly that these types of statements do not bind a Catholic to do or think anything; they are resolutions and can be called political statements as another poster stated it. On the other hand, abortion is intrinsically evil. It is always wrong. There is no such statement on gun rights or ownership.

I said “FOR ME it’s a moral issue.” Please note the emphasis.

I have had many speculations, and assumptions, made about myself, and have addressed this each time. It surprises me to see the allegations of not appearing to fully stand for life. I see it as the opposite. I am pro life, for all, from conception until natural death, on ALL issues. I don’t see that from everyone myself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you believe Planned Parenthood does more good than evil? Is the amount of good worth the lives they take each year? How many die form gun violence a year? In 2011 PP took over 339,000 lives of unborn children. They provide almost 27% of all abortions in this country. But they say that only 3% of their services are abortions; a very small amount compared to the 97% of health care provided to women. Are these numbers acceptable to you?

Our bishops have made very definitive statements about abortion and how we should vote where abortion is included in the discussion. Where was your voice when there was a decent chance to vote a person in who at least was against abortion in most cases? Oh yes, it was silent…except for the rants about not trusting republicans and this great statement, “republicans have made Supreme Court appointments and abortion is still legal.”

Where are our priorities? Is liberalism or conservatism more important than truth? Is rep or dem more important than truth? Right now in America sadly, it truly appears that way. To justify a vote for a pro death candidate in the name of “social justice” is blasphemy. There is no social justice in supporting a pro abortion candidate; all of the good he/she does in social justice is made evil by their support of killing children.

To dismiss an analogy of abortion and guns shows the hypocrisy contained in this thread. If you care about life, then defend it when it is not popular or easy.

Please give me your answer to this simple two part question;

What number of gun deaths has made you stand up and fight for the entirety of this thread for limitations to gun rights; and what number of babies dead would cause you to spend as much energy fighting abortion?

Do any of those percentages, or numbers, justify the deaths of those children in Connecticut?

There’s no hypocrisy, except for the perceived hypocrisy some feel necessary to establish to diminish the opposing view on this issue. I am pro life for ALL from conception until natural death. I haven’t seen the pro abortion posters on these forums, and do not feel the necessity to ‘preach to the choir.’ However, :I can see a wide division on the issue of easy access of guns and the violence associated with it on these forums.

Abortions are a travesty, and the murder of innocent children from gun violence is a travesty. One having greater numbers does not create an acceptable body count on another issue. We are not a one issue Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You use a reference to the CCC from a section entitled “Avoiding War” to say we need more regulations and if we oppose more regulations we are immoral. yes, I think you need to go back and learn the CCC. The USA already has regulations on guns. All of these mass shootings were done illegally. None of the suggested regulations would have stopped them. Many would say regulations allowed the shootings to happen. I am one of those people. Train and arm people in the schools and advertise this and I can assure you these sick cowards would not go back into a school to shoot children.

Actually, I borrowed that interpretation from Cardinal Dolan.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find it impossible and irresponsible to even try and interpret anothers vague statement.

The motive is to help lurkers and other posters here understand that you are producing your preferred solution to gun control as the Bishop’s solution.

For that I will call shame everytime.

But you find it possible and responsible to state my view is wrong?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would like to invite everyone to read these documents for themselves.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

Advocating for Gun Control (Cardinal Dolan)

Bishop Blaire Voices Disappointment At Senate Failure To Support Measures To Reduce Gun Violence

Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

They call for supporting measures that control the sale and use of firearms. That’s fairly straightforward, and not vague as some make it out to be. It doesn’t call for ‘interpret’ what we say, or delay action until you can come up with something. It seems to only be vague when it suits some of us.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I said “FOR ME it’s a moral issue.” Please note the emphasis.

This is good.

Now, the remaining question is whether any of the gun control measures now on anybody’s political agenda will bring any tangible benefit to the society versus the practical downsides to that agenda, considering that the U.S. does have a Second Amendment.

I spoke in favor of Rahm Emanuel’s proposal that minimum punishments for SERIOUS gun crimes should be stiffer than one year of incarceration, and that the offender actually be obliged to serve it. Presently in Illinois, according to Emanuel, the average time spent for a one year sentence is six months.

Now, Bishop Blaire argues to the contrary, believing minimum sentences for gun crimes should not exist at all, thinking as he appears to do that they result in too many people in prison.

While I don’t ordinarily find myself aligned with anything Rahm Emanuel promotes, I think he has the better position. Given Chicago’s gun crime rate particularly, I can see the merit in it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is good.

Now, the remaining question is whether any of the gun control measures now on anybody’s political agenda will bring any tangible benefit to the society versus the practical downsides to that agenda, considering that the U.S. does have a Second Amendment.

I spoke in favor of Rahm Emanuel’s proposal that minimum punishments for SERIOUS gun crimes should be stiffer than one year of incarceration, and that the offender actually be obliged to serve it. Presently in Illinois, according to Emanuel, the average time spent for a one year sentence is six months.

Now, Bishop Blaire argues to the contrary, believing minimum sentences for gun crimes should not exist at all, thinking as he appears to do that they result in too many people in prison.

While I don’t ordinarily find myself aligned with anything Rahm Emanuel promotes, I think he has the better position. Given Chicago’s gun crime rate particularly, I can see the merit in it.

Show us a statement from one bishop that speaks contrary to the call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms? That something that is clearly missing on this topic, with all the posts in this thread.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do any of those percentages, or numbers, justify the deaths of those children in Connecticut?

Absolutely not. If we can save only one life of an innocent child in the USA, stiffer gun control laws would be well worth it. The more children’s lives that can be saved, the better off will America be as an example of a country where it is safe for children to attend school.

 

[iamrefreshed]

But you find it possible and responsible to state my view is wrong?

I never indicated an opinion on your view of gun control. I only called you out for passing your opinion as something the Bishops share. They don’t. Unless you read minds?

See the difference?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would like to invite everyone to read these documents for themselves.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

Advocating for Gun Control (Cardinal Dolan)

Bishop Blaire Voices Disappointment At Senate Failure To Support Measures To Reduce Gun Violence

Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

This is all fine, and we should read them. However, we should not assume any of these constitute Church doctrine. They are the opinions of individuals. Furthermore, the best practical steps are not self-evident, nor are they contained in any of the above sources. Legislation ought to be specific, practical measures demonstrably likely to lead to a societal benefit. It is entirely legitimate for a Catholic to believe, for example, that existing gun laws should be better enforced before we adopt others without thinking them through. Again, I’m put to mind of the New York legislation that effectively outlawed police pistols in the hands of the police. The emotional reaction of the moment, and poorly thought out. the NY legislature changed it later.

In recognition of the fact that people can legitimately differ, this article was written. ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-catholic-position-on-gun-control-should-be

This is a reasonably well-balanced article which, incidentally, cites the abovementioned statements by churchmen, but also reflects the views of others. ncregister.com/daily-news/catholics-and-the-question-of-gun-ownership/

Without attempting to exhaust Google for pasting here, it is probably best simply to encourage people to read what’s available from both sides of PARTICULAR proposals and make the decision you think is in the best interests of society.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never indicated an opinion on your view of gun control. I only called you out for passing your opinion as something the Bishops share. They don’t. Unless you read minds?

See the difference?

No, I don’t. I don’t see the call as vague. “Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.” We have no men of the Church that state opposition, or declare that as vague. It is only declared vague by those who oppose measures to control the sale and use of firearms, or so it seems.