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.
Tomdstone said:
This is an ad hominem argument, attacking the person who is making the argument, rather than addressing the issue of saving children’s lives. My argument concerns innocent schoolchildren who need a safe environment at school. America would be a much better country if it could insure that school children do not have to fear for their lives as they are attending school.
Click to expand...
This is not an ad hominem attack, it is hyperbole. It is an attempt to appear absurd to illustrate absurdity.

The premise that creating more gun laws and continue to make schools easy targets would cut down on school shootings is absurd. I oppose more gun laws and I get labeled as not caring about kids who died. I use the same tactic to show the absurdity and you call it an attack, the second accusation by the way.

My opinion to Sandy Hook is that if that principal and a small percentage of teachers, by their volunteering to carry and after fully being professionally trained and licensed carry a weapon I say only one person would have died that day; the shooter. It is also possible that he would have surrendered or not even attempted it since he would have known it was not an easy target.

The theater shooting perpetrator purposely attacked the theater he did for one reason, do you know why he chose the theater he chose? You’ve got it, it was the only one labeled to be off limits to people licensed for concealed carry. Wonder why that is?
 
Tomdstone said:
Current background checks are not effective. They need to be strengthened.
Click to expand...
Says who? FBI statistics show illegally purchased, and straw buyer transactions to be the most frequent ways criminals aquire guns.

As Lapey asked, “What private sales transactions have led to any of the mass shootings?”

(FYI, the brothers Tsarnaev didn’t have valid MA gun permits for their weapons, either, along with an “assault weapons” ban in MA).

motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/tsarnaev-brothers-guns-boston-marathon-bombing
 
pnewton said:
Now this is a logical fallacy, and even a lie if unless I have missed something. Can you show me one place where this poster has defended the **Democratic Party? **I think I have followed this thread, but it is rather long. So please show me where you got this accusation.

FYI - Abortion is not the topic here, so no need to muddy the waters.

You are doing way too much assuming. No need to slander and mud-sling and just generally make up a bunch of junk about others.
Click to expand...
I have debated PS1 for years now and in many threads and many PM conversations. I never said it was in this thread. He has many times defended the democrats and called others partisan for pointing out their affiliation with the party platform which supports protecting the culture of death.

The culture of death is the topic of this thread; abortion is the root of the culture of death.

No slander or mud slinging; but you do sense a bit of aggravation that if a person opposes more gun control he is guilty of morality issues and disobedient to his bishop. I think I am in a better position to know what my bishop has mandated to me and what he has not.
 
Tomdstone said:
Current background checks are not effective. They need to be strengthened.
Click to expand...
No, they do not and yes they are affective. What affect would you like? How many felons or people who should not have been able to buy firearms can you site that were able to by them? Tell me, what type of background check would you like, one that generates a registry of gun owners?

I think you can tell by all the current scandals within our government that the government cannot be trusted. If you disagree with this I guess our conversation is over.
 
Lapey said:
My opinion to Sandy Hook is that if that principal and a small percentage of teachers, by their volunteering to carry and after fully being professionally trained and licensed carry a weapon I say only one person would have died that day; the shooter. It is also possible that he would have surrendered or not even attempted it since he would have known it was not an easy target.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, I read that many teachers do not want to carry guns to school. To protect our scools, in addition to stricter gun control laws, I would be in favor of taking all the troops home from places such as Afghanistan and the hundreds of other bases around the world. Instead of killing innocent children in Afghanistan and other places (not deliberately of course, but only as collateral damage), why not leave those foreign children alone and instead use the US army to defend our public schools. By stationing American soldiers at the public schools, they could guard against domestic terrorist attacks against American school children, who deserve to be able to go to school safely. What is their to gain by spending all that money and life to station American troops in a country which is rumored to be corrupt at the top? American children deserve a safe school environment.
 
Lapey said:
No, they do not and yes they are affective. What affect would you like? How many felons or people who should not have been able to buy firearms can you site that were able to by them? Tell me, what type of background check would you like, one that generates a registry of gun owners?

I think you can tell by all the current scandals within our government that the government cannot be trusted. If you disagree with this I guess our conversation is over.
Click to expand...
But didn’t our President state in his Ohio State graduation address:
Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.
Click to expand...
And yet…

stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/04/15/area-gun-owners-react-to-gun-list-controversy/
 
Tomdstone said:
Last time I checked, I read that many teachers do not want to carry guns to school. To protect our scools, in addition to stricter gun control laws, I would be in favor of taking all the troops home from places such as Afghanistan and the hundreds of other bases around the world. Instead of killing innocent children in Afghanistan and other places (not deliberately of course, but only as collateral damage), why not leave those foreign children alone and instead use the US army to defend our public schools. By stationing American soldiers at the public schools, they could guard against domestic terrorist attacks against American school children, who deserve to be able to go to school safely. What is their to gain by spending all that money and life to station American troops in a country which is rumored to be corrupt at the top? American children deserve a safe school environment.
Click to expand...
My wife is a teacher, my two sisters are teachers, my mother and father-in-law are teachers, a couple of nieces and nephews are teachers, my son and daughter are studying to be teachers; many of them do not want to carry. But a small percentage would volunteer for this duty. If we would take the small percentage, 5%, that will accept this duty and give them all the tools they need, all of the training that a policeman would receive in firearms, license them and deputies them for this purpose while on school premises, you would see an end to school shootings.

Your cheap attempt to marginalize and criticize our military people will be ignored this time, please do not do it again.

Military in the schools is not necessary, just take down the “Gun Free Zone” signs and allow volunteers to carry. It’s that simple.
 
Lapey said:
Military in the schools is not necessary, just take down the “Gun Free Zone” signs and allow volunteers to carry. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
But but but we need background checks so felons can run background checks on other felons when they agree to a private sale
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well I’m afraid you’ve decided to be obstinately blind.

I myself support “measures to control the sale and use of firearms”.

However, unlike you, I have not put words into the Bishops mouths by speculating what those measures are when they self-admitedly do not know themselves.

Those with ears should hear.

Apparently, you are earless.😉
 
Lapey said:
…

Your cheap attempt to marginalize and criticize our military people will be ignored this time, please do not do it again…
Click to expand...
It’s not something I will ignore. I don’t recall “killing innocent children” while I was in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So, we speculate now? No one has made that connection, outside of these forums.
Click to expand...
Despite any claims I would like to make to originality, I have seen that opined by others.
So I must confess that it’s not original with me.
 
Lapey said:
Your cheap attempt to marginalize and criticize our military people will be ignored this time, please do not do it again.
Click to expand...
Another ad hominem argument which does not respond the question of protecting innocent schoolchildren from people intent on killing them. I don’t see why people would oppose stationing military personnel at schools. If there is not going to be any move toward stricter limitation of guns, then children should not be in daily fear for their lives at the hands of someone who has taken advantage of the lenient gun laws in this country.
 
Tomdstone said:
Another ad hominem argument which does not respond the question of protecting innocent schoolchildren from people intent on killing them. I don’t see why people would oppose stationing military personnel at schools. If there is not going to be any move toward stricter limitation of guns, then children should not be in daily fear for their lives at the hands of someone who has taken advantage of the lenient gun laws in this country.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit bewildered. Perhaps I’m reading it wrong, but it sounds like you’re not fond of the idea of allowing teachers to be armed. While you’re for the idea of turning our nation into a military state, where actual soldiers are placed on every school block? :confused:

I know you’re “for the children”, but I’m not entirely sure how many children are in daily fear for their lives. Or at the very least, if many more children are in daily fear for their lives than there were in the past.
 
Tomdstone said:
Another ad hominem argument which does not respond the question of protecting innocent schoolchildren from people intent on killing them. I don’t see why people would oppose stationing military personnel at schools. If there is not going to be any move toward stricter limitation of guns, then children should not be in daily fear for their lives at the hands of someone who has taken advantage of the lenient gun laws in this country.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s because us parents abhor our children having to see military personnel on school grounds standing guard with M-16’s?:rolleyes:
 
Tomdstone said:
Another ad hominem argument which does not respond the question of protecting innocent schoolchildren from people intent on killing them. I don’t see why people would oppose stationing military personnel at schools. If there is not going to be any move toward stricter limitation of guns, then children should not be in daily fear for their lives at the hands of someone who has taken advantage of the lenient gun laws in this country.
Click to expand...
You are grasping at straws here…you basically called the military personnel baby killers, I called you out and now I am the one at fault. Sad…:cool:

People do not want military personnel in our schools with our children armed with military weapons, it is not appropriate and neither is it acceptable.
 
Lapey said:
You are persistant, I’ll give you that.

When a group of bishops make a statem,ent like this it is binding as a resolution pretty much. Now if my bishop would come back here and send out a pastoral letter to his diocese than it would be binding on me as his subject. As it is now it is not binding.

Please show me one bishop who has issued such a pastoral letter to his diocese; there are none.

I do obey my prelate in everything he has instructed me to live by, he has not instructed me in this matter.
Click to expand...
Show me one bishop that disagrees with the 2000 statement, or who criticizes it for being vague. That document was approved by a full body of bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top