Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

They’re in place for all LEGAL, Dealer to Private Party sales.

That CNN video was staged from what i remembered, they video taped legal transactions, than recoiled in horror as they played them out of context.

If background checks on private party transactions were that important, the left shouldn’t have destroyed their opportune chance of implementing them by attempting to thrown the kitchen sink in as well. They had a chance. I even feel its a travesty that part wasn’t enacted, as it is prudent and reasonable. Unfortunately, the legislation couldn’t be kept at that, which made it a mockery and travesty.

The CNN video was an investigative video. They sent in a young man who made purchases with only cash being the necessity to complete the transaction. It’s hard to say it’s out of context when cash and guns changed hands, without even name exchanges.

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

 

[Ridgerunner]

When so many ‘political’ objections are made, it’s clear where the nerve has been struck on those who state those type objections.

Nonsense. Bishop Blaire himself made it “political” when he supported a particular piece of legislation. From the article you cited:

"In his letter, the bishop referenced measures included in Senate bill S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, commending many of its requirements a “positive step in the right direction.”

When you support specific legislation, when are you not being political?

“Politically” it didn’t even get enough Democrat support to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. That’s political too.

 

[InigoMontoya]

The CNN video was an investigative video. They sent in a young man who made purchases with only cash being the necessity to complete the transaction. It’s hard to say it’s out of context when cash and guns changed hands, without even name exchanges.

Martin Savidge shows how easy it is to buy guns at gunshows – no questions asked!

Okay, so what was the point of CNN’s investigation or the reason you’re referencing it?

Every gun show I’ve been to as had law enforcement and frequently undercover ATF agents as well. Federal Firearms License holders know this, and so are quite unlikely to flagrantly risk prison over not following procedures. Especially when you realize how little the profit margins are for them. So it’s unlikely they videotaped an illegal sale, if they did they would have went to the ATF and the guy would have been Federally prosecuted.

This looks like a private party sales table. Which few gun shows even allow anymore. Being a private party sale, no name exchange or background check is required. CNN knew this, hence without emphasizing that one could easily conjecture that they’re trying to be sensational.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ll post again so the lurkers can see your terrible disservice to the Bishops as you put words into their mouths.

Can you post where the Bishops call for background checks that are not in place today?

Am I the topic of discussion?

SUPPORT MEASURES TO CONTROL THE SALE AND USE OF FIREARMS. I am not trying to mislead anyone and have posted links to the documents WHICH ARE the topic of discussion, and invited all to read for themselves. I summarize by suggesting background checks, which is in a way supporting, as opposed to attacking posters personally, or not offering any suggestions whatsoever that might be responding to the calls from the bishops.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Okay, so what was the point of CNN’s investigation or the reason you’re referencing it?

Every gun show I’ve been to as had law enforcement and frequently undercover ATF agents as well. Federal Firearms License holders know this, and so are quite unlikely to flagrantly risk prison over not following procedures. Especially when you realize how little the profit margins are for them. So it’s unlikely they videotaped an illegal sale, if they did they would have went to the ATF and the guy would have been Federally prosecuted.

This looks like a private party sales table. Which few gun shows even allow anymore. Being a private party sale, no name exchange or background check is required. CNN knew this, hence without emphasizing that one could easily conjecture that they’re trying to be sensational.

I posted it again, so you could see for yourself. The point was to show that guns, even those similar to the last four mass shootings, can be obtained without even exchanging names, which shows an easy access to guns. That easy access is something our bishops have addressed. It doesn’t matter what is looks like, we know what the end result is. And pointing a finger at sensationalism seems to overlook the problem.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nonsense. Bishop Blaire himself made it “political” when he supported a particular piece of legislation. From the article you cited:

"In his letter, the bishop referenced measures included in Senate bill S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013, commending many of its requirements a “positive step in the right direction.”

When you support specific legislation, when are you not being political?

“Politically” it didn’t even get enough Democrat support to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. That’s political too.

So far the most political I have seen, has been in the objections raised. What I see from the bishops is the addressing of people who have lost their lives due to gun violence. Read back through the forums and see who has made all the political connections, and objections; even in the face of repeated explanations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Frankly, at this point, I doubt the honesty of your opinion.

Your continued placement of your ideas into the Bishops mouths is shameful.

I have my doubts too. I’m sure you know that.

I really don’t care about the shameful innuendos. I think they can be recognized for what they really are.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Considering that unless freely chosen a choice means nothing, the absolute duty of a Christian ought to be to protect liberty and secular government.

Freedom is a greater good than mere existence, and love compelled isn’t really love.

Really? Care to show me the Gospel that teaches us to protect liberty an the secular government?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Am I the topic of discussion?

No you are not but when you repeat the Bishops comments and in the next sentence use the words “such as” then proceed to insert your opinion you become disingenuious. Can’t your argument stand on its own without placing your words into the Bishops mouths?

SUPPORT MEASURES TO CONTROL THE SALE AND USE OF FIREARMS. I am not trying to mislead anyone and have posted links to the documents WHICH ARE the topic of discussion, and invited all to read for themselves. I summarize by suggesting background checks, which is in a way supporting, as opposed to attacking posters personally, or not offering any suggestions whatsoever that might be responding to the calls from the bishops.

If you are not rying to mislead anyone why don’t you just stop linking your opinion to the Bishops statements? It’s not rocket science. Just stop.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No you are not but when you repeat the Bishops comments and in the next sentence use the words “such as” then proceed to insert your opinion you become disingenuious. Can’t your argument stand on its own without placing your words into the Bishops mouths?

If you are not rying to mislead anyone why don’t you just stop linking your opinion to the Bishops statements? It’s not rocket science. Just stop.

Not rocket science? The language from the bishops is clear, and anyone could understand it.

Your repeated accusations seems to be for other reasons. No offense, but I won’t be responding to you anymore. God Bless.

 

[Lapey]

You are free to choose. The proof is there, and in what I consider simple terms, by a full body of bishops. There are no dissenting, or clarifying, voices on the subject from any bishop. I accept what they say, and will support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

It’s not my choice, it is my bishop’s choice.

Can you read??? No bishops have made this document binding to the faithful in their respective dioceses.

The USCCB cannot by majority or unanimously on its own authority restrict any of the faithful to a restriction or a punishment. Even when the conference goes the other direction, as in communion in the hand, the Vatican had to issue an indult at the request of the conference. The conference on its own could not lessen the requirements; more so than that are the limited authority of a conference of bishops where it comes to some issue binding the faithful to a moral obligation to the faithful.

In other words, you theory is all wet, this is in no way binding on the faithful. Again I challenge you to find one bishop who has instituted this mandate in his diocese; there are none.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Really? Care to show me the Gospel that teaches us to protect liberty an the secular government?

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17

 

[Lapey]

Well, it certainly seems I draw a lot of personal criticisms, condemnations, and specific wording that I consider only to inflame. The bars been raised and met, and statements from the bishops clarified. When I said that exceptions for certain transfers could be made, it became ‘it won’t work if that is allowed.’ But, you keep repeating the same objections, that have been addressed.

When so many ‘political’ objections are made, it’s clear where the nerve has been struck on those who state those type objections.

We’re all responsible to run our own race, and we’re all free to choose how we’re going to do that.

You’ve been proven wrong again and backed into a corner…now it is only politics that keeps new gun regulations from doing nothing to curb gun violence. Man I wish I was not political, you know like you…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Not rocket science? The language from the bishops is clear, and anyone could understand it.

Your repeated accusations seems to be for other reasons. No offense, but I won’t be responding to you anymore. God Bless.

Apparently anyone but you.

Yes He does. Thank you.

 

[Lapey]

Support measures to control the sale an use of firearms is specific. When we have loopholes that allows an easy access to guns for anyone and people argue against universal background checks, something is blocking their view, in my honest opinion.

You are questioning our motives and you misrepresent information about background checks already in place…but we are being political.

 

[Lapey]

Hopefully “law abiding” sellers would feel obligated to participate forcing buyers into background checks. It’s common sense to recognize there’s a gap in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. You want proof, where a gun violence perpetrator obtains a gun, circumventing the background checks, and then publicly states, 'I committed this crime with an illegally purchased gun?" Right.

The Pope recently spoke on living our lives for others, or…

This pope did not give any statement about our gun laws. How am I not living for others? Why do you try to switch attention constantly? You have no evidence that law biding citizens have sold to outlaws who then turned and killed with those legally obtained guns. Here is a common sense idea, outlaws will continue to be outlaws no matter what law you put in place.

 

[InigoMontoya]

I posted it again, so you could see for yourself. The point was to show that guns, even those similar to the last four mass shootings, can be obtained without even exchanging names, which shows an easy access to guns. That easy access is something our bishops have addressed. It doesn’t matter what is looks like, we know what the end result is. And pointing a finger at sensationalism seems to overlook the problem.

I do find it to be sensationalist and useless. As it doesn’t bring anything shocking, surprising, or new to the table. It’s just designed to draw emotions, in light of recent tragedies.

I’ve posted that I believe all transactions should have background checks, and that I feel it’s easily implemented.

The resistance comes from the mockery (IMO) that certain segments bring about by the issue. As the importance of changing that “loophole” is cast aside with attempts to package legislation which goes far and above what many gun owners or advocates consider reasonable.

 

[Lapey]

Not rocket science? The language from the bishops is clear, And not bindingand anyone could understand it.

Your repeated accusations seems to be for other reasons. No offense, but I won’t be responding to you anymore. God Bless.

 

[Gricken]

The languge of the bishops is clear. They say “support measures to control firearms” what they do not say is WHAT KIND OF MEASURMENTS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. This has been pointed out over and over again. If you feel that they meant increased background checks then YOU may support that. It isn’t wrong too. But you can not claim that all the Bishops had the same idea of “sensible measurements” nor can you claim that they all agreed with YOUR idea of “sensible measurements” You are free to support them, but you CAN NOT claim that your opinion is the opinon of all the bishops. Nor can you claim that they issued a moral statement on firearm control. You can feel it’s a moral issue. But you can not say all the bishops feel the same.

It really isn’t that hard to understand.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17

And the people paid their taxes…and rendered unto God, the things that are God’s.