Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

It might not be very just at all. In fact I consider “Arming” yourself to be Eucharistic.

Luke 22:36-37…"…and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,…"

Note: Arming yourself was commanded to you by Jesus himself and it was done at the “Last Supper”, otherwise known as the institution of the Eucharist.

No where in this discourse did he say to fill out a bunch of forms and to get permission from the corrupted government?

He gave the apostles Holy Communion, and then told them to arm themselves - period.

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius Lapide

Ver. 36.—But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip. A purse filled with money, a scrip with food, that they might have support in the impending persecution; for they will never find either, “because men will fly from Me, who am bound and accused, and consequently from My disciples as men wicked and condemned.”
And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Christ, in these words, did not command them to take a purse and a scrip, and to sell their garment and buy a sword, for He soon after forbade Peter to draw his sword; but they were a warning of the fierce persecution which was about to fall upon Himself and the apostles, and which was so heavy to those that regarded the difficulty of the case with the eyes of mere human wisdom, that food and weapons would appear things absolutely necessary for the preservation of life. The meaning therefore is this, “Everything, so far, has happened to you, 0 my Apostles, well and prosperously; for when I sent you to preach the Gospel without purse, or scrip, or sword, you were kindly received by most, fed, and sheltered, and had no need of these things. But now so grievous a persecution is impending over you, and so great is the danger to your lives, that in human prudence it may seem necessary to each to think of the preservation of his life, and therefore to take a scrip and purse for provision, and a weapon for defence, and to sell his cloak, and buy a sword. But to Me, who weigh circumstances by the design and decree of God the Father, there is no need of such things; for I go voluntarily to the cross, and to death, and I offer Myself of My own free will, to those who will persecute Me and crucify Me, so that I may conform Myself to the will of My Father.” So S. Chrysostom (Hom. 85 on S. Matt.), and from him Theophylact on this passage, Jansen, Maldonatus, and others. S. Ambrose says well, “0 Lord, why commandest Thou me to buy a sword, and forbiddest me to strike, unless that I may be prepared for my defence, and that Thou mayest appear able to avenge though Thou wouldst not?”

CHRYS. What is this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say to you, that this that is written must, be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.

THEOPHYL. While they were contending among themselves above concerning priority, He said, It is not a time of dignities, but rather of danger and slaughter. Behold I even your Master am led to a disgraceful death, to be reckoned with the transgressors. For these things which are prophesied of Me have an end, that is, a fulfillment. Wishing then to hint at a violent attack, He made mention of a sword, not altogether revealing it, lest they should be seized with dismay, nor did He entirely provide that they should not be shaken by these sudden attacks, but that afterwards recovering, they might marvel how He gave Himself up to the Passion, a ransom for the salvation of men.

BASIL; Or the Lord does not bid them carry purse and scrip and buy a sword, but predicts that it should come to pass, that in truth the Apostles, forgetful of the time of the Passion, of the gifts and law of their Lord, would dare to take up the sword. For often does the Scripture make use of the imperative form of speech in the place of prophecy. Still in many books we do not find, Let him take, or buy, but, he will take, he will buy.

THEOPHYL. Or He hereby foretell to them that they would incur hunger and thirst, which He implies by the scrip, and sundry kinds of misery, which he intends by the sword.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It might not be very just at all. In fact I consider “Arming” yourself to be Eucharistic.

Luke 22:36-37…"…and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,…"

Note: Arming yourself was commanded to you by Jesus himself and it was done at the “Last Supper”, otherwise known as the institution of the Eucharist.

No where in this discourse did he say to fill out a bunch of forms and to get permission from the corrupted government?

He gave the apostles Holy Communion, and then told them to arm themselves - period.

CYRIL; Or else; When our Lord says, He who has a purse, let him take it, likewise a scrip, His discourse He addressed to His disciples, but in reality He regards every individual Jew; as if He says, If any Jew is rich in resources, let him collect them together and fly. But if any one oppressed with extreme poverty applies himself to religion, let him also sell his cloak and buy a sword. For the terrible attack of battle shall overtake them, so that nothing shall suffice to resist it. He next lays open the cause of these evils, namely, that He suffered the penalty due to the wicked, being crucified with thieves. And when it shall have come at last to this, the word of dispensation will receive its end. But to the persecutors shall happen all that has been foretold by the Prophets. These things then God prophesied concerning what should befall the country of the Jews, but the disciples understood not the depth of His words, thinking they had need of swords against the coming attack of the traitor. Whence it follows; But they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.

CHRYS. And in truth, if He wished them to use human aid, not a hundred swords would have sufficed; but if He willed not the assistance of man, even two are superfluous.

THEOPHYL. Our Lord then was unwilling to blame them as not understanding Him, but saying, It is enough, He dismissed them; as when we are addressing any one, and see that he does not understand what is said, we say, Well, let us leave him, lest we trouble him. But some say, that our Lord said, It is enough, ironically; as if He said, Since there are two swords, they will amply suffice against so large a multitude as is about to attack us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It might not be very just at all. In fact I consider “Arming” yourself to be Eucharistic.

Luke 22:36-37…"…and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,…"

Note: Arming yourself was commanded to you by Jesus himself and it was done at the “Last Supper”, otherwise known as the institution of the Eucharist.

No where in this discourse did he say to fill out a bunch of forms and to get permission from the corrupted government?

He gave the apostles Holy Communion, and then told them to arm themselves - period.

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary

Luk 22:36 That hath not, &c. Whilst the apostles are contending for prerogative, he reminds them that now is the time of danger and slaughter; for I, your Master, (says he) shall be led to a dishonourable death, and reputed among the wicked: as all which hath been foretold of me shall have their end; that is, be fulfilled. Wishing also to insinuate the violence of the assaults they themselves will have to sustain, he mentions a sword; but does not reveal all, lest they should be too much alarmed; nor does he entirely suppress the mention of it, lest sudden attacks might overpower them, had they not been forewarned. (Theophylactus)

Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: So Luke relates, the Lord had said to His disciples at supper, “He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one;” [Luke 22:36] and the disciples answered, “Lo, here are two swords.”

It was natural that there should be swords there for the paschal lamb which they had been eating. Hearing then that the pursuers were coming to apprehend Christ, when they went out from supper they took these swords, as though to fight in defence of their Master against His pursuers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, the problem comes back to what the bishop meant by tighter gun laws. You’ve advocated banning certain types of weapons, which I’m against since they are the most effective for certain situations of group and individual defense.

Many times the background check, registration laws and fees are not designed to simply collect information in an efficient manner but to be so onerous that they discourage or preclude gun ownership. So, until I see concrete proposals vice broad statements, I can’t make an assessment.

And---- they provide no benefit in terms of lower crime rates, or reduced spree shootings, unless they’re enforced and are directed at the mentally ill. In practise in the US that hasn’t happened. I oppose implementing restrictions with no benefits.

Again, you and I differ over the likelihood and risk (probability and consequences) of a government becoming corrupt over time. Who defends the people when the ‘legitimate’ authority becomes illegitimate?

So, taking either side in this debate is moral. It is a judgement call. It requires an assessment and consideration of all possibilities in terms of consequences. My position is no more or less moral than yours. I think mine is more reasonable based on human history and church teachings-- but I would never assert that your goal is immoral as I believe you are sincere in what you assess your proposals will achieve. I disagree.

The bishops said, ‘Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.’ No where did they say, now determine what we meant.

It would not bother me for those guns the bishops continue to call a ban on to be the focus of a ban. The last four mass murders, through gun violence, was with an AR15 style weapon, also known as an ‘assault weapon.’ It still leaves LOTS of other guns one could defend with.

i served in the military, for this country. I am not worried that we have to protect against this country. To me, it’s a disrespect of freedom, and those who died for it, to say it’s necessary. It’s beyond partisan and one of the talking points of the ‘great’ NRA. As soon as the other side gains power, that talking point will die down from one side and be brought up by the other.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It might not be very just at all. In fact I consider “Arming” yourself to be Eucharistic.

Luke 22:36-37…"…and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,…"

Note: Arming yourself was commanded to you by Jesus himself and it was done at the “Last Supper”, otherwise known as the institution of the Eucharist.

No where in this discourse did he say to fill out a bunch of forms and to get permission from the corrupted government?

He gave the apostles Holy Communion, and then told them to arm themselves - period.

I’ve provided Catholic commentaries, and quotes of the early Church fathers, for your review. Can you please show me where the Church teaches that society should arm itself, period?

I have provided calls from the men of the Church, who knows Scriptures and the Catechism better than most laity. I do not believe their calling is at odds with either.

 

[BroomWagon]

Sorry ProdigalSon1, you can’t be an interpreter of what the Bishops say about some aspects of life and reject other things, we must be consistent, I think we agree to disagree, I wish you luck on your spiritual journey. I don’t think there is anything more to add.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…i served in the military, for this country. I am not worried that we have to protect against this country. To me, it’s a disrespect of freedom, and those who died for it, to say it’s necessary. It’s beyond partisan and one of the talking points of the ‘great’ NRA. As soon as the other side gains power, that talking point will die down from one side and be brought up by the other.

Thanks for your service, I did 23 years as well. I am not worried today, however, human history does indicate it’s a valid concern. I’m not willing to gamble future generations on my assessment of what the future will hold, not that confident in my capability for omniscience.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful at all to be familiar with the constitution one is sworn to uphold and defend, understand it’s origins, what the framers intended, what their concerns were and why. Kind of telling that the oath in fact includes "…all enemies foreign and domestic’. Sorry, not a member of the NRA, just a student of history.

We did the assualt weapon ban nationally. Result- no effect on crime. It was in place in Massachusetts, yet Sandy Hook still occurred.

One of the few types of crimes which is increasing are home invasion style robberies/rapes/assaults. AR15 type weapons are very effective in those situations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry ProdigalSon1, you can’t be an interpreter of what the Bishops say about some aspects of life and reject other things, we must be consistent, I think we agree to disagree, I wish you luck on your spiritual journey. I don’t think there is anything more to add.

I am consistent, as I’ve told you repeatedly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for your service, I did 23 years as well. I am not worried today, however, human history does indicate it’s a valid concern. I’m not willing to gamble future generations on my assessment of what the future will hold, not that confident in my capability for omniscience.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful at all to be familiar with the constitution one is sworn to uphold and defend, understand it’s origins, what the framers intended, what their concerns were and why. Kind of telling that the oath in fact includes "…all enemies foreign and domestic’. Sorry, not a member of the NRA, just a student of history.

We did the assualt weapon ban nationally. Result- no effect on crime. It was in place in Massachusetts, yet Sandy Hook still occurred.

One of the few types of crimes which is increasing are home invasion style robberies/rapes/assaults. AR15 type weapons are very effective in those situations.

The valid concerns of history, will not be fully applicable in the eternity. The same is true of all man made ‘constitutions’ and similar documents.

Let’s not forget that the assault weapon used by Lanza was grandfathered. It makes a difference when explaining a ban’s effectiveness The ban of the past was shown to be in a time prior to the drop in violent crimes. The response now is in the face of the single violent crime of mass shootings. You served, we know how effective those type weapons would be in a crowded situation, where everyone was a target.

An M16 would be even more effective, but we know the reality of having those in society. There are other means, and as effective, depending on the proficiency of the person handling the firearm.

 

[scipio337]

Thanks for your service, I did 23 years as well. I am not worried today, however, human history does indicate it’s a valid concern. I’m not willing to gamble future generations on my assessment of what the future will hold, not that confident in my capability for omniscience.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful at all to be familiar with the constitution one is sworn to uphold and defend, understand it’s origins, what the framers intended, what their concerns were and why. Kind of telling that the oath in fact includes "…all enemies foreign and domestic’. Sorry, not a member of the NRA, just a student of history…

This. Oddly enough, a vast majorit of the vets and active duty members I know are strong supporters of civillian ownership. I’ve yet to have met some member of the armed services (or police, for that matter) who were felt “disrespected” that civillians want to own firearms for protection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This. Oddly enough, a vast majorit of the vets and active duty members I know are strong supporters of civillian ownership. I’ve yet to have met some member of the armed services (or police, for that matter) who were felt “disrespected” that civillians want to own firearms for protection.

You see the acceptable limitations through what is available, and what is not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Proposed legislation is, by its nature, political. Advocating proposed legislation is a political act. Bishop Blaire advocated a particular Senate bill. How is that not political?

That’s not to say Bishop Blaire is not entitled to his political views. He is. So am I, and so is everyone on here.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Here’s somebody who’s looked at what the affect of universal background checks have been in states which have implemented them. Some actually saw increases in murder rates. Some decreses, some no effect.

pjmedia.com/blog/universal-background-checks-shouldnt-we-review-the-statistics/

Note, in the article it points out that 47% of criminals obtained their guns through straw purchasers. So, gang members get girlfriends or associates without criminal backgrounds to buy the weapons for them. Which is already a crime, and all too often not prosecuted. As others have said, perhaps the push should be for enforcement of existing gun laws against criminals as opposed to additional restrictions on the law abiding.

The law abiding self-enforce by obeying the laws. They aren’t the problem, yet we keep placing more and more restrictions on them vice going after the law breakers.

So, really, what is the goal of proposing new laws? Is it truly to go after those who can already be prosecuted for multiple crimes they’ve committed under exising laws? Or is it the self enforcement and disarmament of folks who weren’t a crime problem to begin with? And why?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Proposed legislation is, by its nature, political. Advocating proposed legislation is a political act. Bishop Blaire advocated a particular Senate bill. How is that not political?

That’s not to say Bishop Blaire is not entitled to his political views. He is. So am I, and so is everyone on here.

The bishops work to change abortion legislation. Is that political?

 

[scipio337]

Here’s somebody who’s looked at what the affect of universal background checks have been in states which have implemented them. Some actually saw increases in murder rates. Some decreses, some no effect.

pjmedia.com/blog/universal-background-checks-shouldnt-we-review-the-statistics/

Note, in the article it points out that 47% of criminals obtained their guns through straw purchasers. So, gang members get girlfriends or associates without criminal backgrounds to buy the weapons for them. Which is already a crime, and all too often not prosecuted. As others have said, perhaps the push should be for enforcement of existing gun laws against criminals as opposed to additional restrictions on the law abiding.

The law abiding self-enforce by obeying the laws. They aren’t the problem, yet we keep placing more and more restrictions on them vice going after the law breakers.

So, really, what is the goal of proposing new laws? Is it truly to go after those who can already be prosecuted for multiple crimes they’ve committed under exising laws? Or is it the self enforcement and disarmament of folks who weren’t a crime problem to begin with? And why?

Here’s the goal:

…Let’s not forget that the assault weapon used by Lanza was grandfathered. It makes a difference when explaining a ban’s effectiveness …

Banning is the first step. Confiscation is the second. What good is a ban if we don’t get all of those scary handguns and black rifles off the streets?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s the goal:

Banning is the first step. Confiscation is the second. What good is a ban if we don’t get all of those scary handguns and black rifles off the streets?

That’s an incorrect assumption, at least on my part and the majority of people, and for what seems to be to invalidate arguments made. Remember, 9 out of 10 people agreed with the need for universal background checks, and that consisted of homes with guns. The percentage was only slightly higher among homes without guns.

 

[BroomWagon]

A lot of people have been in the Service, anyone can make a passionate discourse, what we need is to examine the facts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A lot of people have been in the Service, anyone can make a passionate discourse, what we need is to examine the facts.

I have provided links to those facts important to Catholics, also, links that show the ineffectiveness of loopholes through private sales.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The valid concerns of history, will not be fully applicable in the eternity. The same is true of all man made ‘constitutions’ and similar documents.

Let’s not forget that the assault weapon used by Lanza was grandfathered. It makes a difference when explaining a ban’s effectiveness The ban of the past was shown to be in a time prior to the drop in violent crimes. The response now is in the face of the single violent crime of mass shootings. You served, we know how effective those type weapons would be in a crowded situation, where everyone was a target.

An M16 would be even more effective, but we know the reality of having those in society. There are other means, and as effective, depending on the proficiency of the person handling the firearm.

Well, an M16 in burst vice full auto weilded by someone aiming it. You do realize mass shootings have been decreasing compared to the past several decades, right? California has gone to reduced capacity magazines and while shootings are down, deaths per shooting are up and bystander woundings down. Seems the gang-bangers have started aiming vice the spray and pray methods of the past. As I see it, what we have is a gang problem, not a gun problem. Hence, Chicago’s appalling rate of gun violence where only the criminals are armed, and the law abiding aren’t. It will be interesting to see where California’s crime rate goes in the future due to the mass release of criminals due to court orders due to overcrowding and the relaxation of three strikes.

However, the only thing that will protect an innocent individual is being adequately armed (or having someone in the immediate vicinity that is adequately armed). Regardless of whether the attacker is using an AR, M16, shotgunn, pistol or just superior numbers/force.

You do have a point about the assault weapon ban. It was in fact inconsistent with what it defined as an assault weapon, so not just grandfathered weapons but there were legal weapons under the ban that were very similar to banned weapons. Cosmetics over function. Yet, crime continued to drop as gun ownership climbed, number of weapons in the public climbed, and many states liberalized their gun laws easing restrictions on CCWs. A lot more to crime rates than simply the availabiliy of firearms.

I don’t think human nature changes, hence the doctrine of the Church and its benefits to mankind is consistent and always applicable. It recognizes that Our Father in heaven knows us intimately, fully, completely understands us.

 

[BroomWagon]

As long as those pushing for gun control are pawns for the “great” planned parenthood like Mayor Bloomberg, I don’t think the Bishops would be demanding anything more than the populace to follow the gun laws that already exist.

If most gun control advocates politically speaking are these liberal types, whose to say they don’t plan these tragedies to try to push these laws on people?