Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

In closed quarters, I would imagine there are a lot of us that could aim from the ‘hip.’

I mentioned the fact that violent crimes was down. It’s not exact to portray it as a safeguard so that nothing need be done.

The gang problem is exacerbated by an easy access to guns.

Arming society is a cheapening of life mentality, in my opinion, and contributes to the culture of death, as Cardinal Dolan stated. It overlooks the right of people not to have more firearms around themselves, or loved ones. Not long ago there was a thread about a couple of accidental discharges at gun shows. People had firearms, but ran over each other getting out of the buildings. It’s not a guarantee to have more armed people in ‘vicinities.’ Police officers are shot in the line of duty. Armed people can go down, like anyone else.

The more we relax guns, the more inefficient people have access. There’s a certain danger behind that, and I’ve brought up that a general argument of gun rights opens door to all. We know all are not equal because they have a right.

There is more to crime rates, and our bishops did not overlook those aspects. Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice covers a great deal of perceived problems.

Our Father sees the intents of all hearts. That’s why I qualify by saying, 'we are all called to form a faith based conscience, and obligated to act on them, according to Church teaching. From there we must always seek Truth, as we can still be in error in our conscience.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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?

Then why are the bishops calling for measures to control the sale and firearms currently?

Really? Either side has played the tragedies politically, as you bring up politics to argue against controls. It’s the same thing. We have to step out of the secular and look to our bishops for guidance in such things.

 

[BroomWagon]

You really can’t put it past the Washington Elitists to stage a tragedy to stimulate gun control, unbelievably, some people spoke against voting for Mitt Romney, the defunding of America’s largest abortion provider and said not a word about an opponent who voted 3 times against the rights of born alive infants who survived abortion. The Bishops do not ask us to have a skewed bias view of the issues but one that is in line with that of Jesus Christ.

 

[BroomWagon]

Then why are the bishops calling for measures to control the sale and firearms currently?

Really? Either side has played the tragedies politically, as you bring up politics to argue against controls. It’s the same thing. We have to step out of the secular and look to our bishops for guidance in such things.

Noone said has played. I said one side of elitists might have staged the tragedy because they are already ruthless enough to be supporters of Planned Parenthood.

 

[Chipper]

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.

I am a Vietnam Era veteran - 6 years.

I feel “disrespected” when people say that civilians should not own firearms. I took an “Oath” to defend the Constitution of the United States. Ownership of firearms is a “Right” - listed in the Constitution - period.

 

[BroomWagon]

The Bishops state:

Challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.
All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse. As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.

So all that is needed is sensible regulation of already existing laws. They are not calling for new legislation.

They also talk of community-based strategies, not necessarily new gun laws:

One successful community strategy is Boston’s Ten Point Coalition, which is credited with reducing juvenile gun deaths, over a several-year period, from epidemic proportions to near zero. This strategy requires a close relationship among religious leaders and law enforcement and court officials, as well as a pervasive presence of people of faith on the streets offering outreach, opportunities for education, and supervised recreation to at-risk youth. The strategy also sends a clear signal that criminal activity in the community will not be tolerated. Similar strategies that model the Boston coalition are now emerging in other cities.

Another community-based strategy to prevent crime is the “broken-window” model. Proponents contend that tolerance of lesser crimes (such as breaking windows of cars and factories) undermines public order and leads to more serious crimes. Stopping crime at the broken-windows stage demonstrates that a low-cost, high-visibility effort can be effective in preventing crime.

Nowhere is it listed that we need to pass new legislation on guns.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You really can’t put it past the Washington Elitists to stage a tragedy to stimulate gun control, unbelievably, some people spoke against voting for Mitt Romney, the defunding of America’s largest abortion provider and said not a word about an opponent who voted 3 times against the rights of born alive infants who survived abortion. The Bishops do not ask us to have a skewed bias view of the issues but one that is in line with that of Jesus Christ.

Stage a tragedy? Really? Was George Bush behind the 9/11 attacks?

I spoke against Romney. He stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy, when it was politically beneficial for him to do so. I didn’t think much of his 47% remarks, either. Either they are for ALL the people, or they have other issues as an agenda, or place themselves as legitimately suspect. Of course this doesn’t address the candidates who were pro life throughout their entire political careers, yet were overlooked in the primaries, because of other issues.

The bishops are clear on this issue.

 

[Lapey]

That “correction” has more than crossed the line, several times by multiple posters. It speaks to how views are shared. When some feel the need to attack, or belittle, another, it speaks to where the message is from, in my honest opinion.

I speak on the morals raised by the bishops, and how I see it’s applicable to the Gospel message. I am challenged with man made rights, and the effect of material items, also of this world.

Check the thread, I have made every attempt to explain how I see the calls as moral guidance, for myself. I have stated several times that we are all bound by our conscience, and obligated to act on them according to Church teaching. I have repeatedly said that we all have free will to choose to follow or not.

The last paragraph separates the two views, in my opinion. You claim a right to “correct,” but want opposing views quiet.

We don’t know each person’s intent, but those who oppose my view are allowed to use ad hominess, condemn, and belittle me personally, without any objections to those that agree with those who do that. That is definitely judging, through speculation, but as I said, it’s acceptable because my view is not popular for those who continue to weigh a bill of rights, or just gun rights, on par or above, the guidance from our bishops.

They give a clear message. There’s no way to make applicable that it means to do nothing, and blame partisans as an excuse to do nothing. There’s no way to make it applicable to ‘we don’t know what will work best,’ or ‘we don’t know how many violent crimes are committed due to the loopholes that make an easy access to guns." Easy access to guns is something clearly spoken of. It’s not time to say, ‘wait a minute, that might affect me personally, so it’s time to dig throughout the Church’s history and find something that will allow me to dismiss the moral guidance as merely opinion.’ The early Church has a rich history of martyrs, who gladly gave their lives instead of preparing a defense, or arming all society to keep governments in check.’

This is my view, and nothing outside the Gospel message will sway me otherwise.

As I said, how these views are shared speaks for what a message represents.

You have made the argument throughout this entire thread that we are bound by the bishop’s word in this document, this is not true. You also put forth you opinion of what should be done. If you care to debate opinions I am good with that. You have been corrected on the fact that this statement of the bishops is not binding. Now stop stating as you have that we are required to agree with their statements and work in line with it or we are immoral or sinning or that we put more importance in a human document that divine revelation. You make accusations in every post, whether they be subtle or direct.

The most beautiful part is, as usual when you are backed into a corner, you cry foul.

You are wrong in your assertions, you are wrong to judge others who disagree with you and you are wrong for crying like a little hurt dog when people disagree with you and call you down on your statements.

Now, either accepts the fact that there are legitimate differencing opinions and we are not bound to follow the bishop’s resolution since this has not been promulgated in any single diocese in the entire USCCB territory. If you continue, you will be corrected every time because you can lead people into untruth. State it as your opinion and give ideas to support that or just be quiet.

That is called debate. On the other hand, to consistently reject and deflect other perspectives as immoral or amoral is not.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am a Vietnam Era veteran - 6 years.

I feel “disrespected” when people say that civilians should not own firearms. I took an “Oath” to defend the Constitution of the United States. Ownership of firearms is a “Right” - listed in the Constitution - period.

Regulations are not the same as an eradication. We aren’t allowed to own certain weapons now. Where is the disgust? It’s only portrayed as an eradication, by gun rights advocates, to incite the populace to support through what is not reality.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Noone said has played. I said one side of elitists might have staged the tragedy because they are already ruthless enough to be supporters of Planned Parenthood.

Then it’s purely speculation, to hold up another political party as the righteous party?

 

[Lapey]

Regulating is not stripping. Now what did you say about being honest?

Now measures to control the sale and use of guns might not be just laws? Really?

One leads to the other. Are you calling me dishonest?

If you would know the CCC like you say, if gun laws prohibit a person from properly defending himself and/or his family, then yes it is an unjust law. The Church does make mention of self defence, this is in line with moral teachings of the Church.

 

[BroomWagon]

Stage a tragedy? Really? Was George Bush behind the 9/11 attacks?

I spoke against Romney. He stated he was more pro choice than Ted Kennedy, when it was politically beneficial for him to do so. I didn’t think much of his 47% remarks, either. Either they are for ALL the people, or they have other issues as an agenda, or place themselves as legitimately suspect. Of course this doesn’t address the candidates who were pro life throughout their entire political careers, yet were overlooked in the primaries, because of other issues.

Really? Well, when have you spoken against Obama voting for Infanticide and the Democrat party being a supporter of Planned Parenthood? ReallY?

So you admit that if your judgement is not correct, you are in effect speaking up for abortion? Seems Romney got the endorsement of right to life organizations. Why is your judgement so much better? Jesus taught us to love others as we love ourselves. It is a Christian value to trust people, not distrust people if it doesn’t fit our political view.

If Obama did a 180 and said he now does not support abortion and he was wrong, why should I not believe him? Looks like you are looking for excuses not to give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt.

He pledged to defund Planned Parenthood. How does the quote you pull out all the time refute that? So, if this can not be defended, you are in fact, speaking of aiding abortion itself, with Republican Governors defunding Planned Parenthood in six states, there is no reason to doubt what they are saying.

If you are cynical, then others have the right to be cynical, after all, the gun legislation crowd is largely supportive of Planned Parenthood and Abortion, thus, how can they be trusted to enact legislation.

Looks like this is a two way street.

The bishops are clear on this issue.

.

Please point to the exact place where the Bishops say “support new gun legislation”?

 

[Lapey]

Regulating is not stripping. Universal background checks does not impact the law abiding citizens, with anymore than minor inconveniences. They would not take away a person’s right, or ability, of self defense.

The Catechism defines self defense, and does not limit it to an armed society.

We already have regulation, little by little we are heading to banning then confiscation. Don’t believe me, as Govoner Cumau of New York.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have made the argument throughout this entire thread that we are bound by the bishop’s word in this document, this is not true. You also put forth you opinion of what should be done. If you care to debate opinions I am good with that. You have been corrected on the fact that this statement of the bishops is not binding. Now stop stating as you have that we are required to agree with their statements and work in line with it or we are immoral or sinning or that we put more importance in a human document that divine revelation. You make accusations in every post, whether they be subtle or direct.

The most beautiful part is, as usual when you are backed into a corner, you cry foul.

You are wrong in your assertions, you are wrong to judge others who disagree with you and you are wrong for crying like a little hurt dog when people disagree with you and call you down on your statements.

Now, either accepts the fact that there are legitimate differencing opinions and we are not bound to follow the bishop’s resolution since this has not been promulgated in any single diocese in the entire USCCB territory. If you continue, you will be corrected every time because you can lead people into untruth. State it as your opinion and give ideas to support that or just be quiet.

That is called debate. On the other hand, to consistently reject and deflect other perspectives as immoral or amoral is not.

Right.

It’s acceptable to attack the poster, and not the view, if it serves a specific interest?

Where is the bishop that speaks differently on this subject than the full body of bishops? If we can rationalize how to dismiss a full body, we’re on a dangerous road, in my opinion. I am bound by my conscience, which leads me to follow the moral guidance. I have repeated you are free to choose or not.

Judging? As in judging the bishops as being political and not offering moral guidance? Come on. We are sharing our own views, and are bound by our consciences. Crying ‘judging’ is an attempt to quieten the opposing view, in my opinion. I have been told I’m a democrat, don’t know the Catholic faith, don’t know scriptures, go hide in a hidey hole, grow a backbone, and much worse; but those who agree on this issue with those that did it, don’t speak up at all. No, they say things like ‘act like a hurt little dog.’ That is as offensive, and has no place in a ‘debate.’

We discussed the full body of bishops, and I have repeatedly asked for the bishop who opposes, or clarifies the message differently. You made a ‘joke’ about your bishop. I am open to discerning differences, but it’s not there.

So far, I do not believe I have been proven wrong, and will continue expressing my view as to why. Let’s not forget, I have posted the links and asked that everyone read for themselves. But I’m making wrong assertions?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We already have regulation, little by little we are heading to banning then confiscation. Don’t believe me, as Govoner Cumau of New York.

Then the loopholes of private sales was closed overnight, and I missed it?

Tell me, how would universal background checks for ALL sales affect you personally?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really? Well, when have you spoken against Obama voting for Infanticide and the Democrat party being a supporter of Planned Parenthood? ReallY?

So you admit that if your judgement is not correct, you are in effect speaking up for abortion? Seems Romney got the endorsement of right to life organizations. Why is your judgement so much better? Jesus taught us to love others as we love ourselves. It is a Christian value to trust people, not distrust people if it doesn’t fit our political view.

If Obama did a 180 and said he now does not support abortion and he was wrong, why should I not believe him? Looks like you are looking for excuses not to give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt.

He pledged to defund Planned Parenthood. How does the quote you pull out all the time refute that? So, if this can not be defended, you are in fact, speaking of aiding abortion itself, with Republican Governors defunding Planned Parenthood in six states, there is no reason to doubt what they are saying.

If you are cynical, then others have the right to be cynical, after all, the gun legislation crowd is largely supportive of Planned Parenthood and Abortion, thus, how can they be trusted to enact legislation.

Looks like this is a two way street.

.

Please point to the exact place where the Bishops say “support new gun legislation”?

See, you spin whatever is said to belittle and impugn. I disagree with you and do not support abortion and find it a false accusation repeated too many times. I am speaking on the moral guidance of our bishops, and not out to impugn anyone personally. I really have to question why it’s necessary for others to ‘see the intent’ of heart and make such accusations. Is it to quieten the view on gun controls?

The bishops cover many issues, and are not bound to a single issue.

 

[BroomWagon]

There are already background checks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One leads to the other. Are you calling me dishonest?

If you would know the CCC like you say, if gun laws prohibit a person from properly defending himself and/or his family, then yes it is an unjust law. The Church does make mention of self defence, this is in line with moral teachings of the Church.

Didn’t you say, “So then say what you really feel then, at least appear honest about your argument. Say that you want to strip the Bill of Rights of the second amendment and be done with it.” Does it question my honesty?

No one is left without defense through background checks. Are the bishops calling for ‘unjust’ measures to control the sale and use of firearms? I am in agreement with them on this issue. Why is my knowledge the only to be singled out?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are already background checks.

There are loopholes where people don’t even have to exchange names. That’s a fact. It also places the bishop in a peculiar position.

 

[Lapey]

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.

So you are in favor of disarming America?