Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

Ms. Lanza felt her son was safe around guns. .

Do we know that?

What we know is that she had guns and that she went with him to shoot on occasion. That does not tell us she felt he was safe around guns other than in that context, and perhaps she wasn’t terribly sanguine about even that.

In any event, he killed her with a gun. What we don’t know is how, exactly, he got access to a gun to do that. We think we know she had taken at least some steps to have him committed, but did not get it done.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“A call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” could mean implementing and enforcing existing laws.

It could mean closing loopholes too. Then there’s the problem of the Cardinal, and the Chief Vatican Spokesman agreeing with new initiatives.

 

[Lapey]

In light of the regulations you say exist, the bishops still made a call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

No, I am not using anything for ‘dirty work.’ I am merely reading what the bishops say, and using it to help form a faith based conscience. It’s surprising I have to keep repeating my intentions.

It’s binding on me.

Finally we have agreement!!!

It’s binding on you because you are for more regulation, I am not. I disagree with the thought process of more regulation will cause less violence; FBI studies back up my opinion. I’m sure someone will find teh link to recent statistics that this White House refuses to talk about.

Anyway, you feel bound becaus eyou agree, not because teh statement is binding in and of itself…am I right? Please say yes, I’d hate to have to go back to the canonical arguments. I will, but this is just making me tired.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do we know that?

What we know is that she had guns and that she went with him to shoot on occasion. That does not tell us she felt he was safe around guns other than in that context, and perhaps she wasn’t terribly sanguine about even that.

In any event, he killed her with a gun. What we don’t know is how, exactly, he got access to a gun to do that. We think we know she had taken at least some steps to have him committed, but did not get it done.

She and her son went shooting together, Both had NRA cards, that the NRA denied membership, but it doesn’t take away that they had them. One needs look honestly at the problem to prevent a repeat.

Yes, and any person could show first signs of mental illness by going on a shooting spree.

 

[Lapey]

When they endorse particular legislation, of course it is.

But there is a difference in the nature of the acts.

In opposing abortion, whether through legislation or otherwise, they are opposing an intrinsic evil; something that is evil in every instance, which they have no choice but to oppose. Having no political power of their own, they are calling on Catholics to follow a clear and unequivocal teaching of the Church, and they do make it clear.

In the case of gun legislation a bishop endorsing a particular piece of legislation is making a moral statement about crime; which is the evil in question, not gun ownership as such, since gun ownership is not an intrinsic evil or evil in every instance. If a bishop feels that some aspect of gun ownership is conducive to crime, that is his prudential judgment of means to an end, not an end in itself. It is important that such a bishop make it clear what the moral implications of his proposition are and are not, lest he inadvertently mislead the faithful as to what Church teachings are and are not.

I have long felt that churchmen should be very careful in choosing the political arguments upon which they wish to weigh in. First, of course, they run the risk of stepping over the permissible lines of “political action” set by the government and harming the Church structure by doing it. In Bishop Blaire’s case, his directly supporting legislation was probably harmless because it served the purpose of the administration in power. But as we have seen, in opposing abortion some have been sanctioned for the alleged “political activity” of doing it. We are only now discovering how much of that really went on prior to the last election.

Well stated!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Finally we have agreement!!!

It’s binding on you because you are for more regulation, I am not. I disagree with the thought process of more regulation will cause less violence; FBI studies back up my opinion. I’m sure someone will find teh link to recent statistics that this White House refuses to talk about.

Anyway, you feel bound becaus eyou agree, not because teh statement is binding in and of itself…am I right? Please say yes, I’d hate to have to go back to the canonical arguments. I will, but this is just making me tired.

Spin again. It’s binding on me because I feel led to discern a unified guidance from the bishops. Why is it necessary to spin what another person says? I have clarified this over and over.

 

[Lapey]

You ask questions, but do not answer any addressed to yourself? Or, maybe I missed it. How would universal background checks for all sales affect you personally?Red flag here!!! Why are you worried, it won’t affect you…yet.

How many guns in this country? 250,000,000? Yet, we need to maintain loopholes to add to those numbers, possibly in the hands of those who would use them in some type of gun violence. Easy access to guns. The bishops get it.Should we limit the number of guns in circulation at any given time? Not sure where you are going here.

The bishops also identified other problems that attribute to the problem. No one argues them, but it wouldn’t affect them personally, if they are free of mental illnesses, or don’t desire to view violent programs, or video games. The problem with background checks falls back to personal impact, or so it seems. Please answer the question above.

Since I’ve got nothing to hide…and it won’t affect me personnally, I shouldn’t worry about the IRS and the scandals surrounding this White House administration either…right?

 

[Lapey]

Yet, Jesus didn’t write a thing, nor order anything scribed, but we pay attention to everything He taught, through His Church.

Yes, and I am obliged to preach it, in its entirety.

 

[Lapey]

Spin again. It’s binding on me because I feel led to discern a unified guidance from the bishops. Why is it necessary to spin what another person says? I have clarified this over and over.

Ok, so I was wrong, we do not have agreement and you are still implying that we who disagree with you are immoral and disobediant to our bishops. Yo had a chance to get out, you refused once again.

It is past time to lock this thread…it has run its course many, many, many pages back.

I think I am done since you know everything better than anybody else. And you have corrected all of us immoral and/or amoral folks who disagree with you.

Later…

 

[BroomWagon]

It could mean closing loopholes too. Then there’s the problem of the Cardinal, and the Chief Vatican Spokesman agreeing with new initiatives.

This is too important to summarize in this way, one would have to read the exact statements and I will look for them later on unless someone has the information ready at hand.

Agreeing with the new initiatives might be only precursory, I found info on it. It may not be binding, I found info on it.

We too can “discern”.

 

[BroomWagon]

By Phil Lawler
Vatican City:

Let’s make something clear right away. Pope Benedict has not endorsed the Obama administration’s gun-control plans. The Pope has said nothing on the subject.

ucanindia.in/news/angry-response-to-vatican-spokesman-over-gun-control/20121/daily

Non-binding, not the complete story.

We too can discern.

We too can be cynical.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And the bishops continue the calls for support, and none speak against. I am open to correction if you know of any to speak against supporting controls.

There’s no “continue” to it. What bishops other than Blaire spoke in support of Obama’s Senate bill?

One cannot assume the bishops as a group supported the same Senate bill Bp Blaire supported, since they have said nothing about it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since I’ve got nothing to hide…and it won’t affect me personnally, I shouldn’t worry about the IRS and the scandals surrounding this White House administration either…right?

Yet? Must keep conspiracy theories active! If the worse case scenario, imagined, happened, how would ‘render unto Caesar’ apply?

Should we limit the number of guns? How many is enough? Do we throw gas on a fire to extinguish it? We don’t stop a problem by adding more. It just creates an easier access.

Oh, that boogeyman government! Come on. That’s being addressed, and I’m sure the bipartisan effort will ensure it doesn’t happen again. On this topic, you won’t support universal background checks because you distrust the government? The government the constitution and Catechism say has a right to regulate?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There’s no “continue” to it. What bishops other than Blaire spoke in support of Obama’s Senate bill?

One cannot assume the bishops as a group supported the same Senate bill Bp Blaire supported, since they have said nothing about it.

Back to limiting? The 3 chairmen of 3 USCCB committees, the president of the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman. They ‘reiterate’ the same calls, and in the absence of any dissenting opinion, stated by another bishop. The reiteration uses, almost verbatim, the call from the 2000 document.

But we can assume that those who do not speak do not agree? Right.

Show me one bishop who disagrees.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Non-binding, not the complete story.

We too can discern.

We too can be cynical.

Oh, and not speaking is disagreeing with a full body of bishops in the US?

It doesn’t appear to be discerning, as much as it appears to finding a way to dismiss what the bishops say, in my opinion.

 

[BroomWagon]

Yet? Must keep conspiracy theories active! If the worse case scenario, imagined, happened, how would ‘render unto Caesar’ apply?

Should we limit the number of guns? How many is enough? Do we throw gas on a fire to extinguish it? We don’t stop a problem by adding more. It just creates an easier access.

Oh, that boogeyman government! Come on. That’s being addressed, and I’m sure the bipartisan effort will ensure it doesn’t happen again. On this topic, you won’t support universal background checks because you distrust the government? The government the constitution and Catechism say has a right to regulate?

Excuse me, if you use cynicism about much lesser matters, you should not be critical of others who are cynical on much more serious matters. That is being condescending, You have come out and said I don’t believe things people said in 2002 or whenever, so why would you find fault with others? Let’s be charitable and fair!.

We have a Government that has offended church sensiblities and many people’s interpretations of freedom of religion. Now you put trust in this government?

Others have a right to their opinion and it is worth no less than yours!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is too important to summarize in this way, one would have to read the exact statements and I will look for them later on unless someone has the information ready at hand.

Agreeing with the new initiatives might be only precursory, I found info on it. It may not be binding, I found info on it.

We too can “discern”.

Show me one bishop who disagrees with the 2000 statement, or the recent calls from those who have spoken out.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Excuse me, if you use cynicism about much lesser matters, you should not be critical of others who are cynical on much more serious matters. That is being condescending, You have come out and said I don’t believe things people said in 2002 or whenever, so why would you find fault with others? Let’s be charitable and fair!.

We have a Government that has offended church sensiblities and many people’s interpretations of freedom of religion. Now you put trust in this religion?

Really? Now we need to find charity and fairness?

How come the bishops speak in favor of good they see, no matter what party does it, and, at the same time, speak criticisms when appropriate? I don’t think the bishops view the American government in the same light as you do.

 

[BroomWagon]

There’s no “continue” to it. What bishops other than Blaire spoke in support of Obama’s Senate bill?

One cannot assume the bishops as a group supported the same Senate bill Bp Blaire supported, since they have said nothing about it.

This statement is from the year 2000: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

Nothing more than calling for the implementation of current laws already in place. Yes, that can be interpolated in different ways.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This statement is from the year 2000: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

Nothing more than calling for the implementation of current laws already in place. Yes, that can be interpolated in different ways.

Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. It’s clear, and it’s been reiterated by bishops, who have spoken out. Are there any bishops to disagree?

It means more than, “let’s support the same laws that have loopholes to allow an easy access, that we speak on contributing to the problem.”

We really need to give the bishops more credit than that.