Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[nitesnake]

If, as a nation, we placed all our trust in Him, we wouldn’t have to worry about future generations.

That’s a very nice , emotional platitude. But it means nothing. Sounds a lot like some Bishops I have recently heard speak on the subject (of course they are well protected, with guns ) There are dozens of people, unarmed real people being killed everyday in cities like Chicago by criminals who get guns illegally . Why? Because law-abiding citizens do not have legal access to weapons protect themselves there. That is the real tragedy that is going on.

What is going on is that half the country wants to place their trust in guns to solve our nations problems.

No, what’s going on is naive people like you pretending that another silly gun control law is going to keep criminals from getting guns. Wake up, policies like that are getting innocent people killed every day

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s a very nice , emotional platitude. But it means nothing. Sounds a lot like some Bishops I have recently heard speak on the subject (of course they are well protected, with guns ) There are dozens of people, unarmed real people being killed everyday in cities like Chicago by criminals who get guns illegally . Why? Because law-abiding citizens do not have legal access to weapons protect themselves there. That is the real tragedy that is going on.

It’s called the Gospel.

Our Bishops are well protected, with guns? How so?

So, should we finance guns for the law abiding people who can’t afford them?

No, what’s going on is naive people like you pretending that another silly gun control law is going to keep criminals from getting guns. Wake up, policies like that are getting innocent people killed.

So current gun controls don’t work, and we shouldn’t try to replace them with controls that might? We should live by the gun instead?

 

[Geist]

Controls are not grabbing guns anymore than advocating gun rights is idolizing guns.

thefreedictionary.com/control

con·trol (kn-trl)
tr.v. con·trolled, con·trol·ling, con·trols
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2. To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3. To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.
4. To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water.
5.
a. To verify or regulate (a scientific experiment) by conducting a parallel experiment or by comparing with another standard.
b. To verify (an account, for example) by using a duplicate register for comparison.

Just remember, a police state by definition is the state in which only the police have weapons. Free people require weapons.

 

[nitesnake]

It’s called the Gospel.

Our Bishops are well protected, with guns? How so?

You don’t really think that Cardinal Dolan and most of the other USCCB walk around unprotected do you? I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

So, should we finance guns for the law abiding people who can’t afford them?

I might not be opposed to that, but as usual
your straw-man arguments seem endless. I never said any such thing. What I’ve contended all along is that people should not be denied the right to protect themselves with a gun.

So current gun controls don’t work, and we shouldn’t try to replace them with controls that might?

I have bad news for you. Gun-control laws have been tried over and over for the last fifty years. They *don’t * work.

We should live by the gun instead?

Absolutely.

 

[pete_29]

If, as a nation, we placed all our trust in Him, we wouldn’t have to worry about future generations. What is going on is that half the country wants to place their trust in guns to solve our nations problems.

Good ! Place your trust in God, not in politicians or their worthless policies.

Let say they do pass “reasonable” gun control. What will you demand after the next mass shooting. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Finally, who are you to say whether gun owners have Faith in God or not. You’d do well take care of your own Faith and not worry about others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You don’t really think that Cardinal Dolan and most of the other USCCB walk around unprotected do you? I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

So, it’s merely an assumption? Sorry, but assumptions are not proof. We need to see a source.

I might not be opposed to that, but as usual
your straw-man arguments seem endless. I never said any such thing. What I’ve contended all along is that people should not be denied the right to protect themselves with a gun.

So a poor person has no right, unless they can afford it?

I have bad news for you. Gun-control laws have been tried over and over for the last fifty years. They *don’t * work.

Laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc. have worked?

If something doesn’t work, we shouldn’t try something else?

Absolutely.

Those that take the sword, perish by the sword.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Good ! Place your trust in God, not in politicians or their worthless policies.

Let say they do pass “reasonable” gun control. What will you demand after the next mass shooting. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Finally, who are you to say whether gun owners have Faith in God or not. You’d do well take care of your own Faith and not worry about others.

I didn’t say gun owner have faith in God or not. What is being said, by others, is that my faith needs to be in ‘guns’ first, and that we should be a nation that lives by the gun. That doesn’t work with me, and my faith formed conscience. That is taking are of my own faith, thank you for your ‘concern’.

 

[nitesnake]

So, it’s merely an assumption? Sorry, but assumptions are not proof. We need to see a source.

True enough. Just an assumption on my part.

So a poor person has no right, unless they can afford it?

I said they have every right to self defense, even with an “evil firearm”. You brought up (sarcastically) the possibility of even subsidizing the poor to be able to have a gun for self-defense; I said that might not be a bad thing. So who is really the person here in favor of denying self-defense (a gun) to the poor? Me or you? One only needs to look at my previouspost to confirm this.

Laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc. have worked?

Those are laws, not gun bans. But, there would be far fewer of them if more people were walking around armed,

If something doesn’t work, we shouldn’t try something else?

Yes we should. Allowing more people to be legally armed.

Those that take the sword, perish by the sword.

Those that take up the sword against me are going to get shot.

 

[Geist]

Collegiality doesn’t work like that. The bishops in each country or region form a synod. This synod under and with the Vatican is authoritative. The “rules” set for the people in Syria would be different than the “rules” in the U.S.

You’re OK with the US Bishops putting their faith in only allowing “legitimate authorities” in the US to have guns?

The same “legitimate authorities” who say a woman has a “RIGHT” to an abortion?

I don’t even have words to express how bizarre this reasoning is.

The state is not our friend; it hates God and sees Him as competition. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[liturgyluver]

You’re OK with the US Bishops putting their faith in only allowing “legitimate authorities” in the US to have guns?

The same “legitimate authorities” who say a woman has a “RIGHT” to an abortion?

I don’t even have words to express how bizarre this reasoning is.

The state is not our friend; it hates God and sees Him as competition. Why is this so hard to understand?

What is bizzare, frankly, is your accusation against the reasoning of the US Bishops and the Vatican and the suggestion that you know better than them.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

What is bizzare, frankly, is your accusation against the reasoning of the US Bishops and the Vatican and the suggestion that you know better than them.

There is a difference between morals and policy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is a difference between morals and policy.

Then there’s applying morals to policy, and teaching it.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Then there’s applying morals to policy, and teaching it.

Though in this case the morals do not specifically direct you one way or another.

 

[nitesnake]

What is bizzare, frankly, is your accusation against the reasoning of the US Bishops and the Vatican and the suggestion that you know better than them.

No, what is bizarre (but not surprising) is your “reasoning” that the Bishop’s *political * statements hold any more weight with the Church than a political statement you or I might make…

There seems to be a common misconception around here that the Bishops can say anything they wish,on any subject, and that all faithful Catholics are obliged to agree with them. That is not true. Other than matters that pertain *directly *to Church Doctrine, the Bishop’s opinions hold no more weight than yours or mine.

 

[Ender]

What is bizzare, frankly, is your accusation against the reasoning of the US Bishops and the Vatican and the suggestion that you know better than them.

First, the bishops and Vatican have not made any specific policy proposals. They have not, in fact, called for a ban on the private ownership of guns, and I am content that the generalities they expressed have been satisfied. For example I believe that we already have reasonable controls on access to guns - they want reasonable restrictions and that is what I think we have - check that one off. Second, when it comes to prudential issues such as gun control, I have no problem accepting that they have no particular expertise in that area and there is no reason why I shouldn’t prefer my own council over theirs.

We have to remember that there is no moral judgment involved, no ethical dilemma to resolve, so why would anyone believe that the bishops are more knowledgeable about the impact of various firearms policies than the people who actually study this issue?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Though in this case the morals do not specifically direct you one way or another.

Or they do, and one of us is wrong.

Christ didn’t tell us to get a lawyer to understand right from wrong. It’s do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love one another, as He loves us. Love your enemies.

 

[pete_29]

I didn’t say gun owner have faith in God or not. What is being said, by others, is that my faith needs to be in ‘guns’ first, and that we should be a nation that lives by the gun. That doesn’t work with me, and my faith formed conscience. That is taking are of my own faith, thank you for your ‘concern’.

I haven’t read through every post in this thread, but I haven’t read anything that resembles anything like put your faith in guns before God.

Please tell me, what is Your thought of what to do after the mass shootings after gun control.

I’m glad your taking care of your own faith. You ought to take your own advice and stop questioning other peoples faith formed consciences.

I’m too busy trying to perfect my own faith to be ‘concerned’ with yours.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I haven’t read through every post in this thread, but I haven’t read anything that resembles anything like put your faith in guns before God.

Please tell me, what is Your thought of what to do after the mass shootings after gun control.

I’m glad your taking care of your own faith. You ought to take your own advice and stop questioning other peoples faith formed consciences.

I’m too busy trying to perfect my own faith to be ‘concerned’ with yours.

But you brought my faith in to question? Okay…

 

[scipio337]

You’re OK with the US Bishops putting their faith in only allowing “legitimate authorities” in the US to have guns?

The same “legitimate authorities” who say a woman has a “RIGHT” to an abortion?

I don’t even have words to express how bizarre this reasoning is.

The state is not our friend; it hates God and sees Him as competition. Why is this so hard to understand?

Thankfully, the 2nd Amendment made all Americans “legitimate authorities”, so I agree with the Bishops!

 

[TEPO]

…Well, at least the Bishops haven’t kept it a secret what their plans are. They could have met with politicians and law makers privately, and discussed the issues out of plain view.

Here’s their goal:

“… we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”