Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[dandingo]

Considering its never happened with a firearm why bring up that nonsense?

Exactly.

What I asked is more on topic than comparing statistics. Provide the men of the Church that show support for your view of gun rights.

You still haven’t provided a rational response to my question. I’m still waiting but I feel that I won’t get one because one does not exist when facts are presented.

Because there aren’t mainstream Catholics outspoken in favor of the Second Amendment does not mean they don’t exist. It just happens that the Cardinal decided to speak up in public while supporting Obama but, for some reason, doesn’t speak up against Abortion, which slaughters more than 10 times the amount rifles do in a year each day.

Do you deny that changes were made to air travel after 9/11? The same applies to other proven dangers to society.

When did I say that changes shouldn’t be made? But we can’t keep passing more and more and more laws, putting more law enforcement in place, taking peoples’ freedoms and liberty away. We need to go to the SOURCE of the problem.

The problem isn’t AR-15s, Glock 17s, Mossberg 500s, machetes, switchblades, airplanes, gasoline, fertilizer or box cutters. The problem is that our society is becoming so secularized that no one holds the INDIVIDUAL accountable because there is no God to be accountable to. The problem is that boys are growing up without fathers, a stable family, discipline, accountability and God.

I can provide you statistic after statistic proving that your arguments are fallacious, have no rationale and are emotional-based but, although I am here to clarify falsities that are being posted, my MO is not to win the debate. My goal is to provide facts that will hopefully show that no amount of gun control will not fix what our society has created.

We have had semi-automatic rifles since the late '40s and owning firearms and even bringing them to school was the norm throughout our history. We need to attack the root of the virus, not mask the symptoms.

 

[jay29]

ONLY 363 people murdered by rifles, when millions of rifles --including thousands of AR15s-- are in circulation.

A drop in the bucket. 2 hours worth of abortions during one day equivalent.

This is an attempt at a fundamental change of the USA in the guise of saving lives.

 

[SamH]

Are these the people that will be enforcing these “responsible restrictions”?

Margie Carranza and her 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez, were delivering the Los Angeles Times before dawn near the home of a police officer named in Dorner’s angry manifesto.

The shooting occurred Feb. 7 after officers were notified of a truck that matched the description of Dorner’s gray 2005 Nissan Titan. Hernandez suffered two bullet wounds to the back. She was released from the intensive care unit and was recovering. Carranza, 47, had minor injuries related to shattered glass and a wounded finger.

The women’s lawyer counted 102 bullet holes in their blue Toyota Tacoma and several more in Hernandez’s hoodie.

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/22/17058326-8-lapd-officers-involved-in-shooting-after-dorner-case-of-mistaken-identity?lite

Disciplinary files from the Bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility record an extraordinary range of transgressions that reveal the chaotic personal lives of some of America’s top law enforcers.

Dating drug dealers, harassing ex-boyfriends with naked pictures, and pointing guns at pet dogs: these were just a few of the offences committed recently by serving FBI agents, according to internal documents.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9887270/FBI-agents-caught-sexting-and-dating-drug-dealers.html

I feel so much safer knowing these are the people “qualified” to handle firearms.

 

[Ender]

We have laypersons declaring a Cardinal incorrect, but without any other man of the Church speaking in favor of gun rights. Are they all united on this subject?

You speak of laypersons disagreeing with bishops and cardinals as if there was something intrinsically disordered about it when in fact the laity has its own distinct role in society and is justified in speaking out when their responsibilities are encroached on by the clergy - which is what has happened here.42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ** *
Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.*(Fourth Lateran Council)

Ender

​

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In 2012, there were 323 murders by ALL rifles, not just AR-15’s, so the number of murders from AR-15’s is much less.

In contrast, there were 726 murders from personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), TWICE as many as ALL rifles combined. There were 1,694 knives or cutting instruments, FIVE TIMES as many as ALL rifles combined.

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Why aren’t we banning knives and tying peoples’ hands and feet behind them every morning?

Can you please give me a rational reason why AR-15’s are being banned?

The AR15 has become what’s appearing to be a choice of those with a propensity to commit mass murder. No one is taking their hands, fists, feet, etc. to commit mass murders. The public demands to feel safe in theaters, malls, schools, or any other function where they become easy targets for a deadly weapon that can kill many in a short period of time.

There was an incident in China involving a knife, that is being used as ‘proof’ of knives being dangerous, but reality is knives are not as deadly against an adult population, or even children considering the time it takes to use a knife against a group compared to a an assault rifle, or AR15 if semantics is the problem.

The topic of the thread is the focus of the bishops, who have been condemned as inexperienced, or speaking outside of moral guidance. Where is the correct voice of the Church that agrees with gun rights as is being conveyed on these forums, or the correct voice separating the issue as non-moral?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You speak of laypersons disagreeing with bishops and cardinals as if there was something intrinsically disordered about it when in fact the laity has its own distinct role in society and is justified in speaking out when their responsibilities are encroached on by the clergy - which is what has happened here.42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ** *
Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.*(Fourth Lateran Council)

Ender

​

There is no usurping of rights happening. There is a call for support for legislation to controls specific type weapons being used against innocent people, and legislation to keep guns out of the hands of children, or criminals.

Was Christ usurping Peter’s rights when He told him to put his sword away, and that those who took the sword would perish by the sword?

Where is the corrective voice of the Church that agrees with you?

Does the source you reference have more authority than the scriptures that tell us to obey our prelates?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You speak of laypersons disagreeing with bishops and cardinals as if there was something intrinsically disordered about it when in fact the laity has its own distinct role in society and is justified in speaking out when their responsibilities are encroached on by the clergy - which is what has happened here.42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ** *
Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.*(Fourth Lateran Council)

Ender

​

Secular justice is that abortions are legal, contraceptives are legal, euthanasia is legal in some instances, embryonic stem cell research is legal, and now gay marriages are legal in some instances. Yes, they are intrinsic evils, but an intrinsic evil can, and is, committed with guns, in some instances. Now, you’ve produced a document forbidding clerics to extend their jurisdictions. You can’t make application where it agrees with a view and deny others, or it seems to be a misuse of Church documents. We have men of the Church, living voices who know these documents better than we do. They give moral guidance accordingly and are not bound by the secular.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution.

(Fourth Lateran Council)
[/INDENT]

Ender

​

In this instance, on this issue, gun rights are given by Caesar, through a written constitution. Where does your document, as you interpret it, place guns rights if Caesar wants them back?

 

[Ender]

Secular justice is that abortions are legal, contraceptives are legal, euthanasia is legal in some instances, embryonic stem cell research is legal, and now gay marriages are legal in some instances. Yes, they are intrinsic evils, but an intrinsic evil can, and is, committed with guns, in some instances.

The evil is in the use of the gun, not in the gun itself. There is no question about whether owning a gun is intrinsically evil and intrinsic evils can be committed with ones hands but no one would consider suggesting hands are intrinsically evil.

Now, you’ve produced a document forbidding clerics to extend their jurisdictions. You can’t make application where it agrees with a view and deny others

I don’t need to. It should be obvious that the clergy is justified in speaking out on some subjects and not on others; this is not an all or nothing question. Nor is it a question of whether their views agree with mine. I have asserted that on this issue (and actually quite a number of others) their involvement is not only not binding it is not helpful. That claim is either correct or incorrect and a generic dismissal of my position doesn’t answer as to which is the case.

They give moral guidance accordingly and are not bound by the secular.

I keep asking this question: what moral guidance? What moral question are we trying to solve? What moral choices are being made in deciding which specific laws will or will not work?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The evil is in the use of the gun, not in the gun itself. There is no question about whether owning a gun is intrinsically evil and intrinsic evils can be committed with ones hands but no one would consider suggesting hands are intrinsically evil.
I don’t need to. It should be obvious that the clergy is justified in speaking out on some subjects and not on others; this is not an all or nothing question. Nor is it a question of whether their views agree with mine. I have asserted that on this issue (and actually quite a number of others) their involvement is not only not binding it is not helpful. That claim is either correct or incorrect and a generic dismissal of my position doesn’t answer as to which is the case.
I keep asking this question: what moral guidance? What moral question are we trying to solve? What moral choices are being made in deciding which specific laws will or will not work?

Ender

The moral guidance that people with a desire to harm many people are using guns to accomplish their goals. They have asked for support on legislation for gun control. What is proposed by some on these threads is no further action needed. Our actions, and intents, have affect on the issue, which could have impact on innocent lives.

Cardinal Dolan explains the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death on the subject. Through that implication, it demonstrates moral good for society, or evil.

 

[scipio337]

The evil is in the use of the gun, not in the gun itself. There is no question about whether owning a gun is intrinsically evil and intrinsic evils can be committed with ones hands but no one would consider suggesting hands are intrinsically evil.

Furthermore, only one use of a gun is an intrinsic evil (murder). The others (self defense, hunting, recreation) are clearly not. The intrinsic evils mentioned (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage) have NO non-intrisically evil applications, whatsoever. They never have, and never will.

Why do some continue to conflat public policy and morality?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Furthermore, only one use of a gun is an intrinsic evil (murder). The others (self defense, hunting, recreation) are clearly not. The intrinsic evils mentioned (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage) have NO non-intrisically evil applications, whatsoever. They never have, and never will.

Why do some continue to conflat public policy and morality?

Public policy, laws, are secular. They come from Caesar, and if Caesar asks for them back, give to Caesar. We are accountable to God.

 

[scipio337]

Public policy, laws, are secular. They come from Caesar, and if Caesar asks for them back, give to Caesar. We are accountable to God.

Of course, but I don’t see either Caesar or God in your argument for gun control. Gun ownership is not an intrinsic evil, nor is their lawful use a violation of public policy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course, but I don’t see either Caesar or God in your argument for gun control. Gun ownership is not an intrinsic evil, nor is their lawful use a violation of public policy.

Caesar is the government. The government formed a constitution. Those rights given, or taken, are Caesar’s.

The use of guns can be an intrinsic evil, and has proven so in the theater, mall, school and against first responders, to name the most recent incidents. Because of those innocent deaths, our men of the Church are speaking out guidance.

Where are those men of the Church that are speaking in favor of gun rights?

 

[scipio337]

The use of guns can be an intrinsic evil, and has proven so in the theater, mall, school and against first responders, to name the most recent incidents. Because of those innocent deaths, our men of the Church are speaking out guidance.

Where are those men of the Church that are speaking in favor of gun rights?

But the ownership is not an intrinsic evil itself. An intrinsic evil can be committed with just about any object.

If you’re asking for a bishop who is against an assault weapons ban, I’m not sure there is one. The Bishops are in favor of gun rights, but we disagree with what “reasonable restrictions” there should be. I’m wondering if there are Bishops who would be in support of the intrinsic evils you mentioned.

I haven’t seen the Bishops “guiding” anyone to support their positions on gun control.

Apparenlty, a majority in the Senate take note, as Feinstein’s bill isn’t moving ahead.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But the ownership is not an intrinsic evil itself. An intrinsic evil can be committed with just about any object.

If you’re asking for a bishop who is against an assault weapons ban, I’m not sure there is one. The Bishops are in favor of gun rights, but we disagree with what “reasonable restrictions” there should be. I’m wondering if there are Bishops who would be in support of the intrinsic evils you mentioned.

I haven’t seen the Bishops “guiding” anyone to support their positions on gun control.

Apparenlty, a majority in the Senate take note, as Feinstein’s bill isn’t moving ahead.

The bishops speaking are guidance. The bishops examples are guidance.

Doing nothing, or saying there is enough in the face of the bishops calling for action, is not accepting the guidance for what it is. One can read through this thread and see those that have even said the bishops are inexperienced, or wrong, but there is nothing to judge the wrongness by; e.g. the correct teaching from an authoritative man of the Church.

The senate is secular. The bishop’s guidance is not.

 

[scipio337]

The bishops speaking are guidance. The bishops examples are guidance.

Really? So when Cardinal Dolan says "“I found myself nodding in agreement,” with the President, that’s a signal to all Catholics to take the same position?

Cardinal Dolan saying:

“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.”

He’s clearly admonishing all Catholics who don’t support an arbitrary “assault weapons” ban.
Prodigal Son1:

Doing nothing, or saying there is enough in the face of the bishops calling for action, is not accepting the guidance for what it is. One can read through this thread and see those that have even said the bishops are inexperienced, or wrong, but there is nothing to judge the wrongness by; e.g. the correct teaching from an authoritative man of the Church.

The senate is secular. The bishop’s guidance is not.

The Bishop was’t granting guidance.

I’ve read all of Cardinal Dolan’s blog post, don’t see the “guidance” horse you continue to flog.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Really? So when Cardinal Dolan says "“I found myself nodding in agreement,” with the President, that’s a signal to all Catholics to take the same position?

Cardinal Dolan saying:

“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.”

He’s clearly admonishing all Catholics who don’t support an arbitrary “assault weapons” ban.

The Bishop was’t granting guidance.

I’ve read all of Cardinal Dolan’s blog post, don’t see the “guidance” horse you continue to flog.

The assault weapon ban is not as arbitrary as some say. It’s clearly the weapon of choice in the most recent instances of mass murder. It might be a sacrifice, but it’s negligible when compared to the innocent lives lost, and the fact that it’s not an eradication of all guns. Other controls are no more than a minor inconvenience, registrations, background checks, safety requirements, etc., for the ‘law abiding’ citizen. All is for our fellow man, those who have become victims.

It’s clear we won’t agree. I have expressed my views, and tried to explain how I agree with Cardinal Dolan’s expressed views of ‘Culture of Life’ and ‘Culture of Death.’ The guidance from the men of the Church calls for more than ‘nothing’ or ‘enough has been done.’

No one can produce a statement of support of gun rights from an authoritative man of the Church, or so it seems; yet, we have a collection of bishops who speak in favor of gun control. They don’t speak to men for the sake of speaking. They speak through the light of the Truth.

 

[scipio337]

The assault weapon ban is not as arbitrary as some say. It’s clearly the weapon of choice in the most recent instances of mass murder. It might be a sacrifice, but it’s negligible when compared to the innocent lives lost, and the fact that it’s not an eradication of all guns. Other controls are no more than a minor inconvenience, registrations, background checks, safety requirements, etc., for the ‘law abiding’ citizen. All is for our fellow man, those who have become victims.

It IS arbitrary. There was already such a ban in CT in December of 2012, yet that law didn’t save a single life. Unless you propose accompanying CONFISCATION (as some bills propose) , criminials will continue to use the most readily available tool, whether that be an ‘assault weapon’, hand gun, or fertilizer bomb. In the meantime, the number of innocent lives saved vastly outnumbers these isolated incidents.

No one can produce a statement of support of gun rights from an authoritative man of the Church, or so it seems; yet, we have a collection of bishops who speak in favor of gun control. They don’t speak to men for the sake of speaking. They speak through the light of the Truth.

The Bishops don’t support gun rights? That’s contrary to their claims. “Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It IS arbitrary. There was already such a ban in CT in December of 2012, yet that law didn’t save a single life. Unless you propose accompanying CONFISCATION (as some bills propose) , criminials will continue to use the most readily available tool, whether that be an ‘assault weapon’, hand gun, or fertilizer bomb. In the meantime, the number of innocent lives saved vastly outnumbers these isolated incidents.

The Bishops don’t support gun rights? That’s contrary to their claims. “Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment”

The ‘assault weapon’ has become the most easily accessible tool for mass shooters, or so it seems by recent events.

It’s not going to do any good to revert to semantics. We both know the bishops have not called for an eradication of all guns, and we both know they have specifically called for gun controls. It seems half of their message is overlooked by some as already taken care of.

• Require universal background checks for all gun purchases;
• Limit civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines;
• Make gun trafficking a federal crime, and;
• Improve access to mental health care for those who may be prone to violence.

When I request statements from a bishop supporting gun rights, I have qualified it by saying, ‘please provide a statement from an authoritative man of the Church that supports gun rights as is being conveyed in these threads.’