Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Inconveniences” that will do nothing to keep anyone safer.

They aren’t “flimsy rationales,” you are right. But none of His teachings include laying down like sheep while we watch children being murdered.

Inconveniences that are not given a chance to prove one way or the other.

You might want to read some of these threads before making some assumptions, I have said that defense is necessary and the Catechism teaches defense. The defense of the common good is laid upon the shoulders of those with the rightful authority, e.g. police, military, etc.

Planning on how to kill someone instead of accepting compromises, that one would think law abiding citizens would find as minor inconveniences at best, is a part of the culture of death. We could require securing of guns, or plan on being armed, in hopes of someone doing something so we can shoot him. We could require registration documentation on private sales, or we can get as much of the public to carry arms as possible and one of might get lucky enough to kill someone. You should be able to get the drift.

Christ told the Apostles, those that live by the sword, would perish by the sword. He who would save his life, would lose his life. He who gave his life for His namesake, would save his life.

Christians seek to evangelize, as He commanded. They don’t arm themselves and speak with bravado in what seems to be looking for a chance to shoot at someone.

There is a certain psyche that attracts people to certain weapons. They look ‘cool’, they feel a false sense of power. It’s a part of the culture of death.

That’s my opinion, and you might want to read up on what the Bishops are saying. Reasonable is not increasing.

 

[exnihilo]

The inconvenience of locking a gun up each day is a small price to pay for owning a gun, much cheaper than knowing your gun caused a death because you refused to lock it up.

Locked up guns are not useful guns. The whole point of self defense is having a gun quickly at your hands. No one knows when they need a weapon. A perfect example is Fort Hood. Many don’t realize but the military typically disarms its own soldiers, which should make people question the trustworthiness of the military who most gun banners want to keep well armed. When the shooter at Fort Hood was committing his evil acts the soldiers could not defend themselves because their weapons were locked up. There is an object lesson that locked up weapons are useless for defense.

Why is a 30 magazine clip needed? Hunting? Target practice? What are the practical purposes of the large magazines in the hands of the public?

We do not need to justify our possession of particular objects. We could play the why is something needed game for anything. Free citizens don’t need to make a case for needing anything. Why do people need houses with more than one bathroom? One seems sufficient to me. Can we ban houses with more than one bathroom too?

Christ told the Apostles, those that live by the sword, would perish by the sword. He who would save his life, would lose his life. He who gave his life for His namesake, would save his life.

Living by the sword would be the aggressor not the defender.

There is a certain psyche that attracts people to certain weapons. They look ‘cool’, they feel a false sense of power. It’s a part of the culture of death.

Yes guns do give you a sense of power. The power to not be a victim. Guns are empowering. I’ve noticed SUVs seem to empower their drivers to be more reckless. I’m not calling for a ban on SUVs.

Aesthetically pleasing guns have been around for a long time. You can find lots of old guns with pearl handles. You can find intricate engravings. There is nothing wrong or unusual about wanting a gun that looks interesting. I do not think people intent on evil are worried about the looks of guns. The only people really worried about the looks of guns are those who want to ban them and collectors.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Locked up guns are not useful guns. The whole point of self defense is having a gun quickly at your hands. No one knows when they need a weapon. A perfect example is Fort Hood. Many don’t realize but the military typically disarms its own soldiers, which should make people question the trustworthiness of the military who most gun banners want to keep well armed. When the shooter at Fort Hood was committing his evil acts the soldiers could not defend themselves because their weapons were locked up. There is an object lesson that locked up weapons are useless for defense.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand. When you’re not home, your guns should be locked up. If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you can’t carry multiple guns. In other words, there are times you need to secure your guns, it’s only responsible and gun safety. Just look at the Sandy Hook example, were those guns ‘useful’? The owner died from one and all of them were carried to the school.

We do not need to justify our possession of particular objects. We could play the why is something needed game for anything. Free citizens don’t need to make a case for needing anything. Why do people need houses with more than one bathroom? One seems sufficient to me. Can we ban houses with more than one bathroom too?

So, there is no argument for a practical use of large round clips, or drums, for weapons? That’s what it appears to be when one simply denies in a constructive discussion. Too many bathrooms? Seriously?

Living by the sword would be the aggressor not the defender.

Either is living by the sword.

Yes guns do give you a sense of power. The power to not be a victim. Guns are empowering. I’ve noticed SUVs seem to empower their drivers to be more reckless. I’m not calling for a ban on SUVs.

They also seem to give false sensations of power to attackers. Now, back to the bathrooms, oh, SUVs.

 

[PoorKnight]

Planning to save lives by the renduring an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm which, as I pointed out in two very early posts, will most likely result in the death of the unjust aggressor, is not part of “the culture of death”. It’s part of the CCC and what I do everyday, on duty or off-duty (yes I even carry at church: Glock 30 with 24 rounds).

This is what I mean by the Christian Culture (which again is different from Christianity) destroying it’s Warrior class.

No one complains when a fireman sets a fire to stop a fire (back blaze). They laud him for a hero.

No one blinks when a doctor cuts a patient from throat to stomach, breaks every rib in his body and stops his heart to save the patient (open heart surgury).

But when a Warrior uses violence to prevent more violence (i.e. actually MAKING peace, not just wishing for it) they sue them, try to blame the tool they used or try to get them to turn in their Teeth, paint their fur white and say ‘Baa’…

policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/1709289-Book-Excerpt-On-Sheep-Wolves-and-Sheepdogs/

 

[ProVobis]

Living by the sword would be the aggressor not the defender.

Even in defense, one has the moral obligation not to do more than necessary to defend himself. That means karate, judo, knives, guns, whatever. Many defenders can easily turn aggressors when adrenalin takes over, especially after they see some harm done by the initiator.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Planning to save lives by the renduring an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm which, as I pointed out in two very early posts, will most likely result in the death of the unjust aggressor, is not part of “the culture of death”. It’s part of the CCC and what I do everyday, on duty or off-duty (yes I even carry at church: Glock 30 with 24 rounds).

This is what I mean by the Christian Culture (which again is different from Christianity) destroying it’s Warrior class.

No one complains when a fireman sets a fire to stop a fire (back blaze). They laud him for a hero.

No one blinks when a doctor cuts a patient from throat to stomach, breaks every rib in his body and stops his heart to save the patient (open heart surgury).

But when a Warrior uses violence to prevent more violence (i.e. actually MAKING peace, not just wishing for it) they sue them, try to blame the tool they used or try to get them to turn in their Teeth, paint their fur white and say ‘Baa’…

policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/1709289-Book-Excerpt-On-Sheep-Wolves-and-Sheepdogs/

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate you guys and what you do. I was under the impression that policemen were always kind of on duty. LE has cleared a scene for us more than once.

Merry Christmas

 

[nitesnake]

Inconveniences that are not given a chance to prove one way or the other.

You mean like all the gun control laws already on the books that do nothing?

You might want to read some of these threads before making some assumptions,

I’ve read all of them. Quit with your patronizing bs.

I have said that defense is necessary and the Catechism teaches defense. The defense of the common good is laid upon the shoulders of those with the rightful authority, e.g. police, military, etc.

So then we create a class society with rights based on “rightful authority?”
Those who are allowed to protect themselves and those who are not?

There is a certain psyche that attracts people to certain weapons. They look ‘cool’, they feel a false sense of power. It’s a part of the culture of death.

You’ve never been in the military, have you?

That’s my opinion, and you might want to read up on what the Bishops are saying. Reasonable is not increasing.

I don’t care what a bunch of liberal Bishops say about gun ownership. They can dictate the laws of the Church to me, but that’s where it ends.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t care what a bunch of liberal Bishops say about gun ownership. They can dictate the laws of the Church to me, but that’s where it ends.

The word “liberal” is meaningless in this context. The bishops are the bishops and you can surely dissent from what they teach. That is your choice. Please refrain from calling them name though, like “liberal” just because you believe something else, especially when you reject even reading what they are trying to teach. A person who is not willing to learn another’s position has no standing criticizing it.

I note that you asked the above poster not to patronize you, then threw at him the ad hominem attack “You’ve never been in the military, have you?”. It would be good to remember the golden rule and do not patronize those who you ask not to patronize your. Also, “bs” has not place at CAF.

 

[nitesnake]

Please refrain from calling them name though, like “liberal” just because you believe something else,

I’m not calling anyone “names”. If the USCCB has a liberal stance on gun control, or any other issue, what am I supposed to call it?

especially when you reject even reading what they are trying to teach. A person who is not willing to learn another’s position has no standing criticizing it./QUOTE]

I read (and heard) it. Therefore what?
pnewton;10167388:

I note that you asked the above poster not to patronize you, then threw at him the ad hominem attack “You’ve never been in the military, have you?”.

How is that an attack of any kind? He said that certain people glorify certain weapons based on how they look.I questioned this but never got a response.

It would be good to remember the golden rule and do not patronize those who you ask not to patronize your.

I don’t think I patronized anyone. Again, I asked a question, but never received an answer.

Also, “bs” has not place at CAF.

True. A poor choice of words on my part. My apologies.

 

[Ender]

The word “liberal” is meaningless in this context. The bishops are the bishops and you can surely dissent from what they teach.

In this context it is dissent that is the meaningless word inasmuch as the bishops’ personal opinions on this issue are no more relevant than the opinions of anyone else. Dissent implies a disagreement with proper authority which would be the case if we were to disagree with Church doctrine. Disagreeing with the political views of bishops doesn’t fall into that category.

Please refrain from calling them name though, like “liberal” just because you believe something else, especially when you reject even reading what they are trying to teach. A person who is not willing to learn another’s position has no standing criticizing it.

On political issues there usually is a liberal and conservative position as well as a libertarian position and if the bishops speak out on political issues then their positions can fairly be described in political terms.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You mean like all the gun control laws already on the books that do nothing?

If, as you admit, the current controls are not working, then we try other controls that might.

I’ve read all of them. Quit with your patronizing bs.

Unnecessary, in my opinion. I am not trying to be patronizing, and am trying to maintain the charity required of all believers.

So then we create a class society with rights based on “rightful authority?”
Those who are allowed to protect themselves and those who are not?

This is where it would help for you to read through the threads. The Catechism gives explanation of defense, and the limitations. It also addresses those with the ‘legitimate authority over the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.’ That is a very clear distinction, and we shouldn’t read more into what the Catechism teaches for our own personal views, and interests, in my opinion.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Rightful authority is over the common good of the civil community. If personally attacked, one has a right to defend themselves. There are many ways of defense, one of which is through legislation. We can help defend society by supporting ‘common sense’ controls. Defense is not always with a ‘gun’.

You’ve never been in the military, have you?

Yes, I was a part of those who legitimately held authority to protect the civil community entrusted to my responsibility.

Many of these shooters have not been in the military, nor were they law enforcement officers. Yet, they are drawn to the military replicas to carry out their crimes. Their psyche draws them to the weapons used by the rightful authority, why is that?

I believe it might have something to do with desiring ‘power’ since they don’t have the rightful authority through opportunities, they may not be qualified for. Because, it’s been proven, there are people like this in the world, gun owners have a greater responsibility to keep their weapons safe and secure, and out of the hands of those with a sense of false bravado because they access and operate a weapon like these.

I don’t care what a bunch of liberal Bishops say about gun ownership. They can dictate the laws of the Church to me, but that’s where it ends.

I don’t agree with that sentiment, and think it might be against forum rules to speak that way about our Bishops.

I’ve seen some’ who consider themselves conservative’, preach one must follow the teachings of the Bishops, as long as it fits their political, or secular view. When it doesn’t we see, ‘we’re at liberty to disagree,’ ‘they don’t have the experience,’, or ‘a bunch of liberal.’ It’s no different than when they accuse others of being ‘cafeteria,’ in my opinion. While the Bishops are not infallible, they preach through the light of Christ, as they have an understanding of how it applies to the secular world we find ourselves in. It’s unnecessary to ‘demonize’ them because you disagree, and it shows a lack of interest in a constructive discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In this context it is dissent that is the meaningless word inasmuch as the bishops’ personal opinions on this issue are no more relevant than the opinions of anyone else. Dissent implies a disagreement with proper authority which would be the case if we were to disagree with Church doctrine. Disagreeing with the political views of bishops doesn’t fall into that category.
On political issues there usually is a liberal and conservative position as well as a libertarian position and if the bishops speak out on political issues then their positions can fairly be described in political terms.

Ender

There is a Christian position and usually those who disagree with an understanding explained apply a political assignment to describe what they oppose personally. It places spiritual leaders in a no win situation on some matters.

 

[Ender]

There is a Christian position …

No, there isn’t. This is the point I’ve been making. What moral quandary needs resolving? Which Church doctrine is involved in figuring out the best way to solve this problem? The difficulty here is figuring out what will work best for all the interests involved; this isn’t a disagreement between people who want to solve the problem and those who don’t. That no moral issue involved is why the opinions of the bishops on this issue don’t require our assent and while nitesnake’s comment may have been aggressively phrased it is essentially true. I don’t much care what opinions the bishops hold on this issue either and it surely isn’t against forum rules to point out that we have no obligation whatever to accept their opinions on gun control.

That isn’t to say I automatically dismiss their opinions, only that it is the strength of their argument and not the significance of their office that determines my response … which is pretty much the same stance I take with the opinions expressed in this forum. For example, here is a comment that strikes me as well thought out:*“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Gun control is surely one of those matters that lie beyond their specific competence and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, there isn’t. This is the point I’ve been making. What moral quandary needs resolving? Which Church doctrine is involved in figuring out the best way to solve this problem? The difficulty here is figuring out what will work best for all the interests involved; this isn’t a disagreement between people who want to solve the problem and those who don’t. That no moral issue involved is why the opinions of the bishops on this issue don’t require our assent and while nitesnake’s comment may have been aggressively phrased it is essentially true. I don’t much care what opinions the bishops hold on this issue either and it surely isn’t against forum rules to point out that we have no obligation whatever to accept their opinions on gun control.

That isn’t to say I automatically dismiss their opinions, only that it is the strength of their argument and not the significance of their office that determines my response … which is pretty much the same stance I take with the opinions expressed in this forum. For example, here is a comment that strikes me as well thought out:*“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Gun control is surely one of those matters that lie beyond their specific competence and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines.

Ender

It is a Christian position, evident by the teachings in the Catechism. It expresses guidance on defense and the Bishops are speaking in that light. All aspects of our lives are supposed to be in the light of His truth.

 

[ProVobis]

The word “liberal” is meaningless in this context. The bishops are the bishops and you can surely dissent from what they teach. That is your choice. Please refrain from calling them name though, like “liberal” just because you believe something else, especially when you reject even reading what they are trying to teach. A person who is not willing to learn another’s position has no standing criticizing it.

I note that you asked the above poster not to patronize you, then threw at him the ad hominem attack “You’ve never been in the military, have you?”. It would be good to remember the golden rule and do not patronize those who you ask not to patronize your. Also, “bs” has not place at CAF.

Good post, pn. It needed to be said.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It is a Christian position, evident by the teachings in the Catechism. It expresses guidance on defense and the Bishops are speaking in that light. All aspects of our lives are supposed to be in the light of His truth.

This is the first post of yours on these gun control related threads that I completely agree with.

 

[TEPO]

It is a Christian position, evident by the teachings in the Catechism. It expresses guidance on defense and the Bishops are speaking in that light. All aspects of our lives are supposed to be in the light of His truth.

Prodigal,

Have the Bishops expressed what exactly needs to be done in regards to “responsible restrictions”…? Have they actually said that the current restrictions are not good enough?

 

[ProVobis]

On political issues there usually is a liberal and conservative position as well as a libertarian position and if the bishops speak out on political issues then their positions can fairly be described in political terms.

Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. If they delve into political issues, then it’s an individual matter. IOW they could be liberal and conservative people but the term “liberal bishop” or “conservative bishop” isn’t exactly what Christ had in mind for their mission. That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[RobbyS]

uscatholic.org/news/201212/bishops-remain-focused-responsible-restrictions-gun-ownership-26690

As momentum builds to implement new limits on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, the Catholic bishops of the United States remain focused on seeking “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership without infringing upon Second Amendment rights.

“The bishops continue to support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and continue to call for sensible regulations on handguns,” Kathy Saile, the bishops’ director of domestic social development, told Catholic News Service.

Prior to the past two presidential elections, the bishops in their quadrennial statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” supported “reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and handguns.”

The bishops are not alone. Other religious leaders, community activists and advocates for families and children have long called for strict regulations and bans on weapons specifically designed to kill, as well as stronger controls on handguns.

Details of a survey released in August by the Public Religion Research Institute show that 62 percent of Catholics favor stricter gun control laws. That compares with 35 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 42 percent of white mainline Protestants.

Overall, according to the survey, 52 percent of people favor stricter regulations on guns with 44 percent opposed.

Conducted in early August, the survey sampled 1,006 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points

I agree with Ender, and especially with the quote from Cardinal Dulles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal,

Have the Bishops expressed what exactly needs to be done in regards to “responsible restrictions”…? Have they actually said that the current restrictions are not good enough?

They have not said anything specific, as to be considered ‘inexperienced’ or ‘liberal’ as some posters have rushed to state. The article shows them responding to the Sandy Hook shooting.

The bishops’ stance on gun control has remained in place since 1975 when they called for a national firearms policy. Their concern then was over the proliferation of “Saturday night specials,” cheaply made and inexpensive weapons that debuted four decades ago and quickly became the weapon of choice for street criminals.

Their distress over gun violence surfaced again in 1994 in a pastoral message titled “Confronting a Culture of Violence: A Catholic Framework for Action.” While they did not call for specific controls on firearms at the time, the bishops cited the proliferation of guns among young people and the rising number of shooting deaths and injuries among children and teenagers as priorities for the country to address.

The bishops since then widened their focus to encompass assault weapons. Prior to the past two presidential elections, the bishops in their quadrennial statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” supported “reasonable restrictions on access to assault weapons and handguns.”

The bishops are not alone. Other religious leaders, community activists and advocates for families and children have long called for strict regulations and bans on weapons specifically designed to kill, as well as stronger controls on handguns.

Details of a survey released in August by the Public Religion Research Institute show that 62 percent of Catholics favor stricter gun control laws. That compares with 35 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 42 percent of white mainline Protestants.

Overall, according to the survey, 52 percent of people favor stricter regulations on guns with 44 percent opposed.

Conducted in early August, the survey sampled 1,006 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.