T
thomasf
Guest
As a catholic, I am all for gun control. When I shoot, I use both hands to keep my gun under control.
Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
When I was a child, there were secure facilities for those who had demonstrated antisocial tendencies. WWII surplus guns were stacked in a barrel at a local surplus store. FF 50 years: Now the guns are locked up and the sociopaths are unrestricted.
I do not believe that the NRA has ever asked for restrictions, because restrictions apply only to those who choose to comply with them. Courts have since ruled that convicted felons do not have to register any gun they possess, as it violates their 5th amendment right!
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We have some gun right activists who use an excerpt from the Catechism, and some of them using that which appears to be the strongest support for their argument.
None of this mentions a defense necessarily with a gun, and it doesn’t exclude it. Again, to be fair to the discussion, it does not say one lawfully permitted should not carry a gun. The point I’m trying to make is, it is not a Church endorsement for a right to bear arms by the public, or in public, and shouldn’t be used as such, in my honest opinion.
Now, we have Bishops speaking and immediately we see, ‘it’s not infallible and we can disagree,’ and ‘the Bishops have no experience.’
The ‘we can disagree’ argument is used with other issues; e.g. immigration, and how to provide social programs to the sick, and those in poverty.
The same people say one must vote to lessen abortion, as much as possible, ignoring all other issues. yet when it comes to trying to save lives and calls are made that means inconveniencing their gun rights with any type controls, they again are at liberty to disagree on how those lives can be saved in the face of a growing problem. We hear, we have gun control laws, and they don’t work. Not all laws will work, and have to be modified, or replaced as we search for solutions.
If we’re pro life in all instances, and some have to overlook their views on other issues, then we have to overlook views on other issues to save as many lives as possible in all instances, or we risk hypocrisy. From what I’ve seen in these discussions a majority of arguments, prior to the election, have lost credibility, in my opinion. The right to disagree is not only a conservative right, if it is a right at all. You can’t present arguments as if the Bishops are ‘infallibly’ right on one issue, but inexperienced or wrong on other issues. If they have credibility problems in one area, then it’s hard to have faith in their credibility in other areas.
Other people are asserting a ‘right’, and in other posts, stating, ‘to prevent government.’ The ‘right’ is from the ‘government.’ The two are connected. Also, let’s not forget that is a ‘secular’ right. Owning a gun is not a ‘sacred’ right as it’s being made out to be. Several people quote Luke 22, and ignore the Catholic commentaries, or excerpts of commentaries from the early Church fathers. It seems there’s a ‘creative’ interpretation on scriptures, as there is with the Catechism.
All of this is going on and really looks like it’s minimizing the travesty that happened a week ago. All of the dead haven’t been buried yet. Christmas gifts, that will never be opened by the intended recipient, are still under trees. Families are mourning. At the same time, some are denying a constructive discussion and rejecting all controls suggested, because 'they won’t work, or they’re espousing ‘slogans’ like, ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ The sad reality is, those people are going for guns to kill other people.
I’ve seen arguments, using 20 years, or more, statistics and saying, ‘mass shootings are on the decline.’ That is just beyond reality in the face of most recent shootings, say in the last 5 years. The deeper the research, the more skewed the numbers will appear. Let’s just go back 6 months and it will seem the problem is way out of control.
WWJD? When the Apostles said they had two swords, Christ didn’t say, you’ll need many more, to warn them of the impending troubles they would experience. He said, ‘that is enough,’ and He knew of the government at the time, and the powerful well trained, well armed, and well armored, army of that government. And, apparently He knew of their rights to own and carry swords; and still, two was enough. He taught conversion of hearts and not building for a mass defense.
There appears to be an overlooking, or ignoring, of some very specific language, indicating, ‘those who legitimately hold authority…to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.’
There is a legitimate right for one to defend one’s self, one’s family, and other’s, within one’s opportunity to do so. This defense is defined, between lawful and unlawful.
None of this mentions a defense necessarily with a gun, and it doesn’t exclude it. Again, to be fair to the discussion, it does not say one lawfully permitted should not carry a gun. The point I’m trying to make is, it is not a Church endorsement for a right to bear arms by the public, or in public, and shouldn’t be used as such, in my honest opinion.
Now, we have Bishops speaking and immediately we see, ‘it’s not infallible and we can disagree,’ and ‘the Bishops have no experience.’
The ‘we can disagree’ argument is used with other issues; e.g. immigration, and how to provide social programs to the sick, and those in poverty.
The same people say one must vote to lessen abortion, as much as possible, ignoring all other issues. yet when it comes to trying to save lives and calls are made that means inconveniencing their gun rights with any type controls, they again are at liberty to disagree on how those lives can be saved in the face of a growing problem. We hear, we have gun control laws, and they don’t work. Not all laws will work, and have to be modified, or replaced as we search for solutions.
If we’re pro life in all instances, and some have to overlook their views on other issues, then we have to overlook views on other issues to save as many lives as possible in all instances, or we risk hypocrisy. From what I’ve seen in these discussions a majority of arguments, prior to the election, have lost credibility, in my opinion. The right to disagree is not only a conservative right, if it is a right at all. You can’t present arguments as if the Bishops are ‘infallibly’ right on one issue, but inexperienced or wrong on other issues. If they have credibility problems in one area, then it’s hard to have faith in their credibility in other areas.
Other people are asserting a ‘right’, and in other posts, stating, ‘to prevent government.’ The ‘right’ is from the ‘government.’ The two are connected. Also, let’s not forget that is a ‘secular’ right. Owning a gun is not a ‘sacred’ right as it’s being made out to be. Several people quote Luke 22, and ignore the Catholic commentaries, or excerpts of commentaries from the early Church fathers. It seems there’s a ‘creative’ interpretation on scriptures, as there is with the Catechism.
All of this is going on and really looks like it’s minimizing the travesty that happened a week ago. All of the dead haven’t been buried yet. Christmas gifts, that will never be opened by the intended recipient, are still under trees. Families are mourning. At the same time, some are denying a constructive discussion and rejecting all controls suggested, because 'they won’t work, or they’re espousing ‘slogans’ like, ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ The sad reality is, those people are going for guns to kill other people.
I’ve seen arguments, using 20 years, or more, statistics and saying, ‘mass shootings are on the decline.’ That is just beyond reality in the face of most recent shootings, say in the last 5 years. The deeper the research, the more skewed the numbers will appear. Let’s just go back 6 months and it will seem the problem is way out of control.
WWJD? When the Apostles said they had two swords, Christ didn’t say, you’ll need many more, to warn them of the impending troubles they would experience. He said, ‘that is enough,’ and He knew of the government at the time, and the powerful well trained, well armed, and well armored, army of that government. And, apparently He knew of their rights to own and carry swords; and still, two was enough. He taught conversion of hearts and not building for a mass defense.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
They did it once and formed another government. It’s that government that gives the ‘right’ being espoused. Think about it.
‘They did it once and they may have to again, but we pray that it is not necessary.’ Silly bravado, in my opinion. That kind of talk could be trouble if the feds saw it, and took it seriously.
po18guy
Well-known member
The government, which is supposed to consist of you and I, had better think about it. Read the Declaration of Independence. Radical words that you may disagree with. Think about it.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that the government is always correct. Do not default to government in all things. I distrusted government when I accepted a government job. I saw very little in the following 31 years to change that opinion.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence - it is fire, and like fire, it is a faithful servant and a fearful master”
The master has just ordered the Catholic Church to violate her own conscience.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
No one said the government is always correct, just like it’s citizens, who are not always correct.
I distrusted government, when I accepted a government job? Seriously?
It is the government that gives the right to bear arms. The two are connected. Only hypocrisy separates them. Those radical words guarantee people life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some step on those words claiming their rights over others. What about those people in Connecticut? What about their rights? Gun rights first, then they can enjoy their rights?
There’s nothing wrong with controls, especially when one’s rights collide with other’s rights.
S
scipio337
Guest
Strongly disagree. A government exists to protect “unalienable” (or natural) rights. Self defense being one of them.
See Declaration of Independence. If any of our basic rights exist at the whim of government, they can be taken at any time.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It has been our government that has guaranteed all your rights through the years. Just because you don’t agree with the political views doesn’t make it out to be the socialist country so many whine about. When this president was first elected, and handed a mess, everyone said it was all over. Well, we’re still here. What’s holding us back is politics. One side refusing to work with the other. ‘A single view must be imposed!’ Come on, that’s not what America is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about compromises, and majority. We’ve lost that over ‘sore losers’. That’s what’s killing the country. While everyone makes those ‘sly’ threats against the government, they fail to compare it to those countries that are better. There’s a reason for that you know.
Again, it’s the government that has guaranteed your rights through the years. So, it was a ‘collective defense of all’ and not a self defense of ‘me, me, me.’ The victims has inalienable rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your rights don’t outweigh other person’s rights.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m just disappointed that false gods weren’t mentioned.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
liturgyluver;10156313 said:
S
seekerz
Guest
People don’t know or understand when a six year old is no longer breathing?Lol I am sure all of our bishops are experts on guns lol
People fear what they don’t know or understand.
J
JRKH
Guest
There is truth in what you say here…but there is also danger.
When you say, “It has been our government that has guaranteed all your rights through the years” this is very true…But it must be remember that it is a government which derives it’s just authority from the consent of the governed. A government of by and for the people. So - it might be better and more accurately said that it is the people through the government that have guaranteed these rights.
We must also never forget that a founding principle of this nation and it’s government is that:
…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
So we need to be careful not to draw or imply a separation be tween the governed and those who govern.
From the beginning the right to keep and bear arms has been a guaranteed right. There are two ways in which this right can be removed. The first is through passing a constitutional amendment revoking said right. This is highly unlikely to happen. The other way is through judicial fiat where the government would gradually pass greater and greater restrictions and the courts would uphold said restrictions basically gutting second amendment right to bear arms. In my mind this is a very real possibility.
All of that said…It is to be hoped that a prudent balance can be reached in regards to both protecting our constitutional right to keep and bear arms as well as the “well regulated militia” aspect and societal protection.
The people are patient but only to a point…The Declaration sums up the matter so eloquently:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Peace
James
S
seekerz
Guest
The problem with not restricting certain types of weapons that is that responsible gun owners (like I heard Nancy Lanza was) generally live in homes with other people. Not to mention that those who go on a shooting rampage might have had a clean criminal record and no clear history of mental illness (e.g. Adam Lanza).
I see nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to any type and amount of weapons/ammo that a person wants. It’s like this with other rights: the right to vote does not mean the right to elect anyone in the world - candidates still have to meet certain criteria; the right to liberty does not mean I am free to absolutely anywhere I please or do do absolutely anything I want…similarly, there is no Constitutional right to own an AR-15 - there is simply a constitutional right to carry a gun - not whatever gun in the world a person chooses. Considering that guns are not the only arms in existence, would the constitutional right to bear arms cover private ownership and use of rocket launchers?
S
SamH
Guest
Agreed.
When the framers wrote about the freedom of the press they obviously did not mean to include video or other broadcasting devices. You are to sell your newprint in hand bills…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Find that media form source that confirms your assertion that the shooter’s mother had those guns in a gun safe, or were you mistaken?Agreed.
When the framers wrote about the freedom of the press they obviously did not mean to include video or other broadcasting devices. You are to sell your newprint in hand bills…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
There is no danger, whatsoever, for part of our population. Those who can say, ‘I am a Christian’, are supposed to be Christian first, and it doesn’t matter what country I happen to find myself in. People are standing on secular rights as concrete with no possibility of that changing. Other people also have a right, to be law abiding citizens, and the laws of this country allow women to have abortions. See how this works? Christians can lead by example, and in this instance we can show we are pro life through our concern over 28 lives, then maybe some will understand how we view the millions of deaths through abortion. The fact is, people are placing those ‘gun rights’ are above all things, in what appears eerily to be a form of idolatry.
C
Cider
Guest
I don’t know, I’m almost 50 and I don’t remember a time when we didn’t have background checks and limits on ownership of the mentally ill and certain criminals. The NRA was formed in the 1800s.
J
JRKH
Guest
I agree completely with what you say here…We DO need to lead by example.
It can be difficult to balance rights and responsibilities…Which is why I favor a greater emphasis on the first part of the second amendment than we currently see.
Currently the push is to outlaw certain types of weapons and the response to that push is to stand on the right to keep and bear arms.
While I am a firm believer in this right - as a Christian AND as an American - I am also a firm believer in the prelude to that right…“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
For this reason I believe that the best gun control legislation is that which seeks to “regulate” rather than outlaw. Better training, requiring periodic testing and proficiency, etc can go a long way towards protecting the rights of others.
For example…People in responsible positions at the school, trained in the safe and effective use of firearms - in that environment, might well have saved many lives. Instead - there was no one to protect these children from a crazy person with a gun…
Training Training Training…That is what “Well Regulated Militia” amounts to…
Peace
James
S
seekerz
Guest
Who knows what they meant to include? They’re not living in this millennium - we are. ***We ***get to decide what technology constitutes “the press” and what is a legal weapon. The framers cannot decide because they are dead.Agreed.
When the framers wrote about the freedom of the press they obviously did not mean to include video or other broadcasting devices. You are to sell your newprint in hand bills…
T
thomasf
Guest
You misunderstand the constitution. The constitution, the government does not give or grant rights. The constitution limits the ability of the government to infringe on inherent rights of the people. The federal government does not give me anything, the constitution prohibits the government from taking rights from me.
- Status