Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ah, so only “bad” people want those types of weapons. Yeah, I’ll let the vets I know who own the civilian version of the M16 or M4 because they already know how to operate and maintain it that they have the same type psyche as mass shooters.

That’s why we need to ban them.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

That’s why we need to ban them.

So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.

“Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll .

“Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff , and I’m going up to the hillside to make myself fat,” said the billy goat, with such a small voice.

“Now, I’m coming to gobble you up,” said the troll.

“Oh, no! pray don’t take me. I’m too little, that I am,” said the billy goat. “Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He’s much bigger.”

“Well, be off with you,” said the troll.

 

[lerapt78]

This is interesting, if it can be credited.

I have never seen statistics on it, but by my own observation, most Catholics appear to be city dwellers. The countryside, at least by my observation of the rural areas in which I have traveled, is more protestant. And when it comes to Evangelicals (which to some includes Fundamentalists, though they are not the same thing) it would take a lot to persuade me that a very high percentage of country people are not of that persuasion.

Gun ownerhship in the country is more complicated than gun ownership in urban areas; first because law enforcement is not as near to hand in rural areas and because there are other uses for guns there as well.

Therefore, I wonder somewhat whether these differences have more to do with where a person lives than what his/her religion might be.

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it could be claimed that a higher sense of self-sufficiency is present among the rural dwellers. Generally, those who live in cities or urban developments rely more heavily on surrounding infrastructures and the human resource organizations that accompany them for their day-today survival. I think it’s fair to say that many people who would voluntarily give up their rights to own arms do so only because they believe that the government will protect them. They trust in their residential systems and believe that someone else (elected officials) is always looking out for them.

When the typical urbanites depend on the city for necessities such as transportation, garbage removal, fire-fighting, snow plowing, 24-hour food markets, etc, I imagine it’s hard for them to understand why people who live in small towns, on acres of land, and miles away from a pool of public resources would cling strongly to ideals that espouse self-reliance and self-sufficiency; because the urbanite is accustomed to having most things available to him at a moment’s notice - and that usually includes physical protection.

Maybe there’s a remnant of that “pioneer spirit” among those who passionately defend the 2nd Ammendment - a bit of that independent and self-confident way of life which their families have adopted for generations. I think it’s also part of the reason most Europeans don’t really “get” the right to bear arms. Americans are a different breed of people - they’re the ones who left Europe to tame the wilds of a new continent - always with a rifle at their sides.

I’d add that I very much appreciate the Catholic Church on moral and theological issues but on social and political (outside of life) issues, and even the non-religious culture it feels very alien.

I’m with you on this.:sad_yes:

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe there’s a remnant of that “pioneer spirit” among those who passionately defend the 2nd Ammendment - a bit of that independent and self-confident way of life which their families have adopted for generations. I think it’s also part of the reason most Europeans don’t really “get” the right to bear arms. Americans are a different breed of people - they’re the ones who left Europe to tame the wilds of a new continent - always with a rifle at their sides.

Well, according to Wiki,

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation”, but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[34]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.

“Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll .

“Oh, it is only I, the tiniest Billy Goat Gruff , and I’m going up to the hillside to make myself fat,” said the billy goat, with such a small voice.

“Now, I’m coming to gobble you up,” said the troll.

“Oh, no! pray don’t take me. I’m too little, that I am,” said the billy goat. “Wait a bit till the second Billy Goat Gruff comes. He’s much bigger.”

“Well, be off with you,” said the troll.

After reading many of the posts supporting unlimited gun rights on these forums, I seriously think there should be a ban on certain guns. It’s been proven, to my satisfaction, that there’s a certain psyche attracted to the military replicas, also known as assault guns, and it’s not a comfortable logic that I’d trust with those type weapons.

I had thought out and suggested several controls, that I thought would be minor inconveniences for ‘law abiding citizens’, all were quickly shot down with an only option of putting more guns on the streets as an alternative solution.

We can defend through our actions, and sacrifices. Whatever we do for others, we do for Him. It’s really very simple. We sacrifice, through minor inconveniences, for others or, we demand our rights come first with a me, me, me, mentality. What would He have us do?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

After reading many of the posts supporting unlimited gun rights on these forums, I seriously think there should be a ban on certain guns. It’s been proven, to my satisfaction, that there’s a certain psyche attracted to the military replicas, also known as assault guns, and it’s not a comfortable logic that I’d trust with those type weapons.

I had thought out and suggested several controls, that I thought would be minor inconveniences for ‘law abiding citizens’, all were quickly shot down with an only option of putting more guns on the streets as an alternative solution.

We can defend through our actions, and sacrifices. Whatever we do for others, we do for Him. It’s really very simple. We sacrifice, through minor inconveniences, for others or, we demand our rights come first with a me, me, me, mentality. What would He have us do?

Well there’s your first problem. You think people who don’t agree with your personal interpretation of what the Church teaches in regards to firearms and your views on gun control are arguing for unlimited gun rights.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well there’s your first problem. You think people who don’t agree with your personal interpretation of what the Church teaches in regards to firearms and your views on gun control are arguing for unlimited gun rights.

I made several suggestions, all of which were ignored because ‘gun controls’ don’t work. Got news for you, we have laws against murder, robbery, drugs, rape, etc. None of it has been stopped. We do the best that we can. People can disagree, but when nothing is offered back as a solution, it doesn’t appear to be in anyone’s interest except self. This was very evident when discussion tactics reverted to insinuations and name calling, like, must win this debate at all costs.

We follow our consciences, with what the Church teaches, and the Holy Spirit reveals. I’m very comfortable with my views, which are formed in the interest of others, and as being answerable to Him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I also see this everywhere.

Would someone PLEASE tell me what the LEGAL definition of “Assault Weapon” is??

Trick question. THERE IS NONE. “Assault” weapons do not exist. Please use the correct terminology or we will be ‘banning’ something that doesn’t exist.

I’m the medic that has to patch all back together and see the light pass from one’s eyes. Both our jobs would be easier if only you guys had the assault weapons. There’s no semantics, we both know what assault weapons are, and that they attract those seeking feelings of ‘power’.

 

[ProVobis]

You think people who don’t agree with your personal interpretation of what the Church teaches in regards to firearms…

But what does the Church teach regarding the OBSESSION with firearms? The same as worshipping false gods, I would think.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

In the near future, the chance to ban guns, even fully automatic machine guns, will probably disappear:

1. *]These Actually Exist: 3D-Printed Guns
   
   *]MakerBot pulls blueprints for 3D-printed gun parts in wake of school shooting
   
   *]Fighting ‘censorship,’ 3D-printed gun designs find a new home
   *]3D printed gun enthusiasts build site for firearm files after MakerBot crackdown
   
   You can see in #1, that first the idea of printed guns arises, then the site hosting the designs decides to dump them in #2, and then the enthusiasts simply host them on their very own new site in #3 & #4.
   
   So far, people are only making plastic parts, but 3d printing also has techniques to weld metal powders by laser. Right now those are too expensive for hobbyists, but it’s just a matter of time until they aren’t.
   
   Even without 3d printing, people already manufacture prohibited weapons:
   

   The FBI claims it infiltrated the North Texas Bandido network in 2009, sending an undercover agent to finance a motorcycle repair shop, turn one member of the group into an informant and gather evidence against others.

   Making machine guns for survivalists, purchasing smoke grenades and taking a three-year-old girl along to buy meth in a parking lot are among the activities described in criminal complaints.

   For more, see: FBI’s undercover motorcycle shop nets dozens of arrests
   
   My search was only a cursory one. There’s a lot more where those came from.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I made several suggestions, all of which were ignored because ‘gun controls’ don’t work. Got news for you, we have laws against murder, robbery, drugs, rape, etc. None of it has been stopped. We do the best that we can. People can disagree, but when nothing is offered back as a solution, it doesn’t appear to be in anyone’s interest except self. This was very evident when discussion tactics reverted to insinuations and name calling, like, must win this debate at all costs.

We follow our consciences, with what the Church teaches, and the Holy Spirit reveals. I’m very comfortable with my views, which are formed in the interest of others, and as being answerable to Him.

Focusing on guns and controlling who has access to them will not resolve the issue of gun violence or violence as a whole in America. That’s because guns aren’t the cause of the issue, our violence loving culture is. The suggestions you have put forth rely on the assumption that if we remove guns from the equation than the violence will stop. That’s incorrect. If we wish to reduce gun violence and violence in general in America we need to change the culture first. Locking up every gun in America will not stop people from attacking schools with guns or attacking schools without guns. That approach has been tried in the past (most notably with regard to alcohol) and it failed. The approach with alcohol that is working is the approach that attempts to change our views and cultural norms for it’s use. If we armed every religious in the the US would we expect to find a sudden increase in religious gun violence? No, because their culture does not support the concept of armed violence and does not glorify violence. Look at the Swiss, their gun laws, and the lack of gun violence in their country. It’s culture, not control that we need to focus on changing. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and they will do so regardless of having a firearm or not. The points you are trying to make will only work if the culture in the US changes. Put them in place now and they will fail the same way prohibition failed.

 

[Ender]

I’d add that I very much appreciate the Catholic Church on moral and theological issues but on social and political (outside of life) issues, and even the non-religious culture it feels very alien.

Let’s be clear about this: there is no Church teaching on gun control. Individual bishops, like individual politicians, have personal opinions about the solutions to specific problems, but the opinions of bishops are not doctrines of the Church. We have no obligation - and I have no inclination - to simply accept their opinions on this issue. The arguments they present are either valid or invalid and it is the strength of that argument that matters; the fact that the argument is being made by bishops is immaterial.

Ender

 

[lerapt78]

Well, according to Wiki,

The right to preserve one’s personal safety, as well as maintain defense against oppressive rule is certainly the main thrust of the law, and yes, you’re right - it was not only granted to Americans. But I was including another factor into the zeal behind many Americans’ support, which is a potent individualism and self-reliant nature. Not to say that these qualities are unique amongst Americans, or that others don’t possess them - but it might be accurate to say they are represented in higher quantities among Americans. In comparison with other cultures, Americans have for decades espoused high degrees of self-reliability, such as the custom of many children leaving their homes at 18 years of age to support themselves, the “do it yourself” approaches toward new projects (which resulted in the success of businesses like the Home Depot, Lowes, etc.), and the fact that the military (with few exceptions) has always been *voluntary *(Americans have not shied away from taking up arms themselves to protect the country, and hence the lack of the government’s need to enact mandatory service).

Of course, we may see some of this being lost in modern times, as demographics change and Americans become more dependent upon government programs and perhaps more “coddled” in a sense. But I do think this difference in attitude, relative to geographical location, can be verified when we observe that the larger bulk of the gun rights activists are found in greater numbers in the southern and midwestern states.

 

[exnihilo]

I made several suggestions, all of which were ignored because ‘gun controls’ don’t work. Got news for you, we have laws against murder, robbery, drugs, rape, etc. None of it has been stopped.

The purpose of the laws against murder are not to stop murder. They are to punish murder. Laws can influence behavior. But if the only thing stopping people from murder is laws then Christianity is not true. The Christian Faith teaches that we have a conscience and some sense of right and wrong. I feel comfortable saying most people would not commit murder even if there was no law against it. Laws exist primarily to specify the justice that will be handed out to lawbreakers. The idea that just the right laws can make a perfect society is antithetical to Christianity.

Drugs are a great example of a failed policy. Drugs in and of themselves are not bad. What makes them bad is how they are used. Along with the ‘Drug War’ came all sorts of laws that harm people who do not use drugs. Thanks to drug laws my privacy and protection from search have been eroded. Thanks to drug laws if I carry $10,000 casah around that money can be confiscated and maybe if I justify my ownership I’ll get it back some day. The failure of the ‘Drug War’ is why I am completely against the proposed ‘Gun War’.

Let’s be clear about this: there is no Church teaching on gun control. Individual bishops, like individual politicians, have personal opinions about the solutions to specific problems, but the opinions of bishops are not doctrines of the Church. We have no obligation - and I have no inclination - to simply accept their opinions on this issue. The arguments they present are either valid or invalid and it is the strength of that argument that matters; the fact that the argument is being made by bishops is immaterial.

It may be true but it does not inspire me to see them promoting policies that I think do not make good sense and more importantly that expand the power of a government that has shown itself to be hostile to Christian Faith. When promoted by an organization of bishops even if not binding on the faithful it still has power. If the bishops kept their opinions simply as their opinions that would be one thing. But to make a statement as an organization is more than just private opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Focusing on guns and controlling who has access to them will not resolve the issue of gun violence or violence as a whole in America. That’s because guns aren’t the cause of the issue, our violence loving culture is.

We kind of agree on this point. A violence loving culture would suggest more guns as a solution.

The suggestions you have put forth rely on the assumption that if we remove guns from the equation than the violence will stop. That’s incorrect. If we wish to reduce gun violence and violence in general in America we need to change the culture first. Locking up every gun in America will not stop people from attacking schools with guns or attacking schools without guns. That approach has been tried in the past (most notably with regard to alcohol) and it failed. The approach with alcohol that is working is the approach that attempts to change our views and cultural norms for it’s use. If we armed every religious in the the US would we expect to find a sudden increase in religious gun violence? No, because their culture does not support the concept of armed violence and does not glorify violence. Look at the Swiss, their gun laws, and the lack of gun violence in their country. It’s culture, not control that we need to focus on changing. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people and they will do so regardless of having a firearm or not. The points you are trying to make will only work if the culture in the US changes. Put them in place now and they will fail the same way prohibition failed.

Prohibition failed, one, because of how easy it is for anyone to make a form of alcohol.

Locking up guns in America lessens the chance one falls into the hands of the unstable.

Stricter registration,with documentation records of sales, lessens the chance one falls into the hands of the unstable.

Requiring mental illness disclosures for everyone in a household, lessens the chance one falls into the hands of the unstable.

Part of the culture, you speak about, is depending on violence to stop violence. Nothing changes.

 

[Ender]

It may be true but it does not inspire me to see them promoting policies that I think do not make good sense and more importantly that expand the power of a government that has shown itself to be hostile to Christian Faith. When promoted by an organization of bishops even if not binding on the faithful it still has power. If the bishops kept their opinions simply as their opinions that would be one thing. But to make a statement as an organization is more than just private opinion.

I am not happy with the bishops’ political activism either which is my sole reason for entering this discussion: to point out that when they stray into areas outside of their responsibility and competence their personal political opinions don’t really matter.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The purpose of the laws against murder are not to stop murder. They are to punish murder. Laws can influence behavior. But if the only thing stopping people from murder is laws then Christianity is not true. The Christian Faith teaches that we have a conscience and some sense of right and wrong. I feel comfortable saying most people would not commit murder even if there was no law against it. Laws exist primarily to specify the justice that will be handed out to lawbreakers. The idea that just the right laws can make a perfect society is antithetical to Christianity.

We have laws against suicide. Are they in place to punish those who commit suicide?

Laws are deterrents.

 

[exnihilo]

We have laws against suicide. Are they in place to punish those who commit suicide?

Laws are deterrents.

Laws against suicide are a perfect example of laws not having the power to stop you from committing a crime. If a man wants to kill himself how in the world would a law proscribing punishment that could not be enforced since he is dead stop him from doing so? The law would only be enforceable if the man failed at suicide. So attempted suicide would make more sense as a crime.

If you are specifically considering suicide laws keep in mind the legal prohibition impacted estate and civil lawsuits. At times a suicides estate could be claimed by the state. So the purpose of the law was not always necessarily noble.

I do not disagree that laws can be deterrents. My point is only that if you are going to make illegal things that are not immoral in and of themselves, such as inanimate objects, then you had better consider all the consequences.

 

[Brendan]

If you are specifically considering suicide laws keep in mind the legal prohibition impacted estate and civil lawsuits. At times a suicides estate could be claimed by the state. So the purpose of the law was not always necessarily noble. .

And the laws ‘against’ suicide are, in actuallity, the regulation of the after effects of suicide. For example, if a life insurance policy is required to pay out in the event of a suicide, or if Social Security survivor benefits can be drawn.

In addition, it also governs attempts at suicide ( which is actually how most state laws are written, the act is the attempt at ending one’s life, not in the accomplishment of the act itself.

Those laws would enable the courts to require psycological testing, for example, or even to the extent of placing the person under institutional control. If there was no civil infraction attached to the attempt at suicide, the courts would have no jurisdiction on behalf of the public.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Laws against suicide are a perfect example of laws not having the power to stop you from committing a crime. If a man wants to kill himself how in the world would a law proscribing punishment that could not be enforced since he is dead stop him from doing so? The law would only be enforceable if the man failed at suicide. So attempted suicide would make more sense as a crime.

If you are specifically considering suicide laws keep in mind the legal prohibition impacted estate and civil lawsuits. At times a suicides estate could be claimed by the state. So the purpose of the law was not always necessarily noble.

I do not disagree that laws can be deterrents. My point is only that if you are going to make illegal things that are not immoral in and of themselves, such as inanimate objects, then you had better consider all the consequences.

Laws are enforceable, after they’ve been broken, or it can be proven they were planned in advance of actually being broken. Laws are in place to deter an action.

Specify the times, and conditions, the state claims a suicide estate.

Drugs and alcohol are inanimate objects, yet of themselves are not immoral, and in the wrong hands.