Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

He didn’t specify one way or another on the subject. However the Catholic Church clearly teaches the right to self-defense, and in the case of people sworn to public defense, the duty of self-defense.

There is nothing immoral in gun ownership. There is nothing immoral in wanting nothing do with guns. These two extremes aren’t really issues. I will say for the third time, no one is wanting to “grab” guns.

Maybe you haven’t reached the post where I said, ‘the Church, with all authority, defined self defense in terms we could understand.’

I have not said that it is immoral to own a gun, but I do not fail to recognize that as a tool of death it can be used for intrinsic evil purposes. As Christians, we have an obligation to work with the system to try and prevent those occasions, wouldn’t you agree with that? Wouldn’t you also agree that’s where we can take the Bishops words as guidance?

 

[pnewton]

As Christians, we have an obligation to work with the system to try and prevent those occasions, wouldn’t you agree with that? Wouldn’t you also agree that’s where we can take the Bishops words as guidance?

Totally, to the extent that they give us basic moral guidance. For example, life is more valuable than stuff. Less than lethal defense is preferable to lethal defense. To go back to the first post,

The Catholic bishops of the United States remain focused on seeking “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership without infringing upon Second Amendment rights.

I really do not grasp why this is considered so negatively here. Reason, sensibility, protecting the Second Amendment rights? What’s not to like?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It is overstepping their bounds to suggest that we be sensible in examining laws? Well, I will commend them on their well thought and balanced statement even if others do not.

This

 

[nitesnake]

Do you realize how absurd it would be to allow you to own a gun in a residence where two of your roommates were convicted criminals, or had histories of mental illness. It would affect your own safety, as well as the public.

You don’t honestly think I should have a right to access someone eles’s medical records simply because I want to own a gun, do you; or that my right to own a gun should depend on another person’s mental health?

 

[RobbyS]

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

The problem is the lack of trust in our governmental institutions. Paradoxically, the more laws and the more law enforcement we see in this country, the less trust in the “law” we see. In my household, in a small town in Texas, we had four shot guns, a .45 pistol, and a .22 rifle. Most houses in the neighborhood has at least one. Shootings in the town were rare. Our town had been an oilfield boomtown, and the Texas Rangers had been called in to establish order. But the level of violence even then, according to my father, who was there from the start, was relatively minor. About 20,000 in the near vicinity. Today we are overwhelmed by government, and it begins to feel oppressive,and arbitarary. The NYT printed an Op-ed by a George Town Professor who disdains the Constitution as an anachronism. Our President shares the same views, I think, because more than any other he rules by executive order based not on the constitution nor statute but by whim. The gun issue is not the cause but the symptom of something rotten.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You don’t honestly think I should have a right to access someone eles’s medical records simply because I want to own a gun, do you; or that my right to own a gun should depend on another person’s mental health?

And with your gun in safe, it’d be useless, right?

If you have knowledge of a problem, and you placed a gun within reach of that problem, you’re not what I would consider safe with a gun, for yourself, or the public.

So, what is your solution to the most recent mass shootings? What do you believe would work?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The problem is the lack of trust in our governmental institutions. Paradoxically, the more laws and the more law enforcement we see in this country, the less trust in the “law” we see. In my household, in a small town in Texas, we had four shot guns, a .45 pistol, and a .22 rifle. Most houses in the neighborhood has at least one. Shootings in the town were rare. Our town had been an oilfield boomtown, and the Texas Rangers had been called in to establish order. But the level of violence even then, according to my father, who was there from the start, was relatively minor. About 20,000 in the near vicinity. Today we are overwhelmed by government, and it begins to feel oppressive,and arbitarary. The NYT printed an Op-ed by a George Town Professor who disdains the Constitution as an anachronism. Our President shares the same views, I think, because more than any other he rules by executive order based not on the constitution nor statute but by whim. The gun issue is not the cause but the symptom of something rotten.

So our trust should be in the gun, above all things?

 

[_Abyssinia]

2 teens on West Side among 15 shot, 3 fatally, on New Year’s Day

chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-humboldt-park-shooting-leaves-2-hospitalized-20130101,0,6730065.story

Year of the gun: 9 shot in NYC just hours into 2013

nypost.com/p/news/local/the_year_into_the_gun_shot_in_nyc_hgvLP0s4KhcDVnlpDvfYiL

 

[pete_29]

So our trust should be in the gun, above all things?

:banghead:

 

[Ender]

So, what is your solution to the most recent mass shootings? What do you believe would work?

These are the right questions to ask and I’ll point out again: there is no moral issue involved in answering them, therefore one is justified in doubting the bishops competence in this area. The issue raised by this thread is not about resolving disagreements over gun control, it is about the bishops involvement in the controversy. Whether the best recommendation is yours or nitesnake’s doesn’t matter; in moral terms you are equally justified in holding to your own opinion. At least one of you will be mistaken but that is not a moral fault, despite the impression created by the bishops that this is somehow a moral concern.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These are the right questions to ask and I’ll point out again: there is no moral issue involved in answering them, therefore one is justified in doubting the bishops competence in this area. The issue raised by this thread is not about resolving disagreements over gun control, it is about the bishops involvement in the controversy. Whether the best recommendation is yours or nitesnake’s doesn’t matter; in moral terms you are equally justified in holding to your own opinion. At least one of you will be mistaken but that is not a moral fault, despite the impression created by the bishops that this is somehow a moral concern.

Ender

One’s refusal to see any guidance from the Bishops does not remove a connection. One may not realize the errors, the Church also teaches this. If something is not given the proper attention, it can give a moral dilemma. So, the ‘mistaken’ can be on either side of this debate. I think to disqualify something the Bishops say because of our own ‘political’ inclinations, or personal interest, is ‘mistaking.’ Does my ‘thinking’ prove something one way or the other; no more than one who states the Bishops are speaking outside of their authority. My personal interest would be preventing the unnecessary deaths of innocents in the future. What are your personal interests?

 

[lerapt78]

Just a note here. If you have a licence to trade in Class 3 firearms, automatic weapons and such, you are subject at any time to inspection by the ATF and must account for all weapons under your licence.

But is the ATF legally allowed into a *private *residence to make sure weapons are stored properly? This is more of what I was alluding to - not that licensed businesses aren’t subject to inspection.

If a child picked up your gun, or it was stolen, that’s when some accountability would come into play.

If a child picked up my gun. . . . OK, legislation to make sure I’m more careful in the future might be warranted.

But. . . . . .if a gun is stolen from me - either from my home or my person - then no, I don’t agree that I should be accountable because accountability assumes a degree of responsibility. If I’m carrying a gun legally, and someone whacks me over the head with a baseball bat from behind and happens to find my gun as he’s rifling through my pockets and takes it, this is not due to a lack of responsibility on my part.

There will be no more knee-jerk reaction from the victims of these mass shootings. Do we keep things the same, and see more tragedies take place?

The government is ‘we the people.’ We are the land of the free, much more than the largest majority of countries in the world. I don’t see a mass exodus to those ‘better places.’

Giving up control to the government in anticipation of what *might *happen is not wise, IMO. The same could be said for the ungrounded Patriot Act. The government has no right to use its authority to invade my privacy because it feels terrorist attacks *might *occur with more frequency. Now I’m a law-abiding citizen, so in actuality a wire-tap on my phone wouldn’t affect me, as I have nothing to worry about in that sense. But that’s not the point - the point is, the government is overstepping its bounds.

I’ve always been of the mind that regular and swift use of the death penalty (when warranted) might just do wonders for our crime problem. That’s how I personally would like to minimize future tragedies - it punishes the guilty without infringing upon the innocent. But the bishops are against that sort of thinking as well.

 

[nitesnake]

One’s refusal to see any guidance from the Bishops does not remove a connection.

No one (that I’ve read on here) is refusing guidance from them concerning this. My position is and has been that the Bishop’s recent statements on gun control are political and do not carry any church authority. They are simply opinions. That I choose to disagree with their collective opinion on this does not mean I’m “refusing to see any guidance” from them, I simply disagree with those political opinions.

 

[pnewton]

But is the ATF legally allowed into a *private *residence to make sure weapons are stored properly? This is more of what I was alluding to - not that licensed businesses aren’t subject to inspection.

Thje answer is yes, if the person has a class 3 licence. He must show guns and all paperwork for inspection upon demand. Realize this is not your normal gun owner.

 

[Brendan]

Christ didn’t teach self defense. He built an authoritative Church who gave us a teaching on the subject. Now they have more (name removed by moderator)ut on the methods of self defense.

Actually, He did. The whole armies of Israel where there because He commanded it.

Goliath died because of the self defense done by David.

All of that was Christ.

Christ Himself said that He had Legions of angels waiting on His very word. He never evoked them as He knew He had to die to redeem mankind.

But that is distinct from you or I. I don’t think either of us are arrogant enough to think that the salvation of every soul depends on our accepting death without a fight. In Christ’s case, it did.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

:banghead:

Yes, yes it is just like that.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, He did. The whole armies of Israel where there because He commanded it.

Goliath died because of the self defense done by David.

The Mosaic covenant had one of the earliest codes of self defense given, and this too was given by God. I think the first poster meant Christ during the incarnation did not teach on self-defense. Too often we draw a false dichotomy between Jesus in the New Testament and God in the Old Testament and forget that they are one.

 

[RobbyS]

I think there is some misunderstanding about the USCCB. They exist for a reason and have a real place within the Church. Making pastoral statement is one thing they do. Catholicism is unlike Protestantism, even in America, or at least it should be. As CAF is a faithful Catholic apostolate attack of this organization is not allowed, as a matter of policy. Yes, they have limits, which they are far more familiar with than we here are.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1L.HTM

Can. 447 A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.

§2. A legitimately erected conference of bishops possesses juridic personality by the law itself.

The thing in theory is never the thing in fact. The actual thing is an institution whose agenda is controlled by a few senior clergy and its staff. Bishops have enough on their plates without having to play political philosopher.

 

[pnewton]

The thing in theory is never the thing in fact.

IIn canon law, there is no distinction between these two. Authority is derived from existence. Otherwise, we would all be subject to our own little theories about liberal conspiracies.

 

[RobbyS]

As far as we know, Jesus never carried a sword, yet He told Peter to put his away and said, ‘those that take the sword, perish by the sword.’ Did He overstep His bounds?

Christ also taught to turn the other cheek, love one another as He loved us, and to even love your enemies. When the time came, he walked it, like He talked it.

He told the Apostles that His would be persecuted, but He never told them to arm up for self defense. He told them whoever gave His life for His namesake, would save their lives.

The Church, will all authority given it, rationalized self defense, as the world changed, and societies with it. Now the Bishops, our leaders in the Church, are speaking on a travesty of society, in the interest of saving more lives from an unfettered evil. They said controls, which should be no more than an inconvenience to ‘law abiding’ citizens. It applies to an unmoral action that has taken place against innocents.

The world is a lot darker and colder than you seem to think. The kind of violence we saw in Newtown is, unfortunately, not rare at all. The black community was rather cool about Columbine, because such things because violence is endemnic, and the weapons involved are incidental. The police cannot protect us against random violence. You are not as safe as you think. Most of your protection is owing to your own prudence, of staying away from where it happens. Years ago, several years before Kennedy’s murder, I went with a roommate whose brother was an intern at Parkland to downtown Dallas. We got there about Midnight, hoping to see him and catch a bite with him after his shift. Fat chance. As we got there the place looked like a war zone, what with car wrecks, a few gunshot wounds, but an equal number of knifings and bludgeoning, and just plain accidents. Saturday night, not as usual, but not totally unusual either. Welcome to the “Naked City."