Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

  • Thread starter Thread starter liturgyluver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just remember, every single politician using dead kids in CT as justification for disarming us is pro choice and thus is in fact utterly indifferent to murdering kids.
Click to expand...
Every single one.
Click to expand...
From another member, Geist.

Being pro-choice and anti-gun is the height of hypocrisy. This is a fact.
 
SamH said:
Source for your claims? I notice you have made a lot of them without backing any.
Click to expand...
I think he just got a bad summary. I like to go directly to the source document instead of reading someone else’s ‘take’ on it. See my post above for the actual link.

The ‘30%’ EN referred to includes ALL retail purchases of any type, including FFL’ which are required to conduct background checks. The study breaks down by category the source of the retail purchase, including those at gun shows.

What I found surprising was EN’s objection to excluding straw purchases. Those, by definition, would be unaffected by any universal requirement for a background check. The purchaser completes a background check, but with the intent of passing the firearm onto someone who legally prohibited from owning a firearm.
 
Brendan said:
I also found this kind of ironic. Dependence on groups that ignore gun laws is the whole basis of any gun restriction.

If you ban Ar-15’s for example, you are depending\hoping that everyone will obey that restriction. :rolleyes:

If you confiscate them, you are depending\hoping that everyone will turn theirs in, and that those who have unregistered AR’s won’t hide them away and sell them on the black-market for a tidy profit.

That is a lot of dependency and hope.
Click to expand...
Are you saying current owners have a propensity to move from law abiding citizens and become criminals should banning include confiscation? If there is that chance, is there a premeditated intent to break the law now, and shouldn’t this be a consideration in discussions of background checks?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Are you saying current owners have a propensity to move from law abiding citizens and become criminals should banning include confiscation? If there is that chance, is there a premeditated intent to break the law now, and shouldn’t this be a consideration in discussions of background checks?
Click to expand...
The Colonists were “criminals” for refusing to turn over their weapons to the British.
 
jay29 said:
The Colonists were “criminals” for refusing to turn over their weapons to the British.
Click to expand...
The post I responded too went beyond refusing to turn over weapons, to include selling the weapons, for a ‘tidy’ profit.
 
Brendan said:
What I found surprising was EN’s objection to excluding straw purchases. Those, by definition, would be unaffected by any universal requirement for a background check. The purchaser completes a background check, but with the intent of passing the firearm onto someone who legally prohibited from owning a firearm.
Click to expand...
Agreed - an act that is illegal and punishable with a ten year federal prison sentence - but seldom do the feds ever prosecute. Even in the case of Daniel Salley who had his girl friend buy him two hand guns that he used to take officer Joe Airhart hostage and shoot him in the head. Feds never went after his girlfriend even though she freely admitted she committed the crime.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Are you saying current owners have a propensity to move from law abiding citizens and become criminals should banning include confiscation? If there is that chance, is there a premeditated intent to break the law now, and shouldn’t this be a consideration in discussions of background checks?
Click to expand...
I do not see how a statement that not everyone who currently is in possession of an AR could be counted on to turn them in implies a propensity on the behalf of ALL gun owners.

Surely you do not believe that Spengler would have turned his in if a confiscation happened.
 
Brendan said:
I do not see how a statement that not everyone who currently is in possession of an AR could be counted on to turn them in implies a propensity on the behalf of ALL gun owners.

Surely you do not believe that Spengler would have turned his in if a confiscation happened.
Click to expand...
I did not say all, but you made me think it would be a ‘majority’. But, irregardless, a few, or a lot, wouldn’t that be a potential criminal activity we need to be on watch for, whether through background checks or whatever?

Spengler got that gun from someone who purchased it for him, similar to a legal purchaser who became a criminal by relaying ownership to a convicted felon, as you described.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I did not say all, but you made me think it would be a ‘majority’. But, irregardless, a few, or a lot, wouldn’t that be a potential criminal activity we need to be on watch for, whether through background checks or whatever?

Spengler got that gun from someone who purchased it for him, similar to a legal purchaser who became a criminal by relaying ownership to a convicted felon, as you described.
Click to expand...
I believe that the Constitution would not allow the government to turn on weapons which were legally acquired, though it does have the authority to ban the new sale of such weapons.
 
epan said:
I believe that the Constitution would not allow the government to turn on weapons which were legally acquired, though it does have the authority to ban the new sale of such weapons.
Click to expand...
Nor have I seen it suggested yet. It seems that gun rights advocates must paint the most bleak picture possible, to enrage those who don’t take the time to keep up with the reality actually being discussed. 🤷
 
I realize that pro-gun blogs may want unregulated gun shows. But I have a question. What is the problem with closing this option of selling guns without background checks? What is the objection to background checks? Inconvenience? Is there a legitimate obejection? Do gun owners have no responsibility in owning guns?

It is in no way an infringement on the Second Amendment to regulate how one chooses to not bear arms.
 
Iheartcoffee said:
Let us not forget that in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, the shooter not only stole the guns, but he killed the legal owner with them (his own mother). Considering the fact that there was talk of committing him, I don’t think she was just leaving these things around the house.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you think, but the fact remains these were her guns which she did not secure in a safe manner. How do I know? The fact that the son, who was unbalanced, was able to get these guns and kill a bunch of kids with them. No law can make people be smart, but laws do encourage law abiding people to be less reckless. For example, we still have drunk drivers, but the laws on the books insures that most people do not drive drunk.
 
pnewton said:
I realize that pro-gun blogs may want unregulated gun shows. But I have a question. What is the problem with closing this option of selling guns without background checks? What is the objection to background checks? Inconvenience? Is there a legitimate obejection? Do gun owners have no responsibility in owning guns?

It is in no way an infringement on the Second Amendment to regulate how one chooses to not bear arms.
Click to expand...
Outside of the most extreme libertarian firearm advocates, I’ve not come across any pro-gun blogs that are against reasonable regulations. Granted, we all have vastly different perceptions on the extent of being reasonable.

I have no issues with requiring background checks for private firearm sales. I’d even advocate that they should go through an FFL intermediary. Similar to how firearms are purchased online.

I don’t have any objection to background checks, although I do object to registration which some states attempt to tact onto background checks.

I don’t know of a single person who believes gun owners have no responsibilities. Teaching responsibility has been one of the most fundamental learning blocks of every firearms class I’ve been through. Whether it be basic hunters education as a kid, pistol marksmanship, concealed carry classes, to the more advanced defense/combat schools.
 
epan said:
I believe that the Constitution would not allow the government to turn on weapons which were legally acquired, though it does have the authority to ban the new sale of such weapons.
Click to expand...
Actually it could, but under the 5th Amendment, it would have to compensate the gun owners with ‘just compensation’, which the courts have ruled equates to fair market value.

It would be interesting to see where the budget for that would come from.

.
 
InigoMontoya said:
Outside of the most extreme libertarian firearm advocates, I’ve not come across any pro-gun blogs that are against reasonable regulations. Granted, we all have vastly different perceptions on the extent of being reasonable…
Click to expand...
I, at the very least, would define ‘reasonable’ as in accord with Reason.

That would require that the proposed solution would have decided effect at what the regulations would be attempting to accomplish.

For that, two things would have to be clarified
  1. What is the actual desired effect specifically.
  2. A detailed description of what the procedure entails.
 
pnewton said:
I realize that pro-gun blogs may want unregulated gun shows. But I have a question. What is the problem with closing this option of selling guns without background checks? What is the objection to background checks? Inconvenience? Is there a legitimate obejection? Do gun owners have no responsibility in owning guns?

It is in no way an infringement on the Second Amendment to regulate how one chooses to not bear arms.
Click to expand...
Have the courts not ruled that the Federal Government may not pass such laws, but that there is no bar for the states?

I think that the objection is to the ever increasing infringement on liberty by the government. The Church would say the same about the HHS mandates. The civil libertarians would say the same about the search and seizure, and the detainment provisions of the Patriot Act. I could name several other groups who feel the same. An argument could be made that it is a slippery slope. We do give up some liberty whenever a law is passed, regardless of the intent of the law.
 
epan said:
I think that the objection is to the ever increasing infringement on liberty by the government. .
Click to expand...
So you do not think it is anything specific, unlike the HHS mandate which was quite specific?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top