Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[epan]

So you do not think it is anything specific, unlike the HHS mandate which was quite specific?

I am not sure what you are asking. But, I think that there are fanatics in every camp. This is true in religious groups, and it is true in gun advocates (not to equate the two in any other way). I hope I made my point, that there is a ongoing erosion of individual rights to accrue power to government. People resist this trend, and much of what we see is the reaction when a particular right is taken away.

Gun rights advocates might not be concerned about the religious freedom issues surrounding the HHS mandates. Many religious people might see the HHS mandates as intolerable, but not view the gun rights people as having such a strong case. Meanwhile, neither of these groups might see the erosion of habeas corpus as an issue, as they may be more concerned about preventing terrorist acts, while the ACLU and it’s supporters might feel very threatened, while the advocate gun control and abortion issues are less important to them.

My point is that we move inexorably away from the libertarian principles that we started with in this country with each new restriction which is enacted. Each time this happens, then more power goes to the government.

The issues are not simple. At one end of the spectrum is potential anarchy, and at the other end is potential fascism. It is the delicate balance between individual rights and common good. All of this requires wisdom from our lawmakers. Unfortunately, they seem to be for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[Ender]

The issues are not simple.

More to the point, this issue involves no moral choices so it seems appropriate to question the involvement of the bishops.

All of this requires wisdom from our lawmakers.

Yes it does, and it is their responsibility to make those decisions to the best of their abilities and where they lack expertise in an area one would expect them to consult with experts in the relevant fields. In this case that might include representatives of the FBI and ATF and surely academics who have performed studies on various aspects of the problem. What expertise on gun control do random bishops bring to the table?

Ender

 

[fbl9]

More to the point, this issue involves no moral choices so it seems appropriate to question the involvement of the bishops.
Yes it does, and it is their responsibility to make those decisions to the best of their abilities and where they lack expertise in an area one would expect them to consult with experts in the relevant fields. In this case that might include representatives of the FBI and ATF and surely academics who have performed studies on various aspects of the problem. What expertise on gun control do random bishops bring to the table?

Ender

If i were on any type of police force i wouldn’t really want to be facing some person armed with a 7.62x39mm or an 7.62x54mm, with a large cache of ammo. Which in my country can be bought legally, for $400.oo with 500rnds, by any person with a possession/accusition permit. Which is renewed ever 5yrs wtihout redoing the background check.

 

[SamH]

If i were on any type of police force i wouldn’t really want to be facing some person armed with a 7.62x39mm or an 7.62x54mm, with a large cache of ammo. Which in my country can be bought legally, for $400.oo with 500rnds, by any person with a possession/accusition permit. Which is renewed ever 5yrs wtihout redoing the background check.

So how many crimes has that prevented?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So how many crimes has that prevented?

How do you count ‘prevented’ crimes?

 

[Ender]

If i were on any type of police force i wouldn’t really want to be facing some person armed with a 7.62x39mm or an 7.62x54mm, with a large cache of ammo. Which in my country can be bought legally, for $400.oo with 500rnds, by any person with a possession/accusition permit. Which is renewed ever 5yrs wtihout redoing the background check.

None of this goes to the comment I made about the expertise of bishops in the area of gun control legislation. I would in fact be surprised to find that a majority of bishops even understood your comment or knew as much about guns as you appear to. Which is pretty much my point.

Ender

 

[fbl9]

None of this goes to the comment I made about the expertise of bishops in the area of gun control legislation. I would in fact be surprised to find that a majority of bishops even understood your comment or knew as much about guns as you appear to. Which is pretty much my point.

Ender

You are the one who wanted police to be the experts. And i was just saying how many police would view the situation.

niether of us know these bishops, so we really can’t say they know diddly squat about fire arms.Maybe they could be comprised of snipers, competive shooters or clay masters.

 

[RobbyS]

I am not sure what you are asking. But, I think that there are fanatics in every camp. This is true in religious groups, and it is true in gun advocates (not to equate the two in any other way). I hope I made my point, that there is a ongoing erosion of individual rights to accrue power to government. People resist this trend, and much of what we see is the reaction when a particular right is taken away.

Gun rights advocates might not be concerned about the religious freedom issues surrounding the HHS mandates. Many religious people might see the HHS mandates as intolerable, but not view the gun rights people as having such a strong case. Meanwhile, neither of these groups might see the erosion of habeas corpus as an issue, as they may be more concerned about preventing terrorist acts, while the ACLU and it’s supporters might feel very threatened, while the advocate gun control and abortion issues are less important to them.

My point is that we move inexorably away from the libertarian principles that we started with in this country with each new restriction which is enacted. Each time this happens, then more power goes to the government.

The issues are not simple. At one end of the spectrum is potential anarchy, and at the other end is potential fascism. It is the delicate balance between individual rights and common good. All of this requires wisdom from our lawmakers. Unfortunately, they seem to be for sale to the highest bidder.

The Constitution is not founded on “libertarian”principles. Have to go to France to find that.

 

[Estevao]

Are there any bishops in Chicago and Washington DC area who’ve piped in about this? You know, the cities with the tightest gun controls but also the cities with the highest crime and murder rates?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are there any bishops in Chicago and Washington DC area who’ve piped in about this? You know, the cities with the tightest gun controls but also the cities with the highest crime and murder rates?

So far, I haven’t seen any bishops speak against reasonable gun controls.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is there some reason why we, as Catholics, are obliged to pay any attention to what this Kathy Saile has to say about anything?

And what does she, or any particular bishop (USCCB spokespersons do NOT speak for all the bishops, though undoubtedly for some) have in mind when it comes to “reasonable gun control”? Those of New York? Of Texas? Of Britain?

It’s all very well to advocate general principles, and churchmen do that a lot. But it’s terribly wrong for some to take their enunciation and claim the bishops support particular policies, when they don’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

Is there some reason why we, as Catholics, are obliged to pay any attention to what this Kathy Saile has to say about anything?

And what does she, or any particular bishop (USCCB spokespersons do NOT speak for all the bishops, though undoubtedly for some) have in mind when it comes to “reasonable gun control”? Those of New York? Of Texas? Of Britain?

It’s all very well to advocate general principles, and churchmen do that a lot. But it’s terribly wrong for some to take their enunciation and claim the bishops support particular policies, when they don’t.

 

[Ender]

So far, I haven’t seen any bishops speak against reasonable gun controls.

The problem is that the term “reasonable” in this context is virtually meaningless. Some people believe a total ban on handguns would be reasonable while others believe the current restrictions are already unreasonable. One thing that should be clear, however, is that the debate between those two camps involves no moral choices so it is proper to wonder why the bishops stuck their oar in in the first place.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

So far, I haven’t seen any bishops speak against reasonable gun controls.

Nor are you likely to see any speak against “reasonable gun controls”. Nor are you likely to see anyone do so. Even the most ardent, sane, gun enthusiast would support controls on, say, chain guns mounted to the hoods of cars, and think such controls “reasonable”.

The “reasonable” part is where peoples’ opinions differ. It isn’t self-defining.

 

[10gr8kids]

The thing that bothers me when we talk about “reasonable gun laws” is that there is never an end to them. Registering all guns sounds great. You know who has the guns. But then when the govt. decides that “reasonable gun laws” mean no guns it will be easy for them to know where all the legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens are. Just ask the citizens of Australia where after registering their guns, they were compelled by law to turnover their guns. This will do nothing to effect criminals with illegal guns.

I know many people think our govt. would never go this far, and I’m not sure why anyone would have this much trust in our current govt. Five years ago who would have thought the govt. would be trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for someone’s birth control and/or abortions.

Our rights are not taken all at once, they are eroded one by one over time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The thing that bothers me when we talk about “reasonable gun laws” is that there is never an end to them. Registering all guns sounds great. You know who has the guns. But then when the govt. decides that “reasonable gun laws” mean no guns it will be easy for them to know where all the legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens are. Just ask the citizens of Australia where after registering their guns, they were compelled by law to turnover their guns. This will do nothing to effect criminals with illegal guns.

I know many people think our govt. would never go this far, and I’m not sure why anyone would have this much trust in our current govt. Five years ago who would have thought the govt. would be trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for someone’s birth control and/or abortions.

Our rights are not taken all at once, they are eroded one by one over time.

One has to wonder, too, about the undoubtedly millions upon millions of guns acquired prior to such registration, or inherited, and which people are unlikely to register “just in case”. It’s just a fact that there are a lot of unregistered pistols out there that get passed down from one generation to another or are privately swapped around.

As a descendant of peasants myself, I do not have a great deal of faith in the good will of powerful elites.

 

[SamH]

The thing that bothers me when we talk about “reasonable gun laws” is that there is never an end to them. Registering all guns sounds great. You know who has the guns. But then when the govt. decides that “reasonable gun laws” mean no guns it will be easy for them to know where all the legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens are. Just ask the citizens of Australia where after registering their guns, they were compelled by law to turnover their guns. This will do nothing to effect criminals with illegal guns.

I know many people think our govt. would never go this far, and I’m not sure why anyone would have this much trust in our current govt. Five years ago who would have thought the govt. would be trying to force the Catholic Church to pay for someone’s birth control and/or abortions.

Our rights are not taken all at once, they are eroded one by one over time.

That’s what California did with the SKS rifle (semi automatic rifle with a fixed 10 round magazine). First they only wanted them registered, then after all the law abiding citizen registered them they were seized.

 

[ProVobis]

Are there any bishops in Chicago and Washington DC area who’ve piped in about this? You know, the cities with the tightest gun controls but also the cities with the highest crime and murder rates?

In Chicago, the city of Al Capone et al, the “crime and murder” came first before the attempt to control the weapons used.

 

[stevegravy]

China wants USSA arms control as well!



Quote:
Global Times, a newspaper described as an “angry Chinese government mouthpiece,” recently published an editorial in which it called for “urgent gun control,” in the United States, the second Chinese Communist Party publication to do so within the last month.

The newspaper’s January 17 front page editorial entitled Political inertia hinders gun control action, states that there is “clearly an urgent need for gun control in the US,” lamenting that it will “be impossible for the country to ban guns.”

Striking an authoritarian tone, the editorial notes how, “The difficulties in promoting gun control show that US society lacks authorities willing and able to push forward reform.”

 

[SamH]

In Chicago, the city of Al Capone et al, the “crime and murder” came first before the attempt to control the weapons used.

How many guns from the 1930s are being picked up in Chicago?

Back then as now criminals loved gun control, it makes their job safer.