Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Seamus_L]

In Al Capone’s day, gangsters pretty much just shot each other. Places like Englewood, South Shore, Back of the Yards, Austin, Auburn-Gresham, were quite safe back then.

 

[ProVobis]

In Al Capone’s day, gangsters pretty much just shot each other. Places like Englewood, South Shore, Back of the Yards, Austin, Auburn-Gresham, were quite safe back then.

The gangs still do. You live in or near Chicago too, don’t you?

 

[SamH]

In Al Capone’s day, gangsters pretty much just shot each other. Places like Englewood, South Shore, Back of the Yards, Austin, Auburn-Gresham, were quite safe back then.

The big fear was the police, they had a habit of shooting lots of innocent bystanders when they conducted home searches. The first “raid” on a home in search of an unregistered machinegun in connection with the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in the death of an innocent mother of 4 (and no gun was found).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Didn’t they mention ‘stricter gun registrations’? It’s defining, until someone legally dissects every word.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

China wants USSA arms control as well!

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/18993

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.”
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/18992

There’s a huge difference between America and China. Too bad you can’t see it for what it is.

 

[pnewton]

China wants USSA arms control as well!

Are you spamming this in every thread? I already found it twice. It is USA, by the way. You misspelled it twice.

What China wants or doesn’t is not relevant. This thread is on the bishops response to gun ownership.

 

[aureliolaw]

All of these posts seem to be leaving out a major part of the message. The Vatican acknowledges the right to use deadly force in defense of self, family or others if justified. Also, the Vatican acknowledges the need for armament to effect this defense. Moreover, Pope Benedict stated, " …no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root…" The message is that regulating and ultimately ridding all of society for the need of weaponry is the ideal, but recognizes that this is not possible unless we eliminate violence altogether, yet another ideal. When I follow this statement with logical reasoning I conclude that since violence is not presently eliminated, a reduction or elimination of firearms is not pragmatic for those wishing to provide for their defense.

 

[Ender]

Didn’t they mention ‘stricter gun registrations’?

No, I don’t believe they said anything nearly so specific. That’s part of the problem with what they did say: it was so generic and vague that people could take away from their comments pretty much whatever they want.

It’s defining, until someone legally dissects every word.

It isn’t defining (I assume you mean by this that it requires our assent) if they didn’t say it … and actually, not even then.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, I don’t believe they said anything nearly so specific. That’s part of the problem with what they did say: it was so generic and vague that people could take away from their comments pretty much whatever they want.
It isn’t defining (I assume you mean by this that it requires our assent) if they didn’t say it … and actually, not even then.

Ender

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

It’s not specific; however, it calls for us to ‘support measures that control the sale and use of firearms,’ and to ‘support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons…’ I haven’t seen much support of anything from some poster, if not the majority, of poster on the subject.

 

[10gr8kids]

USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

It’s not specific; however, it calls for us to ‘support measures that control the sale and use of firearms,’ and to ‘support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons…’ I haven’t seen much support of anything from some poster, if not the majority, of poster on the subject.

I have to admit, this is something I have been struggling with. I know I have to be submissive to the Bishops on matters of faith and morals, and I have always tried to be. I just am not sure that gun ownership and supporting certain gun laws falls under faith and morals. How you USE any type of weapon would be the moral issue.

My husband, who is not Catholic, has always held the belief that drinking alcohol is sinful. Although it is not an issue for us, because I can’t stand the taste of the stuff anyway, we have had many discussions on this issue. He argues that because of all the misery and disfunction alcohol brings on society, Christians should recognize this as a moral wrong. My argument against this is the same as my argument against more restrictive gun laws. It is not the alcohol or the guns, it is how they are used.

I know I have made this same comparison already on some threads here. It is just that I don’t understand how the Bishops can think passing more and more restrictive gun laws is a good thing for society and have a different view on alcohol sales.

To me you have to be either for or against both. I probably haven’t done a very good job explaining my position, but maybe someone can understand this point of view.

 

[stevegravy]

There’s a huge difference between America and China. Too bad you can’t see it for what it is.

There is some difference now, I don’t think American criminals get to donate their bodies to plastination sculptures, but how long will difference remain with the creeping infiltration of socialist thinking in the culture. Personal opinion but culture triumphs over everything law politics religion.

 

[stevegravy]

Are you spamming this in every thread? I already found it twice. It is USA, by the way. You misspelled it twice.

What China wants or doesn’t is not relevant. This thread is on the bishops response to gun ownership.

There was another tread about some Vatican apparatchik carrying on about Obama’s gun swipe initiative. Similar theme, so I posted the future of country once freedoms are controlled and rationed out by government. At that time it will be the USSA.

 

[Ender]

It’s not specific;

Yes, that is exactly my point. Every call for a specific action is made by someone other than a bishop and it is simply wrong to assert that such proposals are supported by the Church.

… however, it calls for us to ‘support measures that control the sale and use of firearms,’

We have such measures in place today. I consider this suggestion more or less completed.

… and to ‘support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons…’

Who would oppose this? That’s what we would all like. The difficulty is that we have widely divergent views on how to achieve this common goal, and having a bishop or two suggest we should work to make things better is not all that helpful in discerning what methods would actually work.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have to admit, this is something I have been struggling with. I know I have to be submissive to the Bishops on matters of faith and morals, and I have always tried to be. I just am not sure that gun ownership and supporting certain gun laws falls under faith and morals. How you USE any type of weapon would be the moral issue.

We surely have a moral obligation to assent to the teaching of the bishops when they are interpreting for us what the Church teaches. We do not have an obligation to assent to their prudential judgments.*Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgmenttherefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Avery Dulles, 2001)

My husband, who is not Catholic, has always held the belief that drinking alcohol is sinful… It is not the alcohol or the guns, it is how they are used.

As you said, it is the abuse, not the use, that is sinful. As a practical matter one might support making the sale of alcohol illegal so as to mitigate the harmful effects on society, but our experience with Prohibition has shown the downside of such thinking.

I don’t understand how the Bishops can think passing more and more restrictive gun laws is a good thing for society and have a different view on alcohol sales.

First, don’t think of this as being the position of “the bishops.” It is the position solely of the one or two who have spoken out on the matter. No bishop may speak for another. Second, they have not actually called for more restrictive gun laws. They may have implied that this is their position but it isn’t what they said and we certainly have no reason to consider someone else’s specific proposals for this or that piece of legislation as having the support of the bishops. Finally, even if they supported a specific proposal, we would have no obligation to support it ourselves inasmuch as there is no Church teaching on the matter. Doctrines for the most part are about principles; the application of those principles (as Dulles said) requires judgment and we are free to follow our own council on such matters.

Ender

 

[SamH]

… however, it calls for us to ‘support measures that control the sale and use of firearms,’

A good start for that would be enforcing the laws that already exist.

 

[ProVobis]

It is not the alcohol or the guns, it is how they are used.

This is true. However, as a philosophical point, why make them easier to use by having them around? If one wants to lose weight, does he go out and stock up his refrigerator with high-calorie snacks? Just saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We have such measures in place today. I consider this suggestion more or less completed.

I have to disagree. The bishops are not so far removed that they don’t realize we have some controls currently in place. Therefore, they are asking for ‘stricter’ gun controls.

Who would oppose this? That’s what we would all like. The difficulty is that we have widely divergent views on how to achieve this common goal, and having a bishop or two suggest we should work to make things better is not all that helpful in discerning what methods would actually work.

Ender

Any measures have been opposed, on these threads.

 

[Ender]

I have to disagree. The bishops are not so far removed that they don’t realize we have some controls currently in place. Therefore, they are asking for ‘stricter’ gun controls.

They are implying something like this. The reason they haven’t actually called for it is they are aware, even if most aren’t, that their opinions on specific gun control measures carry little weight beyond the strength of their arguments. They are not, to be specific, Church doctrines, and since they haven’t provided any rationale to support the argument for stricter controls there really is no reason to assume, either as a practical or a moral matter, that this is what we should do.

Any measures have been opposed, on these threads.

Nothing so far proposed appears likely to have any beneficial effect.

Ender

 

[SamH]

Nothing so far proposed appears likely to have any beneficial effect.

Ender

Agreed, no one has proposed anything that would have had an effect at Sandy Hook. Had Senator Feinstein’s bill been passed as written years ago it would have had no effect at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They are implying something like this. The reason they haven’t actually called for it is they are aware, even if most aren’t, that their opinions on specific gun control measures carry little weight beyond the strength of their arguments. They are not, to be specific, Church doctrines, and since they haven’t provided any rationale to support the argument for stricter controls there really is no reason to assume, either as a practical or a moral matter, that this is what we should do.

They were not telling us to support that which is complete.

They provided the Newtown massacre as a ‘rationale’. We can listen to the bishops, or the NRA. We all have free will.

Nothing so far proposed appears likely to have any beneficial effect.

Ender

According to your opinion. We haven’t tried a stricter registration, requiring background checks of ALL purchases, including those through private sales. We haven’t required gun security. There are more, but no gun rights advocates see any measures as useful, or so it seems.