Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not the issue raised by this thread. Even if we correctly understood the problem that wouldn’t mean we knew how to resolve it (although it would certainly be a good start.) The point in all this is that there is no reason to believe one or two bishops know any more about how to resolve this problem than anyone else. I think they recognize this fact themselves given that they didn’t suggest any specific solutions. Essentially what they said was “Something needs to be done and we think tighter controls would help.” It is reasonable to differ on that assumption. It is not reasonable to claim that the church has spoken on this point and is opposed to the private ownership of hand guns and assault rifles.

Ender

I believe the issue being addressed by the bishops is the accessibility to guns, by those with problems, mental or evil, to take up guns against their fellow ‘man.’

Cardinal Dolan explains it, as I view the issue.

Advocating for Gun Control

For me, regulating and controlling guns is part of building a Culture of Life, of doing what we can to protect and defend human life. The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a Culture of Death, where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence. No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing. But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.

He also references the Holy See, the Catechism, and the bishops, on the issue.

Advocating for gun control is not something new for the Church. The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control; it’s even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of the Catholic faith (see numbers 2315-2316 in particular) . Here in the United States, the bishops have for decades supported measures to get handguns off the streets, and to ban assault weapons. To cite but one instance, in Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, released in 2000, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

He also gives insight into ‘something must be done’, and the responsibilities associated.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts. However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.

In expressing the ‘Culture of Life’ and ‘Culture of Death,’ it should be easy to understand that the Cardinal, and the bishops, are speaking guidance, as they see best as men of the Church, and not legislators, judges, or enforcement.

Through that guidance we can support ‘reasonable’ or argue against ‘reasonable’. No one had laid down an ironclad must demand of specifics, but the men of the Church have said something must be done. Supporting, as they suggest, is not arguing against, in my understanding.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Ender, the danger is the views of the bishops in question are being taken as the view of the Church by others out side of the Church and in the media. By encouraging bans and restrictions, the bishops in question are depriving or acquiescing in the deprivation of natural rights of Americans as humans and their legal rights as citizens of the United States who have the legal authority to maintain the safety of their persons, property, families and the Republic as a whole.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ender, the danger is the views of the bishops in question are being taken as the view of the Church by others out side of the Church and in the media. By encouraging bans and restrictions, the bishops in question are depriving or acquiescing in the deprivation of natural rights of Americans as humans and their legal rights as citizens of the United States who have the legal authority to maintain the safety of their persons, property, families and the Republic as a whole.

Do we follow the legal rights of the people in all things, or the guidance offered by the Church? It’s not exactly a one or the other from the Church as it stands against unjust laws, and for laws in the interest of all. Right now women have a legal right to abortion. It is an intrinsic evil. People are using guns to inflict an intrinsic evil. The numbers don’t match, but both are intrinsic evils being inflicted. With that stated, they encourage bans of specific type guns and not all guns. They are not seeking a deprivation of ‘secular’ rights. That’s what these rights are, ‘secular’. They are rights given by the government, and not by God.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Guns are not part of the Culture of Death. Saying guns are part of the Culture of Death is like saying forceps and clamps are part of the Culture of Death.

If weapons have a moral value to them and it is an evil value, then why is St. Joan of Acr portrayed with a sword? Why does St. Michael the Archangel have a Sword? Why do we let police officers have weapons? They are inanimate objects with no moral value to them. The morality of the weapon is in the user not in the object itself.

Saying guns cause violence and evil is the same as saying spoons and tall glasses cause obesity. Correlation does not equal causation.

While the bishops are learned men and they do have the right to speak on the morality of weapons, they cannon determine what may or may not be a reasonable restriction, especially when they admit to having to specific knowledge or experience with weaponry.

They also miss the point when weapons discussed in the frame of self defense. In the United States, Citizens have the specific right to own weapons for one reason. To prevent government tyranny. All the other legal and moral purposes for weapons are secondary to the purpose or preventing a rise of tyranny.

The Germans before the Second World War knew that if the population was armed they would not be able to get away with rounding up the Jewish Citizens. So one of the first things Hitler did was register and then confiscate all the privately held weapons in Germany.

To prevent tyranny, the citizenry of a country should have access to similar weapons to the police forces and the military of their country.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Guns are not part of the Culture of Death. Saying guns are part of the Culture of Death is like saying forceps and clamps are part of the Culture of Death.

If weapons have a moral value to them and it is an evil value, then why is St. Joan of Acr portrayed with a sword? Why does St. Michael the Archangel have a Sword? Why do we let police officers have weapons? They are inanimate objects with no moral value to them. The morality of the weapon is in the user not in the object itself.

Saying guns cause violence and evil is the same as saying spoons and tall glasses cause obesity. Correlation does not equal causation.

While the bishops are learned men and they do have the right to speak on the morality of weapons, they cannon determine what may or may not be a reasonable restriction, especially when they admit to having to specific knowledge or experience with weaponry.

They also miss the point when weapons discussed in the frame of self defense. In the United States, Citizens have the specific right to own weapons for one reason. To prevent government tyranny. All the other legal and moral purposes for weapons are secondary to the purpose or preventing a rise of tyranny.

The Germans before the Second World War knew that if the population was armed they would not be able to get away with rounding up the Jewish Citizens. So one of the first things Hitler did was register and then confiscate all the privately held weapons in Germany.

To prevent tyranny, the citizenry of a country should have access to similar weapons to the police forces and the military of their country.

Guns are designed to ‘kill’. I can see a connection to the ‘Culture of Death’, even in using guns for defense. It cheapens life, even though through different uses of guns, either defense or offense, it states, ‘your life can be taken.’

Defense, according to the Catechism, is necessary and required for those who legitimately hold authority over those entrusted to their responsibility. Now, the bishops are not calling for an eradication of guns, but controls that include specific guns be removed from civilian use. What’s more important, flipping rocks, killing varmints, or protecting society from mass shooters? We have plenty of other means to ‘flip rocks’, kill varmints, hunt, and even defend our homes.

This country is not Germany, and racism is not tolerated. Everyone wants to point to those type instances as cause to have an armed society, without controls to fill the gaps such as private sales. Americans would not follow a dictator. People want to claim divine providence supporting America, yet want to question America when it suits their view.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Saying that this is not Germany does not change the fact that even in the last hundred years there has been the need for good people to take up arms against tyrannical governments. Racism is an evil that confronts civilized people every day and guns are not what is winning the battle against it.

Democide, the killing of the populace or the people of a country by the government is the most common form of mass killing. It happened in Mexico in the 1920’s and 1930’s, obviously in Germany in the 1940’s in Korea in the 1950’s, in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960’s and 1970’s and it happens to this day in African Nations. Mass killings by governments are not a thing of the past. This makes it seem to me that it is more important for the people to have guns rather than governments if the objective is to stop mass killings.

Furthermore, dictators are not followed, they compel obedience and a people without guns cannot resist a dictator.

I never once made a claim to America being guided by Divine Providence, nor have I changed my position on American values.

Government cannot protect you from criminals, and the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that police forces do not have a legal obligation to protect individuals or an individual’s property. Police forces investigate crimes, protect order, protect the property of the government and enforce laws. They do not protect individuals. Unless they happen to be in a position to see a crime being committed, they do not respond until the crime has been committed.

Who is to say what weapons someone can have? When weapons, substance, goods, anything is controlled, law abiding citizens will follow the laws and criminals will not. There is no logical reason to ban 30 round magazines, pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc. By taking these things away from law abiding citizens, you would make it harder for people to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants.

Lastly, we are a nation of laws and Americans and assumed innocent until proven guilty. By restricting the sale of weapons, you are depriving people of their right to purchase a weapon for any and all legal reasons on a assumption of presumed guilt. Once you a citizen proves that they are of the age of legal majority and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen they cannot have those rights abrogated without a ruling from a court of law after a conviction by a jury.

Reasonable restriction is that they not be criminals who have had their right to weapons taken away. That’s reasonable. Otherwise restrictions are draconian and unreasonable infringements on the rights of a citizen to protect their person, property, family and the community and nation as a whole.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Saying that this is not Germany does not change the fact that even in the last hundred years there has been the need for good people to take up arms against tyrannical governments. Racism is an evil that confronts civilized people every day and guns are not what is winning the battle against it.

Democide, the killing of the populace or the people of a country by the government is the most common form of mass killing. It happened in Mexico in the 1920’s and 1930’s, obviously in Germany in the 1940’s in Korea in the 1950’s, in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960’s and 1970’s and it happens to this day in African Nations. Mass killings by governments are not a thing of the past. This makes it seem to me that it is more important for the people to have guns rather than governments if the objective is to stop mass killings.

Furthermore, dictators are not followed, they compel obedience and a people without guns cannot resist a dictator.

I never once made a claim to America being guided by Divine Providence, nor have I changed my position on American values.

Government cannot protect you from criminals, and the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that police forces do not have a legal obligation to protect individuals or an individual’s property. Police forces investigate crimes, protect order, protect the property of the government and enforce laws. They do not protect individuals. Unless they happen to be in a position to see a crime being committed, they do not respond until the crime has been committed.

Who is to say what weapons someone can have? When weapons, substance, goods, anything is controlled, law abiding citizens will follow the laws and criminals will not. There is no logical reason to ban 30 round magazines, pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc. By taking these things away from law abiding citizens, you would make it harder for people to protect themselves from criminals and tyrants.

Lastly, we are a nation of laws and Americans and assumed innocent until proven guilty. By restricting the sale of weapons, you are depriving people of their right to purchase a weapon for any and all legal reasons on a assumption of presumed guilt. Once you a citizen proves that they are of the age of legal majority and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen they cannot have those rights abrogated without a ruling from a court of law after a conviction by a jury.

Reasonable restriction is that they not be criminals who have had their right to weapons taken away. That’s reasonable. Otherwise restrictions are draconian and unreasonable infringements on the rights of a citizen to protect their person, property, family and the community and nation as a whole.

I guess it’s just me, and others, that view America as distinct between democracy and tyranny. That word tyranny is often used to show partisan disapproval, rather than an actual proof of tyranny endangering the freedom Americans hold so dearly, and that so many have paid the ultimate price to protect. As I was brought up, it is a dishonor to speak so ill of our country, just because of partisan politics.

The Catechism of the Church addresses those with legitimate authority, as our defenders. I have first hand experience to depend on law enforcement often, to do my job. They do indeed protect and serve, to the best of their ability. Part of the delay comes from the accessibility criminals have to tools used in crimes. Millions of guns with easy access and then speak ill of law enforcement, it just doesn’t add up to me.

Why is requiring background checks for all sales restrictive? If you participate in a private sale, and that gun ends up killing someone, are you complicit, especially if you want to prevent those type controls? Are you complicit if you fight those controls and the results are that criminals have easy access, from others, to guns and commit crimes?

We have to make some sacrifices, as taught by Him. Inconveniences of controls, as a law abiding citizen, are not restrictive in my opinion. Having to use a certain type gun for hunting, target shooting, or defense is not restrictive, if my choices helped save even one life.

 

[SamH]

Saying that this is not Germany does not change the fact that even in the last hundred years there has been the need for good people to take up arms against tyrannical governments. Racism is an evil that confronts civilized people every day and guns are not what is winning the battle against it.

Democide, the killing of the populace or the people of a country by the government is the most common form of mass killing. It happened in Mexico in the 1920’s and 1930’s, obviously in Germany in the 1940’s in Korea in the 1950’s, in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960’s and 1970’s and it happens to this day in African Nations. Mass killings by governments are not a thing of the past. This makes it seem to me that it is more important for the people to have guns rather than governments if the objective is to stop mass killings.

Agreed. In the US one could easily expect it to end up like many multicultural nations facing economic decline and turmoil. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or even Mexico in the 19th and first half of the 20th century.

 

[jay29]

I guess it’s just me, and others, that view America as distinct between democracy and tyranny. That word tyranny is often used to show partisan disapproval, rather than an actual proof of tyranny endangering the freedom Americans hold so dearly, and that so many have paid the ultimate price to protect. As I was brought up, it is a dishonor to speak so ill of our country, just because of partisan politics…

Why is the Catholic Church suing HHS?

The Catechism of the Church addresses those with legitimate authority, as our defenders. I have first hand experience to depend on law enforcement often, to do my job. They do indeed protect and serve, to the best of their ability. Part of the delay comes from the accessibility criminals have to tools used in crimes. Millions of guns with easy access and then speak ill of law enforcement, it just doesn’t add up to me.

Easy access? I waited 8 months for a pistol permit. I have to do a background check to get a .22 rifle

Why is requiring background checks for all sales restrictive? If you participate in a private sale, and that gun ends up killing someone, are you complicit, especially if you want to prevent those type controls? Are you complicit if you fight those controls and the results are that criminals have easy access, from others, to guns and commit crimes?

Setting up a framework for registration can only lead to confiscation.

We have to make some sacrifices, as taught by Him. Inconveniences of controls, as a law abiding citizen, are not restrictive in my opinion. Having to use a certain type gun for hunting, target shooting, or defense is not restrictive, if my choices helped save even one life

Would you get rid of the 2nd amendment to save one life?

 

[SamH]

Would you get rid of the 2nd amendment to save one life?

While costing thousands of “other” lives?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Easy access? I waited 8 months for a pistol permit. I have to do a background check to get a .22 rifle

That’s beside the point. I assume you are a law abiding citizen. What about the mass shooter’s access to guns? What about the common criminal’s access to guns?

Would you get rid of the 2nd amendment to save one life?

No one is asking for that, and I have to wonder why it keeps being portrayed in that light, by gun rights activists no less? Controls, and restrictions, are the right of the government. It’s already in affect with certain weapons.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

While costing thousands of “other” lives?

That’s questionable without sources, especially when only certain guns are being discussed as being banned, and not ALL guns.

 

[dandingo]

That’s questionable without sources, especially when only certain guns are being discussed as being banned, and not ALL guns.

In 2012, there were 323 murders by ALL rifles, not just AR-15’s, so the number of murders from AR-15’s is much less.

In contrast, there were 726 murders from personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), TWICE as many as ALL rifles combined. There were 1,694 knives or cutting instruments, FIVE TIMES as many as ALL rifles combined.

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Why aren’t we banning knives and tying peoples’ hands and feet behind them every morning?

Can you please give me a rational reason why AR-15’s are being banned?

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

And what if those restrictions you advocate cause the loss of life? Have you ever though of that? Those weapons you would ban and restrict are what saved the lives and businesses of many citizens in the LA Riots in the 1990’s. If the Korean shop owners hadn’t had those weapons the rioters would have destroyed their businesses and probably received grievous injuries or been killed. Would a person who pushed for controls on weapons that were available to law abiding citizens, and those controls prevented a person who needed a gun from getting one, are they complicit in any evil that is done?

America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. The citizens of the nation cede certain powers of legislation to their elected representatives to craft law. That is an important distinction to make because Democracy is close kin to anarchy. In fact Aristotle says Democracy is one of the evil forms of government while he calls Republic a good form of government.

I’m very happy that when you needed police to help you they were they. I wish no evil on anyone, but what would have happened to you if they were slow or late getting there. I would rather have guns and never need them than need them and wish I had them,.

can you please cite the article in the Catechism that defines those in authority and their roll in defending the citizenry? I do not doubt you claim but I also would like to read the context. Furthermore, we and individuals have the right to self defense and that includes defense against tyranny.

I resent your characterization of my comments and partisan statements. In fact that sounds very much like an ad hominem attack. I how can you claim I am a member of a political party or would support a partisan ideal when you do not know what my leanings are or even if I have any? I also think you are mistaken in your characterization of my comments. I am not speaking ill of the country, I’m saying men as fallible beings may become tyrannical and it is up to good men to be able to resist tyranny, with guns if necessary.

Why cannot a back ground check consist of checking a driver’s license and verifying that the individual has not committed a crime that would have caused a court of law, after a rightful conviction, to deprive a person of a right to weapons? I am not in favor or open sales to everyone. I don’t think criminals should have guns. The problem is that when you start to impose checks, regulations, and an approval process, it can take away the rights of those who have not committed crimes.

Restricting the types of guns is highly restrictive and is highly dangerous. It is the top of a very slippery slope that leads to across the board confiscation and loss of liberty .

Fully automatic weapons and machine guns are already highly restricted. Why should the government take away a semiautomatic rifle from me? Because someone else committed a terrible crime with it? I didn’t they’d be punishing me, someone who has not committed a crime for a crime committed by another.

It seems to me you do not understand the nature of the weapons in question. Have you ever taken a course on them or even fired one?

I remind you, freedom is only one generation from extinction and that extinction could also bring an end to religious freedom. Which is under attack in America, in case you forgot about the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that compel Catholic Institutions to pay for abortificant drugs, contraceptives, and abortions along with sterilizations. Those are just the beginnings of more serious restriction on personal liberty in the country.

Remember, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Keeping guns is not matter of convenience or pleasure. It is a solemn responsibility for a free citizen.

 

[jay29]

In 2012, there were 323 murders by ALL rifles, not just AR-15’s, so the number of murders from AR-15’s is much less.

In contrast, there were 726 murders from personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), TWICE as many as ALL rifles combined. There were 1,694 knives or cutting instruments, FIVE TIMES as many as ALL rifles combined.

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Why aren’t we banning knives and tying peoples’ hands and feet behind them every morning?

Can you please give me a rational reason why AR-15’s are being banned?

363 people killed by all rifles? That’s just about 2 hours worth of abortions in the US for one day based on 4,000 per day on average.

300+ million guns in circulation and only 363 killed by rifles. Seems very minuscule compared to how many in circulation.

 

[jay29]

That’s beside the point. I assume you are a law abiding citizen.

You assumed right. I didn’t have easy access to guns like I should have! No sir! I had to wait 8 months.

What about the mass shooter’s access to guns? What about the common criminal’s access to guns?

They will always get them.

No one is asking for that, and I have to wonder why it keeps being portrayed in that light, by gun rights activists no less? Controls, and restrictions, are the right of the government. It’s already in affect with certain weapons.

How far do you go? Is my lawful access to guns determined by what a murderer uses?

 

[scipio337]

…No one is asking for that, and I have to wonder why it keeps being portrayed in that light, by gun rights activists no less? Controls, and restrictions, are the right of the government. It’s already in affect with certain weapons.

No one, except the governments of NY, CA, IL, and proposals in MN and MO.

house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0241.0.html&session=ls88

No one is trying to “take away your guns”, honest!

 

[dandingo]

363 people killed by all rifles? That’s just about 2 hours worth of abortions in the US for one day based on 4,000 per day on average.

300+ million guns in circulation and only 363 killed by rifles. Seems very minuscule compared to how many in circulation.

It’s actually 323 but close enough. There’s right around 115,000,000 rifles in the U.S. so it equates to about a .0000028% chance of being killed by a rifle.

The point is that this has become a complete and utter hysteria from the Left, which is indicative of their emotional-based responses to just about everything.

 

[jay29]

It’s actually 323 but close enough. There’s right around 115,000,000 rifles in the U.S. so it equates to about a .0000028% chance of being killed by a rifle.

Criminals are the problem, not guns.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Scipio is right, if those states are starting to attempt to ban guns, How long before the Federal Government tries to? Then how long till they try to ban Catholicism? The Mexican government tried it in the first few years of the 20th century and it provoked several years of open civil war.