Buzzfeed article on nuns and guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter LittleFlower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OP, Iā€™m not sure if you know this, but BuzzFeed is a well-known fishwrap publication on the Internet. Iā€™d be wary of what they write on Catholic things.
 
Sighā€¦ How soon these folks forget that back in the day, Catholic entities were big time targets for Vikings, and the nobility who realized they had money. Henry VIII, Phillip the Fair come to mind.

Remember folks, that for a long, long, long time the deadliest weapon on Earth was the sword. If people want to kill each other, theyā€™ll find a way.
 
redbetta said:
BuzzFeed is a well-known fishwrap publication on the Internet.
Click to expand...
Buzzfeed has actually written some pretty good articles from time to time, as well as breaking some stories. I frequently find their coverage interesting.

Also, pretty much ALL news outlets these days can be fishwrappy and biased on ā€œCatholic thingsā€.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Also, pretty much ALL news outlets these days can be fishwrappy and biased on ā€œCatholic thingsā€.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Also, itā€™s always good to try to find source material, which I did provide for anyone wanting to double check. šŸ˜Š
 
I donā€™t get who or what youā€™re responding to.
 
Maybe itā€™s their other media like their YouTube channel that has given them their sketchy reputation. I was just looking though theid videos right now.
 
Buzzfeed: 10 reasons why we believe ā€œXā€, you wonā€™t believe number 7, doctors hate it!
 
Last edited:
The mainstream media wants to portray Buzzfeed as sketchy because Buzzfeed is their competitor and there is this snobbery about established newspapers and established TV stations vs. an Internet news platform.

A lot of what Buzzfeed writes is tripe, but then, so is a lot of the stuff in the NYT and Post and on CNN nowadays.

Anyway, I probably get more joy out of a good Daily News story with the usual hilarious headline than I do out of any of these ā€œlegitā€ organizations pompous hooha.
 
Actually, a lot of the criticism of BuzzFeed Iā€™ve seen is from alternative media channels on YouTube. They mainly criticize BuzzFeedā€™s SJW videos.
 
ā€œAlternative media channels on Youtubeā€ to me sound about as credible as asking my cat, but then again I am old.
 
Last edited:
Basically, a lot of these YouTubers are also part of the not too well-defined skeptic community.
 
Some of their ideas are not all that bad and their approach is certainly fairly novel. As I often say, Iā€™m generally not against gun ownership. I completely understand things like hunting, collecting, and target shooting. But I also think the whole Second Amendment argument is stuck in time.

It was written in a day just after this country had achieved independence, but that was in a day and age when a gun and some guts was what it took. Now we have tanks, fighter aircraft, nuclear weapons, RPGs, rifles; the world is a different place militarily. A gun back then was often a tool of survival; it was a cherished and expensive investment. Ammunition was not something to shoot off without real purpose. Being closer knit communities and hand made guns; people knew whose gun was whose. There has to be a way to reconcile the Constitution with todayā€™s reality.
 
There is - amend it, which isnā€™t easy. But it isnā€™t easy for a reason.

If it were easy, other rights you that you value that others deem are anachronistic or stuck in time could well be taken away.

Whether or not I support gun ownership or not is frankly irrelevant, as in the end, the amendment is there, and is a guarantee of that right (subject to courtsā€™ interpretations over time).
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
If it were easy, other rights you that you value that others deem are anachronistic or stuck in time could well be taken away.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if someone pulls a gun during a conflict, that person has made the choice for me that a gun will be involved, no matter if I believe this is a good idea or not. There are very few situations like this where my rights can be so dramatically decided for me. Again, Iā€™m not in principle against gun ownership, but the tenor of the discussion (if you can even call it that) has almost exclusively been towards unimpeded usage not minding the fairly substantial number of people with different views.
 
The gun issue is being used to obscure the real issue, which is first and foremost lack of meaningful mental health help, and second, domestic terrorism.
 
A very novel approach to fulfilling their charism! Best of luck to the Adrian Dominican Sisters!

(600 vowed women religious?! šŸ‘)
 
Even if I agreed, if you donā€™t have some basic legal principles to protect your rights, you have none. That argument could be used legally to infringe on the other constitutionally protected rights at the whim of those in power. Speech infringement in an obvious one, especially for Catholics and Christians.

Like I said, even if we agreed in principle about guns and ownership, this is much larger than a simple gun argument, which is why there is a process that needs to undertaken to make wholesale changes - the drafting of constitutional amendments.

Otherwise, we are left to what the courts decide are reasonable limits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top