I see these as issues that affect our society. Why shouldn’t the church speak about these issues as well as others? What about war? There is no Church teaching that states that war is always wrong…it involves prudential judgment as well, no? Should Church leaders not speak up about whether to get involved in a particular war?
Criminals do not care about background checks whether they are universal or not. They find ways to go around it currently and they would with a universal background check
There is Church teaching on war, Just War doctrine, and for involvement in war to be under this teaching it would have to fit certain criteria so it is not entirely up to prudential judgement
Not all criminals are so smart. I’m not saying universal background checks are a panacea, but lack of them is similar to what some have said about gun-free zones: that is, they are an invitation to criminals.
No. My post was a little knee-jerked and confusing. I was thinking of people who use religion to justify conservative values that are not necessarily biblical. In fact, I don’t think I made much sense at all…eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Now, I’m not sure…
Prudential Judgment, prudential judgment. . . .
This, by all means!
Criminals nearly exclusively get guns illegally and would not be affected by background checks
And, in your defense, I suppose one might also make the argument that some people may not be criminals YET (or dangerously mentally ill yet), therefore they would pass the background check, buy their gun, and then commit a crime. I’m willing to consider both sides of the issue. I think the background checks would nonetheless give criminals pause and make it more difficult for them to access guns. I agree, however, that these checks should not be so restrictive that they inhibit law-abiding citizens from procuring guns, at least those legal weapons bought for protection of home and business or used for hunting.
Hadn’t thought of that. Somebody could pass a background check, purchase guns and later turn in to a criminal and commit crime with those guns
Well certainly they can and should speak on it…so long as they aren’t applying a (as Bl. PP JPII did) a blanket “all war is bad/wrong/unnecessary” approach. If I recall correctly, he opposed both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Now, things have come to seem that the intelligence we had on weapons of mass destruction was incorrect. But based on the evidence we had at the time, I think both actions were clearly justified.
I think at least two of your criteria have an unreasonably high threshold: that no criminal would ever threaten to do you or your family harm and never be able to procure a weapon. How can that be guaranteed? Or is this list of preconditions really tongue-in-cheek in that you would never support such restrictions because there can be no such guarantees. Sounds that way. But wouldn’t a less lethal weapon also be able to protect you and yours from harm? Regionally based restrictions might be a compromise, as you suggest; however, guns can pass from state to state, so I’m not sure how effective such measures at the state level are. Insofar as protection from the government is concerned, do you really think you would be able to defend yourself against the military?Possibly the Cuomo disarmament is right for New York City. I couldn’t say. But I don’t live in NYC.
I can go for a balanced compromise taking local conditions into account. I would give up my right to own an AR-15, so long as:
-No criminal or insane person can possibly get a gun, no matter what, including one he might make or buy in a bale of Marijuana smuggled from Mexico.
-No criminal will ever threaten to do me or mine harm.
-No government ever becomes truly oppressive, guaranteed, including those governments that are supposedly subject to the Constitution but ignore it.
-All feral hogs, feral dogs, bears, coyotes, wolves, mountain lions. Well, armadillos and groundhogs too, are forever and reliably eradicated from any part of the countryside I am likely to farm or otherwise function in.
AR-15s are great for target practice. No question about that. But yes, I would accept going to a .223 semi-automatic that does not look military, heavier and clumsier though they are, in order to accomplish the above objectives.
Now, who is going to guarantee all of that? And if nobody can guarantee it, then I reserve my right to own an AR-15. I might be a martyr for the faith someday, and that’s acceptable. But I do not accept the idea of becoming a martyr to some criminal’s evil design or to the predation of some animal, or to the desire of some armadillo or groundhog to dig a deep hole overnight in the path of a horse or piece of equipment I will be riding the next day.
I’ll wait.
The Just War “doctrine” can be interpreted differently by different people. It is not definitive by any means. The Catechism even states in the paragraph that explains it:
I guess I just gave you more ammunition. But since you are not in favor of eliminating background checks altogether (or are you?), what is their current purpose in your view, if not to weed out people who should not be purchasing guns, including criminals?
I read that 40% of criminals obtain guns through private sales. If background checks/registrations were required of all sales, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that number to go down?
Tongue in cheek, certainly, but still trying to make a point. If I’m to be disarmed of a well-designed rifle for the asserted sake of society, is society going to make it less necessary for me to have a well-designed rifle? I very much doubt society is either able or willing to do that.
Not necessarily.
If a Melee ensued in the garden that evening history would have undoubtably recorded the actuality of it in a completely different light, as the history of the conquered is often quickly overwritten by the glorious account of the conquerors. BUT, If a Melee ensued in the garden, JESUS would not fulfill the Old Testament. JESUS stayed Peter only so far that JESUS could accomplish that fulfillment. If any portion of that related event was ‘evil’ it would have only been that satan had subverted JESUS’ efforts to fullfil the WORD OF GOD. JESUS effectively ‘reset the shot-clock’ and restarted the event on HIS terms, by halting Peter’s progress, and restoring the ear to the head of the slave. JESUS fully took command of the situation and HIS own destiny.