Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’ll, here’s my last post for the thread.

There are plenty of democrats against placing additional restrictions on guns in the US. They realize as much as republicans that these measure are pointless and irrelevant in reducing crime or addressing mass shootings. There are also plenty of republicans supporting gun control. The trends in party leadership are not absolute on either side. Similarly, one can find Dems/Repubs on both sides of virtually every issue. On the lack of immigration enforcement both parties have been complicit in the lawlessness and lack of enforcement.

PS1,

Gun control is a part and parcel of the culture of death. This is the thing that Cardinal Dolan does not understand, this is where a firm knowledge of the subject matter is in fact essential in taking a moral position on a subject. Not just desired outcomes or envisioned outcomes but the actual effects in the real world both intended and unintended. Most religious tend to believe the best of everyone, give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That each man will turn from evil. Great, I hope so too. Depressingly, however, many choose to do acts of evil, while I hope they don’t and pray for their souls. I don’t believe the Culture of Life justifies enabling the drepadations of the evil, of ensuring the helplessness of their victims.

I certainly don’t believe I have the moral authority to demand others be defenseless. I will agree on background checks, as most other anti-gun control folks have also said. I’ll agree about improving treatment and rescources for the mentally ill.

Semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines of over 10? round capacity, let’s just say this is your definition of an assualt weapon. You keep saying restricting them is ‘reasonable’ and the moral position to take. Your justification has been mass shootings. IMHO, I have not seen you provide specifics to counter the following points
  • The majority of mass shootings have involved semi-automatic hanguns. Not assault weapons. Your proposed action is inconsistent with your stated justification.
    • If your justification is mass shootings, are you advocating banning semi-automatic handguns?
    • The ban you advocate was in place at Sandy Hook as well as several other mass shootings. Again, ban didn’t work so why advocate a proven failure? Unless there’s a different justification?
    • These types of weapons are very well suited to Home Defense, particularly as home invasion type robberies have been on the rise in the US. Yet, you do not address why it is moral to deny a person an effect means of self-defense, particularly given the ban does not address your justification for it.
    • The FBI study on the result of the Federal AWB ban showed that it had no effect on crime. So, certainly, crime isn’t a justification for the ban.
  • Your only response to the fact that all of these mass shootings, with one exception, took place in gun-free zones appeared to be to discount the fact and ask questions
    *If you’re concerned with mass shootings, since the most common enabling factor is gun free zones ( to a much greater extent than assault weapons). Do you advocate eliminating gun-free zones on government controlled property?
  • You propose gun control as part of the Culture of Life, yet in the US crime is lower where guns are more readily available. How is a policy which will result in increased crime, violent assault, rape etc. compatible with the Culture of Life and respect for human dignity?
    Code: 
     That is, is the Culture of Life about our good intentios regarding result of actions, or   what will actually transpire given knowledge of the issue?
  • The point where our system of government and morality coincided with the framers. They saw the biggest threat to the populace, i.e. life and human dignity – to be the unchecked power of the government. They knew this was not a sudden event, but a gradual deterioration over time. Hence, they enumerated specific powers that the government could exercise and stated all others were resereved to the people. Now, some felt they needed to go farther and state the most important in a bill of rights. Others argued that future governments would see it not just as an additional emphasis on a few specific rights, but that future governments would feel free to exercise non-enumerated powers.
  • Again, you do not directly address, other than denying the possibility, the framers concen of the future government following the same path as numerous others. Again, the framers have been proven correct, particularly in recent history to the tune of well over 150 million defenseless citizens killed by their own governments.
    • How is disarming a population, making them vulnerable to that threat—slaughter of millions, consistent with the Culture of Life?
The possibility of the turmoil and destruction of a civil war, regardless of its outcome, in the opinion of the framers would dampen the ambitions of the politicians and be the most effective deterrent to it ever occurring.

Good day and may the peace of Christ be with you and yours always,
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t think it helps to try and define what a real assault weapon is vs. the general public’s interpretation. It is certain semi-automatic rifles being used. Thank God they can’t get their hands on the real deal.

The moral dilemma is how we react to a problem that is causing innocent deaths, and whether we can constructively find a solution or not. To simply argue against any controls is not helping, in my opinion. As with anything, once guidance is given, our intent is what counts in all things. That’s not saying one is wrong, or right. We all have to act according to our faith based consciences.

I’ve pointed out that 9 out of 10 households with guns have stated support for universal background checks in a poll. I have another thread that is buried now on that subject with the poll information. That’s gun owners agreeing to a needed solution. As a gun owner myself, I don’t see that as unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Your dead wrong in saying it doesn’t help to define what a real assault weapon is. Without a definition, what are we talking about. And what is the general public’s interpretation and is it universally correct? Is a Mini 14 Rancher in the same category as a Mini 14 Tactical? If so, why or why not. Is the favored rifle of most youth, a Ruger 10/22 considered an assault weapon? Why not, it has the ability of accepting a magazine well over 10 rounds.

As for guns being a moral dilemma, again your dead wrong. The Cardinal has not come down with a specific statement on guns. On the true moral dilemma of who we could vote for without committing a grave sin, the lines were clear. A Catholic vote for Obama was a sin. I still have the literature from my Bishop stating so.

As far as the background checks, that was a poll conducted on this forum. Go to a civil liberties forum or pro gun forum and ask the same question but when you ask, give the specifics. Will the info be kept more then 24 hours and then destroyed or entered in a database? Your poll will vary widely depending how the question was asked and to whom. IMO, you were preaching to the choir by asking on CAF.
 
And Here We Go:
Dem Congresswoman: Assault Weapons Ban 'Just the Beginning’
Click to expand...
"Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggested to Jason Mattera at a Feb. 13 women’s rights rally that plans for an assault weapons ban and private-sales background checks were only the beginning of a broader gun control agenda extending to handguns as well.
Click to expand...
Schakowsky evidently did not recognize Mattera, a conservative video journalist and senior investigative reporter for Talk Radio Network, who infamously confronted Vice President Joe Biden in the Capitol. (Mattera introduced himself to Schakowsky by name but did not indicate that he was filming or that he is conservative.) She spoke to Mattera as if he were a fellow gun control enthusiast–and Mattera played along, eliciting answers about Schakowsky’s enthusiasm for gun control.
Click to expand...
“We want everything on the table,” Schakowsky told Mattera. “This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it.”
Click to expand...
One poignant exchange was as follows:
Click to expand...
Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.
Click to expand...
Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?
Click to expand...
Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.
Click to expand...
**In another exchange, Schakowsky proposed allowances for states and municipalities to ban guns–though such laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court:
**
**Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.
Click to expand...
Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities–I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe–I don’t think it’s precluded.**
Click to expand...
When Mattera asked why legislators were not pressing for a handgun ban, given that most murders are committed with handguns, Schakowsky replied: “Because we’re not going to be able to win that. Not now.” She went on to explain why background checks were a useful interim policy, arguing that they would “address any kind of weapon.”
Click to expand...
But but but … we should trust the Democrats, right Prodigal Son?

Right?
 
This entire gun-control deception (which is nothing less than an infringement upon our Constitutional Right of self protection) is going the exact same route as ObamaCare.

And once again the USCCB good intentions will be used by the Democrats as a useful tool to sway the ignorant.

This is not Gun-Control, this is State-Controlled Tyranny .
**“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” - Matthew 10:16 **
Click to expand...
 
shipwrkd said:
Your dead wrong in saying it doesn’t help to define what a real assault weapon is. Without a definition, what are we talking about. And what is the general public’s interpretation and is it universally correct? Is a Mini 14 Rancher in the same category as a Mini 14 Tactical? If so, why or why not. Is the favored rifle of most youth, a Ruger 10/22 considered an assault weapon? Why not, it has the ability of accepting a magazine well over 10 rounds.

As for guns being a moral dilemma, again your dead wrong. The Cardinal has not come down with a specific statement on guns. On the true moral dilemma of who we could vote for without committing a grave sin, the lines were clear. A Catholic vote for Obama was a sin. I still have the literature from my Bishop stating so.

As far as the background checks, that was a poll conducted on this forum. Go to a civil liberties forum or pro gun forum and ask the same question but when you ask, give the specifics. Will the info be kept more then 24 hours and then destroyed or entered in a database? Your poll will vary widely depending how the question was asked and to whom. IMO, you were preaching to the choir by asking on CAF.
Click to expand...
I guess if it’s necessary to identify someone as wrong, I am wrong; however, it doesn’t change the fact that the weapon being discussed as banning is the AR15 style weapon. Will it make it better to have people stop saying, ‘assault weapon’ and start saying, ‘AR15’?

It’s not moral if your conscience truly leads you that way, or you just don’t want to hear the message. I can’t say which it is. The Cardinal speaks to save lives. It’s really that simple. Don’t have literature from your Bishop stating so, but don’t have literature from your Bishop stating an advocacy for no gun control? That has yet to be produced, one
Bishop stating against gun controls.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that a poll from this forum represents the sentiment of the majority of people in this country. I’ve shown a poll that stated 9 out of 10 gun owners recognize a need for universal background checks.
 
styrgwillidar said:
We’ll, here’s my last post for the thread.

There are plenty of democrats against placing additional restrictions on guns in the US. They realize as much as republicans that these measure are pointless and irrelevant in reducing crime or addressing mass shootings. There are also plenty of republicans supporting gun control. The trends in party leadership are not absolute on either side. Similarly, one can find Dems/Repubs on both sides of virtually every issue. On the lack of immigration enforcement both parties have been complicit in the lawlessness and lack of enforcement.

PS1,

Gun control is a part and parcel of the culture of death. This is the thing that Cardinal Dolan does not understand, this is where a firm knowledge of the subject matter is in fact essential in taking a moral position on a subject. Not just desired outcomes or envisioned outcomes but the actual effects in the real world both intended and unintended. Most religious tend to believe the best of everyone, give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That each man will turn from evil. Great, I hope so too. Depressingly, however, many choose to do acts of evil, while I hope they don’t and pray for their souls. I don’t believe the Culture of Life justifies enabling the drepadations of the evil, of ensuring the helplessness of their victims.

I certainly don’t believe I have the moral authority to demand others be defenseless. I will agree on background checks, as most other anti-gun control folks have also said. I’ll agree about improving treatment and rescources for the mentally ill.

Semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines of over 10? round capacity, let’s just say this is your definition of an assualt weapon. You keep saying restricting them is ‘reasonable’ and the moral position to take. Your justification has been mass shootings. IMHO, I have not seen you provide specifics to counter the following points
  • The majority of mass shootings have involved semi-automatic hanguns. Not assault weapons. Your proposed action is inconsistent with your stated justification.
    • If your justification is mass shootings, are you advocating banning semi-automatic handguns?
    • The ban you advocate was in place at Sandy Hook as well as several other mass shootings. Again, ban didn’t work so why advocate a proven failure? Unless there’s a different justification?
    • These types of weapons are very well suited to Home Defense, particularly as home invasion type robberies have been on the rise in the US. Yet, you do not address why it is moral to deny a person an effect means of self-defense, particularly given the ban does not address your justification for it.
    • The FBI study on the result of the Federal AWB ban showed that it had no effect on crime. So, certainly, crime isn’t a justification for the ban.
  • Your only response to the fact that all of these mass shootings, with one exception, took place in gun-free zones appeared to be to discount the fact and ask questions
    *If you’re concerned with mass shootings, since the most common enabling factor is gun free zones ( to a much greater extent than assault weapons). Do you advocate eliminating gun-free zones on government controlled property?
  • You propose gun control as part of the Culture of Life, yet in the US crime is lower where guns are more readily available. How is a policy which will result in increased crime, violent assault, rape etc. compatible with the Culture of Life and respect for human dignity?
    Code: 
     That is, is the Culture of Life about our good intentios regarding result of actions, or   what will actually transpire given knowledge of the issue?
  • The point where our system of government and morality coincided with the framers. They saw the biggest threat to the populace, i.e. life and human dignity – to be the unchecked power of the government. They knew this was not a sudden event, but a gradual deterioration over time. Hence, they enumerated specific powers that the government could exercise and stated all others were resereved to the people. Now, some felt they needed to go farther and state the most important in a bill of rights. Others argued that future governments would see it not just as an additional emphasis on a few specific rights, but that future governments would feel free to exercise non-enumerated powers.
  • Again, you do not directly address, other than denying the possibility, the framers concen of the future government following the same path as numerous others. Again, the framers have been proven correct, particularly in recent history to the tune of well over 150 million defenseless citizens killed by their own governments.
    • How is disarming a population, making them vulnerable to that threat—slaughter of millions, consistent with the Culture of Life?
The possibility of the turmoil and destruction of a civil war, regardless of its outcome, in the opinion of the framers would dampen the ambitions of the politicians and be the most effective deterrent to it ever occurring.

Good day and may the peace of Christ be with you and yours always,
Click to expand...
I must say, I found some of your posts more constructive than others. At least more charitable in tone.

I’m only going to address your view of a culture of life being attacked, with a possible slaughter of millions. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Those being discussed as being banned might equal 2%, for the sake of argument let’s say 5%. People should be able to provide self defense, target shoots, and hunting with the other 285+ million guns. For me, that’s a minute sacrifice in even an attempt to save innocent lives. We are to give so that others may have dignity of life, from conception until natural death.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I’m only going to address your view of a culture of life being attacked, with a possible slaughter of millions. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Those being discussed as being banned might equal 2%, for the sake of argument let’s say 5%. People should be able to provide self defense, target shoots, and hunting with the other 285+ million guns. For me, that’s a minute sacrifice in even an attempt to save innocent lives. We are to give so that others may have dignity of life, from conception until natural death.
Click to expand...
The Democrats ultimately want to ban all guns. And they have admitted it.

And the “sacrifices” you speak of won’t improve the problem, it will only make it worse.

So why do you trust The Party Of Death (The Party Of The Culture Of Death i.e. abortion, euthanasia, birth-control, same-sex marriage… etc) on this issue?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I must say, I found some of your posts more constructive than others. At least more charitable in tone.
Click to expand...
When you imply the moral high-ground by stating that your stance is filled with charitable “sacrifice” and is in the true spirit of “The Culture Of Life” it leaves a clear impression that anyone opposed to your position is necessarily a self-centered advocate of the Culture of Death - either intentionally or subconsciously.

And I personally find that insinuation incredibly self-righteous, destructive, and highly uncharitable in it’s offensiveness.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
March 2013 Post-ABC poll - The Catholic church, gun control
Click to expand...
Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?
Click to expand...
91% approve
Click to expand...
Q: Would you support or oppose a law making illegal gun sales a federal crime?
Click to expand...
82% approve
Click to expand...
Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?
Click to expand...
57% approve
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Prodigal_Son1:
For this reason our founding fathers designed a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy. This is the reason Jim Crow laws in the South were struck down. Back then maybe 60% of Southerners were in favor of Jim Crow laws. I am just throwing out that 60% figure. Popular demand brought Roe V Wade to SCOTUS.

In theory a constitutional republic prevents the majority from taking away rights of the minority. What if out of fear of terrorism, people give into their fear and emotions and in Gallup polls 85% of the people want to do away with the 4th amendment and allow the police to kick down your door and search your house and person whenever they want?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
The Left always exempts themselves from their own rules.

Gabby Giffords’s Husband Buys AR-15
Click to expand...
I really struggle to get my ahead around the American obsession with guns.

It isn’t a left/right issue. Here in the UK the overwhelming majority of people strongly disagree with American gun legislation. This is something that applies to people on the furthest reaches of the left and right.

Catholics in the UK really struggle to reconcile civilian gun ownership with the teachings of the Church.

Just check out the rates of firearm deaths in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The rate of gun deaths in the US is 40 times higher than that in the UK. Countries the likes of Paraguay, Nicaragua and Serbia have lower rates than the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top