Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[jay29]

Gun control insanity is sweeping the nation. There is more talk demonizing the NRA and the law abiding citizen than criminals. Things are upside down.

 

[jay29]

…and why should being pro-life not include the right to protect your life from a dangerous criminal or intruder, or, heaven forbid, a tyrannical government? .

Why not? Because it doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.

Explain to me why the democrats are so soft on criminals but very hard on private firearm ownership?

 

[Lucky7]

Why is this turning into an all or nothing? Cardinal Dolan is not saying guns should be banned. He is saying that reasonalble gun control is in accordance with Church teaching. I’m not sure why anyone would argue against that.

 

[meltzerboy]

Being involved in several of the gun control discussions, it seems I have had trouble putting all my thoughts into words. After reading this article, and the Cardinal’s blog, I see it explained as I view it, and his view of the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

As the Cardinal speaks out, he qualifies that he is not an expert on specific controls, the constitution, or legislative responsibilities. The thing that stood out, for me, was an echo of what I’ve tried to explain.

Advocating for Gun Control

He also articulated his view of the focus of the bishops, while citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’ve noticed that many conservatives on CAF appeal to common sense, but not when common sense runs contrary to their ideology. Evidently Cardinal Dolan has common sense, probably because he’s a New Yorker!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

i’ve noticed that many conservatives on caf appeal to common sense, but not when common sense runs contrary to their ideology. Evidently cardinal dolan has common sense, probably because he’s a new yorker!

 

[jay29]

I’ve noticed that many conservatives on CAF appeal to common sense, but not when common sense runs contrary to their ideology. Evidently Cardinal Dolan has common sense, probably because he’s a New Yorker!

Demonizing the NRA and the law abiding citizen is not common sense.

 

[mountee]

I appreciate Cardinal Dolan and I think he is taking a reasonable approach. However, there is an emphasis that seems to be placed more on gun control by his statement than on mental health issues. I have given this issue as much thought as my brain will allow and I consistently come back to the same place, these recent mass murders, using automatic weapons, have been carried out by seriously, obviously mentally ill people. For some reason, that most of us would never understand even if it was completely spelled out, they wanted to kill people. The Norway massacre killed 77 mostly young people in a country where guns are allowed with permits and controls but normally used for hunting and sport. In Chicago, one of the strongest gun regulated cities in the U.S., there were over 500 violent gun murders in 2012. To my thinking, if gun control was the best answer then Chicago would represent what gun control can accomplish, not the opposite. Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that these seriously mentally ill people, bent on hurting and killing people will do so with or without guns. I have said this before but my birthday is 4/19, the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing that was accomplished by a mentally ill, angry man without a gun. If I thought that gun control would solve this and we would never have another tradgedy like Newtown or Columbine or the theater shooting, I would get behind it completely. Unfortunately, I think that these people will just find another way to destroy human beings.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Disarming people requires them to be victims and is part of the culture of death. Removing the ability to defend against evil enables evil to run free. It’s pretty simple. The police do not exist to defend us, nor do they have a duty to do so. The only person repsonsible for the protection of your life is you. It’s sad that some in the Church would be oblivious to this fact.

 

[meltzerboy]

Demonizing the NRA and the law abiding citizen is not common sense.

Which liberal Democrats have ever demonized the law-abiding citizen or the members of the NRA? It’s the views of the current NRA leadership that are demonized.

 

[scipio337]

Demonizing the NRA and the law abiding citizen is not common sense.

Quite obviously, he means the “common sense” of banning semi auto rifles, and making their possession a felony.

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

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

:
10.20 Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE

ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.

Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:

(1) remove the weapon from the state;

(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;

(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or

(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133, subdivision 5.

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

All hail “common sense!”

 

[Bill_Martin]

Which Democrats have ever demonized the law-abiding citizen or the members of the NRA? It’s the views of the current leadership that are demonized.

When they try to disarm us.

 

[mburn16]

“has common sense”

“Common Sense” in this case is a lot like “need”: It tends to be constructed to fit the agenda of the person pushing for something. So liberals, who see crime as the result of unfair “concentration of wealth” and insufficient government programs, also see private gun ownership as largely unnecessary, since, if we simply weren’t afraid to push their programs, people wouldn’t commit crime and other people wouldn’t need to use guns in defense.

For the record, I don’t really think we’ll get to a situation where the American public is in the position of having to fight off its own government, or fend away an invasion force. At the same time, however, I also respect the argument that private gun ownership, including ownership of high-powered and large-capacity weapons, makes both scenarios distinctly less likely.

If you understand guns, and you look at the situations of many of these mass-shooting incidents, you come to realize that banning “assault weapons” really wouldn’t accomplish much, while banning handguns or (worse), semi-automatic weapons could create many more innocent victims - if not of mass shootings, than of other crimes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which Democrats have ever demonized the law-abiding citizen or the members of the NRA? It’s the views of the current leadership that are demonized.

Also, I didn’t see where the Cardinal demonized anyone, other than those ‘bent on killing.’

 

[Bill_Martin]

Also, I didn’t see where the Cardinal demonized anyone, other than those ‘bent on killing.’

Then why does he support the disarmament of law abiding citizens? Does he think they are bent on killing?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Background checks already exist, millions are done every year. Laws already on the books need to be enforced more, not creating new laws too restrict the rights of law abiding citizens

I respect the Bishops highly but I do not understand why they comment on issues of prudential judgement like gun control, Paul’s Ryan’s budget, health care etc. It does not make sense to me. These are issues of prudedential judgement

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then why does he support the disarmament of law abiding citizens? Does he think they are bent on killing?

Did you read the article, or his blog? He has not spoken for the ‘disarmament of law abiding citizens.’

 

[Bill_Martin]

Did you read the article, or his blog? He has not spoken for the ‘disarmament of law abiding citizens.’

I did. He said he was “very much in favor” of the SAFE Act that NY passed. Every single gun I own would be banned under that law and every single ammunition magazine would be as well.

 

[meltzerboy]

Background checks already exist, millions are done every year. Laws already on the books need to be enforced more, not creating new laws too restrict the rights of law abiding citizens

But are they universal in all states and do they apply to private gun sales? At least you admit the current laws should be better enforced, so that’s a start.

 

[scipio337]

I did. He said he was “very much in favor” of the SAFE Act that NY passed. Every single gun I own would be banned under that law and every single ammunition magazine would be as well.

Hey, that’s just ‘common sense’!

 

[Bill_Martin]

But are they universal and do they apply to private gun sales? At least you admit the current laws should be better enforced, so that’s a start.

Do you want to give anyone access to the NICS system so they can run a background check on you any time they want, including seeing your private health records?

Either everyone has access to the NICS system and can look up anyone at any time for any reason, or private sales are outlawed entirely.