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.
I don’t see, or plan for, a civil war in the US. I don’t believe our Church teaches, or would support, such an action in a country like the US. I also believe the government’s weapons are much more effective than anything in an individual’s personal arsenal.
Click to expand...
Like I’ve previously posted, those planning a civil war do not talk about it, neither do the people who don’t see one coming. Either way, I don’t require that you tell me first, because I will not offer that information either. It is illogical and foolish to believe otherwise.
Actually that would be case with AKs, most oppresive governments don’t bother with the over priced, over hyped under performing AR.
Click to expand...
I’ll take a skinny doing spray and pray AK over even a UN idiot with an AR.
Try something else, for the sake of your fellow man. That’s the message from the Cardinal.
Click to expand...
Right, try anything but HONESTY. The ONLY correct answer is for the government to admit, and (in conjunction or even barring that) for the citizenry to understand that it is impossible for the government to protect you at the level of the individual. That protection falls to each, and to the last, “man.” It is, again, illogical, and DANGEROUS, to assume otherwise.
 
Cor_Cordis said:
So why the emphasis on AR-15’s?
Click to expand...
It’s a start. This gives the government the legal ability to regulate “assault weapons” and we all know that the term “assault weapon” is what ever the person saying the word wants it to mean. The last federal “assault weapon” ban included everything from AK47s to Italian copies of the 1873 Winchester lever action rifle to .22 rifles.
 
I’ll take a skinny doing spray and pray AK over even a UN idiot with an AR.
Click to expand...
And if “skinny” is offensive then I change my term to booger-eater, bad-guy, not “us.”

And I’m not looking for anyone to join or recruit me to an “us.” I’m happy to stand as “me,” I’m always happy to find others standing as themselves too, makes me feel safer. Just don’t try asking any “me” to let “them” protect “us.” No time, not interested in that bull.
 
Least said:
… The ONLY correct answer is for the government to admit, and (in conjunction or even barring that) for the citizenry to understand that it is impossible for the government to protect you at the level of the individual. That protection falls to each, and to the last, “man.” It is, again, illogical, and DANGEROUS, to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...
The government has already admitted that, in fact the law in the US recognizes that it is impossible for the government to protect the individual. The police have no duty/responsibility/obligation to protect an individual. This is precedent set throughout the US up to and including SCOTUS. A couple of key cases:

Warren vs DC (Police have no duty to protect an individual unless some special relationship exists- witness protection, protective custody etc.)

Castle Rock vs Gonzalez (A restraining/protective order does not establish special relationship with police for additional protection. It places a restriction only on the subjec of the order)

Some states, like California, have gone even farther, not simply relying on precedent but actually including this absence of duty for police to protect individuals in the penal codes.

So, you have situations like this in Oakland, where residents patrol their own neighborhoods or/and hire security guards. Note, since CA is a discretionary state with issuance of CCWs at the pleasure of the local sheriff-- folks in Oakland can’t carry firearms (unless they’re a politician/member of the elite/friend of the sheriff/ major campaign contributor-- not just one of the normal folks in fear for their life in a high crime area).

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/02/26/arcadia-park-residents-policing-their-streets-as-they-lose-faith-in-opd/

Gun control is about disarming the victims. It is a racist/class tool to control the undesirable class, be they a particular race, religion, social or political class.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Recent events indicate a trend: e.g. the theater, the mall, the school, the first responders, to name the most recent only.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that trend has been decreasing crime as AR15s became the most popular long gun sold in the US.
 
Of course the government wants to ban the Ar-15! It’s the modern day musket.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Recent events indicate a trend: e.g. the theater, the mall, the school, the first responders, to name the most recent only.
Click to expand...
A “trend”?

What size of a “trend”?

Numbers and percentages please.

What exactly is the genesis of this “trend”?

Is it wise to set into place long lasting policies with serious implications based on “trends”?

Oh and, define “assault” weapon please.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Recent events indicate a trend: e.g. the theater, the mall, the school, the first responders, to name the most recent only.
Click to expand...
Long established “trends” clearly indicate that HAND GUNS are the far greater weapon of choice for all murders committed with guns.

Did this recent “assault” weapons “trend” suddenly offset the long established HAND GUN “trend”?

If not - are you willing to advocate the overall ban of HAND GUNS?

If not - why?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
A “trend”?

What size of a “trend”?

Numbers and percentages please.

What exactly is the genesis of this “trend”?

Is it wise to set into place long lasting policies with serious implications based on “trends”?

Oh and, define “assault” weapon please.
Click to expand...
You tell me. Is there an acceptable body count?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Apparently your “trend” would indicate there is.

No?
Click to expand...
No, the trend is mass shooters picking up an AR15 and shooting as many people as possible. This happened at the theater, the mall, the school and against first responders.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
No, the trend is mass shooters picking up an AR15 and shooting as many people as possible. This happened at the theater, the mall, the school and against first responders.
Click to expand...
I believe you’ve said that already.

But uhm, you didn’t seem to address this:

Long established “trends” clearly indicate that HAND GUNS are the far greater weapon of choice for all murders committed with guns.

Did this recent “assault” weapons “trend” suddenly offset the long established HAND GUN “trend”?

If not - are you willing to advocate the overall ban of HAND GUNS?

If not - why?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
No, the trend is mass shooters picking up an AR15 and shooting as many people as possible. This happened at the theater, the mall, the school and against first responders.
Click to expand...
Is there an acceptable body count? Perhaps with those un-trendy HAND GUNS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top