DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[kuppermom]

I’m not misunderstanding you on individualism vs. the common good. I believe you are not interpreting the teaching correctly. We have a right, and an instinct, to self preservation, but we must decrease, so that He may increase. To do that for Him, we do for the least of His. What was His response to those that wanted to follow Him? Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and come follow me. No individualism, above others, taught.

But you can take silence and say, ‘here is opposing?’ No. If the bishops disagreed, or felt something was wrongly expressed, they have an obligation of clarification for the masses to understand as to not be misled.

See my previous post, from the USCCB website. There are 454 active, and retired, bishops in the US. Not one speaks out in strict favor of gun rights, as it being expressed by laypersons on these threads.

Like I said before you need to go talk to your priest. We, yes, must give of our selves to follow Christ, but it must come from our choice, not forced upon us. Free will and all. But we’re also not suppose to force that upon others either. Each individual is precious in His sight and this can not be lost. That’s why Jesus willingly gave up his life for us. If one person has the cure inside them when the rest of us are going to die and that one person could save us all, but kill himself in the process. We can not as Catholics force him to take his life. Society is for the individual not individual for the society. Don’t be afraid to ask your priest, they are way better at explaining than I am.

 

[lcburgundy]

I’m not misunderstanding you on individualism vs. the common good. I believe you are not interpreting the teaching correctly. We have a right, and an instinct, to self preservation, but we must decrease, so that He may increase. To do that for Him, we do for the least of His. What was His response to those that wanted to follow Him? Sell all that you have, give to the poor, and come follow me. No individualism, above others, taught.

I still have no idea how this applies about the mechanics of gun control in a particular county, state or country, or what possible moral judgment or revelation there could possibly be as to whether a magazine can hold 5, 9, 11, or 16 cartridges. The moral question is already settled law as far as violence is concerned (i.e., assault, murder, rape, etc. is already illegal). Should I consult the USCCB on what constitutes moral kitchenware and what vehicle to buy too? They’re spiritual fathers, not consumer reports.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Like I said before you need to go talk to your priest. We, yes, must give of our selves to follow Christ, but it must come from our choice, not forced upon us. Free will and all.

Correct.

But we’re also not suppose to force that upon others either.

So, does this mean we quit working on anti-abortion legislation?

Each individual is precious in His sight and this can not be lost. That’s why Jesus willingly gave up his life for us. If one person has the cure inside them when the rest of us are going to die and that one person could save us all, but kill himself in the process. We can not as Catholics force him to take his life. Society is for the individual not individual for the society. Don’t be afraid to ask your priest, they are way better at explaining than I am.

Every life is precious in His sight, but one is no more precious than another. Christ said:

Joh 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

One cannot be forced to do as He asked, and even commanded. We have free will to obey, or not. Guns are material things from this world. Is our right to own them going to save our lives, eternally? Do we trust guns more than we trust Him?

Please don’t misunderstand me. We have a right to self defense, and a duty to defend others. What the Church does not teach is, ‘there is only one way, and tool, to do this with.’ Gun controls can be a defense.

I told you, I own guns, I was raised around guns. I know my own abilities, but this is short of knowing everyone’s ability. I’m sure there are gun owners that are more security minded than myself, and there are those who are much more lax than I am. Being a gun owner does not make us all equal in safety measures, and responsibilities that go, with guns.

Now, is it really ‘individualism’ over society to say, ‘I might have to pay fees to support a measure that might save lives?’ It seems to me there are motivations besides ‘individualism’ at work.

As a gun owner, it’s a minor inconvenience to wait an hour, or hour and a half, for a background check when I purchase a gun. (I bought my last gun about 2 weeks ago.) It is a minor inconvenience to have to go to a licensed gun dealer, and pay fees, to complete a transaction to sell a gun. The list can go on and on. My intent is for the common good of all people, through those minor inconveniences, or sacrifices, to my self.

Which intent is more acceptable to Him? I am willing to make sacrifices for the least of Yours, or my individualism, costs to me, and other inconveniences came before the good of others because You love me?

He loves us all. He commanded that we love one another, including our enemies, as He loved us. He, that laid down His life for us.

 

[kuppermom]

Correct.

So, does this mean we quit working on anti-abortion legislation?

Every life is precious in His sight, but one is no more precious than another. Christ said:

One cannot be forced to do as He asked, and even commanded. We have free will to obey, or not. Guns are material things from this world. Is our right to own them going to save our lives, eternally? Do we trust guns more than we trust Him?

Please don’t misunderstand me. We have a right to self defense, and a duty to defend others. What the Church does not teach is, ‘there is only one way, and tool, to do this with.’ Gun controls can be a defense.

I told you, I own guns, I was raised around guns. I know my own abilities, but this is short of knowing everyone’s ability. I’m sure there are gun owners that are more security minded than myself, and there are those who are much more lax than I am. Being a gun owner does not make us all equal in safety measures, and responsibilities that go, with guns.

Now, is it really ‘individualism’ over society to say, ‘I might have to pay fees to support a measure that might save lives?’ It seems to me there are motivations besides ‘individualism’ at work.

As a gun owner, it’s a minor inconvenience to wait an hour, or hour and a half, for a background check when I purchase a gun. (I bought my last gun about 2 weeks ago.) It is a minor inconvenience to have to go to a licensed gun dealer, and pay fees, to complete a transaction to sell a gun. The list can go on and on. My intent is for the common good of all people, through those minor inconveniences, or sacrifices, to my self.

Which intent is more acceptable to Him? I am willing to make sacrifices for the least of Yours, or my individualism, costs to me, and other inconveniences came before the good of others because You love me?

He loves us all. He commanded that we love one another, including our enemies, as He loved us. He, that laid down His life for us.

We have now come full circle and I believe we are at an impasse. I know in my heart what I say to be true and you seem to be set in what you think. So, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I still have no idea how this applies about the mechanics of gun control in a particular county, state or country, or what possible moral judgment or revelation there could possibly be as to whether a magazine can hold 5, 9, 11, or 16 cartridges. The moral question is already settled law as far as violence is concerned (i.e., assault, murder, rape, etc. is already illegal). Should I consult the USCCB on what constitutes moral kitchenware and what vehicle to buy too? They’re spiritual fathers, not consumer reports.

Is the moral question on abortion settled by the law of the land?

Just as abortions are morally wrong, some uses of guns are morally wrong. Was any of the mass shootings any less intrinsic than an abortion? The bishops are clear in their guidance and how it’s applicable to the culture of life, or death. That’s a spiritual guidance, and not a consumer report.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We have now come full circle and I believe we are at an impasse. I know in my heart what I say to be true and you seem to be set in what you think. So, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

I asked several questions, and had looked forward to your responses. They were sincere questions, that I ask of myself first. That’s how I come to my view, as part of forming a faith based conscience.

We are all obligated to act on our consciences. We can do no more. We have to continue the race knowing the Church teaches we can err in our conscience. So we continue the race seeking the greater truth all the time.

 

[lcburgundy]

Please don’t misunderstand me. We have a right to self defense, and a duty to defend others. What the Church does not teach is, ‘there is only one way, and tool, to do this with.’ Gun controls can be a defense.

Now, is it really ‘individualism’ over society to say, ‘I might have to pay fees to support a measure that might save lives?’ It seems to me there are motivations besides ‘individualism’ at work.

As a gun owner, it’s a minor inconvenience to wait an hour, or hour and a half, for a background check when I purchase a gun. (I bought my last gun about 2 weeks ago.) It is a minor inconvenience to have to go to a licensed gun dealer, and pay fees, to complete a transaction to sell a gun. The list can go on and on. My intent is for the common good of all people, through those minor inconveniences, or sacrifices, to my self.

But there is no inherent moral quality to the purchase of a gun no more than there is inherent moral quality to the purchase of a set of kitchen knives or even a car. Of course, I’m assuming you’re not purchasing any of these with the intent to murder, assault, etc. others and will not be negligent in using them.

Also, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, you cannot compel felons and others prohibited from going through background check, licensing, etc. procedures due to the prohibition on self-incrimination in this country (i.e., people cannot be forced to admit to committing a crime by forcing them to fill out a registration or transfer form when they cannot legally own or transfer a firearm).

Which intent is more acceptable to Him? I am willing to make sacrifices for the least of Yours, or my individualism, costs to me, and other inconveniences came before the good of others because You love me?

But your sacrifices or your promised sacrifices aren’t actually preventing any crime. That’s the problem. In Michigan, we already have registration and transfer systems in place and they are of little to no crime-fighting value.

 

[kuppermom]

I asked several questions, and had looked forward to your responses. They were sincere questions, that I ask of myself first. That’s how I come to my view, as part of forming a faith based conscience.

We are all obligated to act on our consciences. We can do no more. We have to continue the race knowing the Church teaches we can err in our conscience. So we continue the race seeking the greater truth all the time.

And I have answered every question you have asked in full, you just keep asking the same ones expecting a different answer, but I’m not seeing it reciprocated. Things I said that you didn’t like, you just kind of skipped over. This is why I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You feel strongly one way, and I the other. I believe that is the very definition of impasse. I really don’t think that today we are going to convince each other. And I have kids that need my attention. Thank you for the debate and I say that because I get so tired of name calling and the loss of actually debate.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Because some Catholics committed a wrong then, we can now ignore the bishop’s guidance on other issues?

Because “some Catholics committed a wrong” is irrelevant to the issue. The point is that those that committed the wrong knew it because it was clearly communicated.

1.Support** measures** that control the sale and use of firearms
What measures, how much control and what use?
2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)
A no-brainer
3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns
What is sensible regulation?
4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons** including assault weapons.**
This almost seem like an afterthought
5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.
Agreed

If I legally purchase an “assault weapon” to hunt with, have all the permits and licenses and keep it in a secured safe, tell me how that goes against Church teaching???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But there is no inherent moral quality to the purchase of a gun no more than there is inherent moral quality to the purchase of a set of kitchen knives or even a car. Of course, I’m assuming you’re not purchasing any of these with the intent to murder, assault, etc. others and will not be negligent in using them.

Also, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, you cannot compel felons and others prohibited from going through background check, licensing, etc. procedures due to the prohibition on self-incrimination in this country (i.e., people cannot be forced to admit to committing a crime by forcing them to fill out a registration or transfer form when they cannot legally own or transfer a firearm).

But your sacrifices or your promised sacrifices aren’t actually preventing any crime. That’s the problem. In Michigan, we already have registration and transfer systems in place and they are of little to no crime-fighting value.

Kitchen knives are designed for meal preparation, or use. Cars are designed to travel. Guns are designed to take life. That’s why the bishops haven’t spoken on ‘pressure cookers.’ They were used as bomb parts, and bombs are always illegal in the civilian population. Guns are legal, and proving to be a problem, so the bishops speak out in favor of controls.

We cannot compel criminals to go through background checks. We can, however, require sellers to fulfill background check obligations to complete a transaction. That would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. We all know there is a great loophole through private sales, where the only exchange is money for guns, sometimes without even an exchange of names. That was proven in the video link provided.

How do you count a ‘prevented’ crime, by the deterrence of legislation?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because “some Catholics committed a wrong” is irrelevant to the issue. The point is that those that committed the wrong knew it because it was clearly communicated.

If I legally purchase an “assault weapon” to hunt with, have all the permits and licenses and keep it in a secured safe, tell me how that goes against Church teaching???

It’s was a clear as you make their statements in document. The difference is, we have no bishops giving different interpretations. Where is just one bishop that disputes the document issued to represent them as a governing body in the Church?

It would not be against Church teaching. Can you assure all ‘assault weapon’ owners will do the same? That’s our problem. It’s being argued for all, competent and incompetent. That’s why some type regulations is needed. It’s not need for the competent, but the incompetent. Those regulations are minor inconveniences for the competent, to assure safety from the incompetent. Before someone takes liberty to jump on my choice of terms, replace incompetent with any word that is more acceptable. The meaning still remains the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If I legally purchase an “assault weapon” to hunt with, have all the permits and licenses and keep it in a secured safe, tell me how that goes against Church teaching???

I wanted to add, legally does not automatically meet Church approval. There are things legal now that the Church certainly doesn’t approve of.

 

[Lochias]

We are all obligated to act on our consciences. We can do no more.

As a nitpick: This statement is not entirely true. We are also expected to form our consciences correctly as pertains to the teaching and wisdom of God, especially through the Church that He founded.

“Acting on our consciences” should not be misconstrued as free license to do or not do whatever we please.

 

[Lochias]

I wanted to add, legally does not automatically meet Church approval. There are things legal now that the Church certainly doesn’t approve of.

Can you show us where the Church does not allow someone to own a gun, and not to use it in self-defense?

 

[lcburgundy]

Kitchen knives are designed for meal preparation, or use. Cars are designed to travel. **Guns are designed to take life. ** That’s why the bishops haven’t spoken on ‘pressure cookers.’ They were used as bomb parts, and bombs are always illegal in the civilian population. Guns are legal, and proving to be a problem, so the bishops speak out in favor of controls.

Sorry, but the portion I bolded is absolutely wrong. Most cars are used to travel, most kitchen knives are used for food preparation, but most guns never take life. If you believe the intended purpose of your guns is to take life (and I’m presuming you’re including human life in that), I am frankly disturbed that you even own any guns. Why would you ever own something when you expect its ultimate purpose will be to take life? It is, among other non-weapon uses, a tool for self-defense. Many self-defense uses of guns involve never firing the weapon. Also, you never, ever shoot with the purpose to take life or to kill even in self-defense. That is both illegal and immoral. You shoot to stop an attack or an imminent attack.

Do you know how many guns there are in the U.S.? How many of those are ever used to take a human life? Hint: The FBI estimates there to be over 200 million firearms in the U.S., and there were less than 9,000 firearm murders in 2011.

We cannot compel criminals to go through background checks. We can, however, require sellers to fulfill background check obligations to complete a transaction. That would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. We all know there is a great loophole through private sales, where the only exchange is money for guns, sometimes without even an exchange of names. That was proven in the video link provided.

How do you count a ‘prevented’ crime, by the deterrence of legislation?

The registration system is rarely, if ever, cited in solving of crimes. I couldn’t find one example of that occurring. Given that the police are not (yet) ever-present and monitoring our every move, there’s little reason to believe that a registration or background check system actually prevents dangerous transfers, because, as you said, there’s not much to a private sale. I imagine you could make a moral case for banning cash to help prevent this kind of trafficking too, but let’s be honest, a bishop who claimed he had a private revelation about banning cash wouldn’t be taken too seriously (even though it probably would prevent some theoretical firearm transfers).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As a nitpick: This statement is not entirely true. We are also expected to form our consciences correctly as pertains to the teaching and wisdom of God, especially through the Church that He founded.

“Acting on our consciences” should not be misconstrued as free license to do or not do whatever we please.

Can you show us where the Church does not allow someone to own a gun, and not to use it in self-defense?

The bishops are authoritative in the Church that He founded. They speak guidance, and qualify it as a part of the culture of life, or culture of death. That guidance is part of that from the Church that we use to form our consciences correctly.

Also, on a quick note. You didn’t quote where I stated, ‘We have to continue the race knowing the Church teaches we can err in our conscience. So we continue the race seeking the greater truth all the time.’

The Church is giving guidance and it’s not an all or nothing proposition. In the same respect, where does the Church teach the only defense is with a gun, or a specific type gun? It doesn’t. I believe if you go back through all my posts you won’t find that I have said we can’t own guns, and not use them in defense. In fact, I posted the ‘suggestions’ from the bishops:

**1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.**

 

[Lochias]

The bishops are authoritative in the Church that He founded. They speak guidance, and qualify it as a part of the culture of life, or culture of death. That guidance is part of that from the Church that we use to form our consciences correctly.

Can you show us where the Church says that we are not allowed to own firearms?

Also, on a quick note. You didn’t quote where I stated, ‘We have to continue the race knowing the Church teaches we can err in our conscience. So we continue the race seeking the greater truth all the time.’

My apologies.

The Church is giving guidance and it’s not an all or nothing proposition. In the same respect, where does the Church teach the only defense is with a gun, or a specific type gun? It doesn’t. I believe if you go back through all my posts you won’t find that I have said we can’t own guns, and not use them in defense. In fact, I posted the ‘suggestions’ from the bishops:

There are situations in which the only viable defense is with a gun; the Church does not need to teach the basics of common sense. The bishops suggestions are just that, suggestions; worthy ones, to be sure, but the strict controls that we already have in place, including the banning of assault weapons in some states, fails to control the problem.

Guns are not the problem. People are; or more specifically, their lack of mental and /or spiritual health is the problem. More effort is needed to heal the sick, not to restrict our access to weapons that allow for a proper defense when such measures are called for.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sorry, but the portion I bolded is absolutely wrong. Most cars are used to travel, most kitchen knives are used for food preparation, but most guns never take life. If you believe the intended purpose of your guns is to take life (and I’m presuming you’re including human life in that), I am frankly disturbed that you even own any guns. Why would you ever own something when you expect its ultimate purpose will be to take life? It is, among other non-weapon uses, a tool for self-defense. Many self-defense uses of guns involve never firing the weapon. Also, you never, ever shoot with the purpose to take life or to kill even in self-defense. That is both illegal and immoral. You shoot to stop an attack or an imminent attack.

Do you know how many guns there are in the U.S.? How many of those are ever used to take a human life? Hint: The FBI estimates there to be over 200 million firearms in the U.S., and there were less than 9,000 firearm murders in 2011.

The registration system is rarely, if ever, cited in solving of crimes. I couldn’t find one example of that occurring. Given that the police are not (yet) ever-present and monitoring our every move, there’s little reason to believe that a registration or background check system actually prevents dangerous transfers, because, as you said, there’s not much to a private sale. I imagine you could make a moral case for banning cash to help prevent this kind of trafficking too, but let’s be honest, a bishop who claimed he had a private revelation about banning cash wouldn’t be taken too seriously (even though it probably would prevent some theoretical firearm transfers).

I didn’t say all guns take life. I said, ‘guns are designed to take life.’ There’s a difference, and I won’t argue semantics.

I hunt. To do that, I take life, and I do it intentionally. Those same guns are considered to be home protection, even though I pray I never have to use them for that purpose.

I have served in the military, and as a law enforcement officer. That is the legitimate authority the Catechism speaks of.

Ah, I see. Only 9000 died from firearms. Is that supposed to be an acceptable body count? Those 9000 lives are worth any inconveniences to gun owners? Does that 9000 include suicides, accidental shootings, etc.? According to the article in the OP, we are projected to have more gun related deaths than from automobiles accidents this year. Should we just wait it out and see how that goes, then act?

This is not a case of a bishop claiming a private revelation. It’s 3 chairmen of bishop committees, and the president of the bishops conference, speaking for the total body. What you will not find is a single bishop that opposes gun controls.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This is not a case of a bishop claiming a private revelation. It’s 3 chairmen of bishop committees, and the president of the bishops conference, speaking for the total body. What you will not find is a single bishop that opposes gun controls.

But we already have gun controls. Thousands of them. Why do we need more and more unenforceable laws?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Can you show us where the Church says that we are not allowed to own firearms?

My apologies.

There are situations in which the only viable defense is with a gun; the Church does not need to teach the basics of common sense. The bishops suggestions are just that, suggestions; worthy ones, to be sure, but the strict controls that we already have in place, including the banning of assault weapons in some states, fails to control the problem.

Guns are not the problem. People are; or more specifically, their lack of mental and /or spiritual health is the problem. More effort is needed to heal the sick, not to restrict our access to weapons that allow for a proper defense when such measures are called for.

It doesn’t, and I haven’t said that. I have provided the guidance from our bishops, which states importance of second amendment rights, and controls.

No apology necessary.

There are situations, and the proposals from the bishops do not prevent defense in those situations. Background checks have no impact on the law abiding citizen’s right to defense, that I can see. Even if you removed ‘assault weapons,’ our right to defense is still intact.

Did you notice #5 in the bishops list of proposals?

** 5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime. **

They seem to have approached the problems all around, in my opinion. It doesn’t appear to be a ‘knee jerk’ reaction.