Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[RobDH]

Poisionous snakes, rabid varmits, dogs chasing cattle or killing chickens, these are the main reasons for owning a gun in the country, protection of human life is not addressed nearly as often if at all.

I agree completely with your analysis. And as someone raised in the country and then transplanted to the “big city” I’ve discovered that the only environmental difference between the two areas is semantically. Poisonous drug runners, rabid criminals, gangs chasing each other through the streets killing one another as well as innocent bystanders are just as valid reasons for gun ownership.

 

[57classic]

I want to hear from people who don’t live in the country: What is it that you propose we do to protect life and property from non human predators? We can’t put a skunk in time out; snakes and the neighbors’ dogs don’t seem to understand boundries. Guns are to the point and if killing is necessary it is quick. The dog may not have to be killed but being shot at is quite an attitude adjuster when said dog is driving a herd of cows & calves toward a barbed wire fence and a highway. This is no joke, we had a family move here from California who actually enjoyed putting their German Shepards into the pasture for “excercise”. They did not get the usual courtesy of being told their dogs would be shot if it happened again, just their bodies dumped in their yard and a vet bill for the bull that went thru the barbed wire.
So you want to take away all the guns and melt them down. What do you propose we who still have need of them do in their place?

 

[Bennie_P]

I want to hear from people who don’t live in the country: What is it that you propose we do to protect life and property from non human predators? We can’t put a skunk in time out; snakes and the neighbors’ dogs don’t seem to understand boundries. Guns are to the point and if killing is necessary it is quick. The dog may not have to be killed but being shot at is quite an attitude adjuster when said dog is driving a herd of cows & calves toward a barbed wire fence and a highway. This is no joke, we had a family move here from California who actually enjoyed putting their German Shepards into the pasture for “excercise”. They did not get the usual courtesy of being told their dogs would be shot if it happened again, just their bodies dumped in their yard and a vet bill for the bull that went thru the barbed wire.
So you want to take away all the guns and melt them down. What do you propose we who still have need of them do in their place?

The poblem with your proposition and postion it is all or nothing.
Not all proponents of Gun control want to melt down all guns, but have some sensible gun control. The all or nothing attitude will result in a total gun ban - is that your goal?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The poblem with your proposition and postion it is all or nothing.
Not all proponents of Gun control want to melt down all guns, but have some sensible gun control. The all or nothing attitude will result in a total gun ban - is that your goal?

Ah, but what is “sensible” gun control?

1. Will it violate the Constitution? If so, how will it not be a precedent for violating the rest of the Bill of Rights?
2. Will it be measured by effectiveness at achieving some sort of goal? What will that goal be?

 

[RobDH]

Ah, but what is “sensible” gun control?

1. Will it violate the Constitution? If so, how will it not be a precedent for violating the rest of the Bill of Rights?
2. Will it be measured by effectiveness at achieving some sort of goal? What will that goal be?

Exactly!
The majority of gun control advocates I’ve seen and heard from want total bans, not “gun control”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly!
The majority of gun control advocates I’ve seen and heard from want total bans, not “gun control”.

And they want to base it on the world-as-they-imagine-it, not on the world-as-it-is. If they really want to reduce violent crime, they should be pushing for a tried-and-proven method – liberalized concealed carry laws in places like New York City, Washington. DC, and other areas over-run with violent crime.

 

[Bennie_P]

Exactly!
The majority of gun control advocates I’ve seen and heard from want total bans, not “gun control”.

That is because the Gun lobby and the Liberals gives us, the people in the middle no choice. - It is all or nothing - I can live without a gun, though I enjoy them. And there are many more like me. I just have to sit back and watch the two extreme ends of the debate fight it out, I don’t have to be involved at all - then the day will come - no guns.

 

[melensdad]

Not all proponents of Gun control want to melt down all guns, but have some sensible gun control.

As Vern noted, what is “sensible” gun control? That alone is a huge debate because many who engage in the debates are not well versed on the technical aspects of the debate.

The other problem I see is that those who advocated “sensible” controls last year will come back this year for MORE “sensible” gun controls, and next year they will come back again for EVEN MORE “sensible” gun controls. That pattern has been repeated time and time again.

They have a strategy of nibbling away, bit by bit, until they achieve draconian restrictions.

That is because the Gun lobby and the Liberals gives us, the people in the middle no choice.

I’m not sure that is a completely accurate portrayal of the “Gun Lobby” as they seem to be the ones with their backs to the wall simply defending the rights we currently have. It is pretty rare to find the gun lobby out there pushing to dismantle our current laws because they are usually just working to preserve the freedoms we still have left. The notable exception to this is the gun lobby’s efforts, at individual state levels to allow for conceal weapons carry by qualified private citizens and the proposals to prevent junk lawsuits from bankrupting businesses that sell, manufacture or use guns legitimately.

Even as I outline those two things, these actions are not typically dismanteling efforts so much as regulatory efforts, and they vary widely by state as each state has different requirements for lawsuits, etc.

 

[RobDH]

That is because the Gun lobby and the Liberals gives us, the people in the middle no choice. - It is all or nothing - I can live without a gun, though I enjoy them. And there are many more like me. I just have to sit back and watch the two extreme ends of the debate fight it out, I don’t have to be involved at all - then the day will come - no guns.

Besides the fact that has been pointed out, that there are many useful purposes for guns, it’s a nice sentiment, but the reality is that until there are no guns in the world, there will always be guns in the hands of criminals and other malcontents.

 

[He_Man]

The poblem with your proposition and postion it is all or nothing.
Not all proponents of Gun control want to melt down all guns, but have some sensible gun control. The all or nothing attitude will result in a total gun ban - is that your goal?

Thing is, we HAVE gun control.

if the spectrum is at one end, open free market for gun possesion with no restrictions, and a gun ban, we are already tilted towards to the end with the ban.

Gun control laws are in effect, and not many on here are advocatuing repealing them. What we are against is FURTHER uinfringement on our rights to own and protect ourselves with firearms.

Advoacting for more laws is like creating more government agencies; they don’t change anything, and they simply pile on top of their predecessors who are not being used.

 

[Bennie_P]

Besides the fact that has been pointed out, that there are many useful purposes for guns, it’s a nice sentiment, but the reality is that until there are no guns in the world, there will always be guns in the hands of criminals and other malcontents.

I don’t debate that, but what is the gun lobby going to do to reduce gun violence beside suggest that we put more guns on the street? Despite the rhetoric, I don’t accept that as a solution

 

[Bennie_P]

Thing is, we HAVE gun control.

if the spectrum is at one end, open free market for gun possesion with no restrictions, and a gun ban, we are already tilted towards to the end with the ban.

Gun control laws are in effect, and not many on here are advocatuing repealing them. What we are against is FURTHER uinfringement on our rights to own and protect ourselves with firearms.

Advoacting for more laws is like creating more government agencies; they don’t change anything, and they simply pile on top of their predecessors who are not being used.

What we need is a reform of the laws, what do you suggest besides allowing things to stay as they are now?

 

[He_Man]

Enforce the current laws and see how things are.

What good will new laws do unlesswe change the enforcement? And how do we know the current laws won’t work since they aren’t being enforced in many cases?

 

[melensdad]

I don’t debate that, but what is the gun lobby going to do to reduce gun violence beside suggest that we put more guns on the street? Despite the rhetoric, I don’t accept that as a solution

Interestingly the gun lobby doesn’t look at “gun violence” per se. It looks at “violence” of all types. That “gun violence” focus is part of the anti-gun agenda because they tend to ignore the ROOT CAUSES of violence and just blame guns.

What I’ve seen come from the gun lobby is some broad sweeping common sense stuff like focusing on family stability and gang problems that arise when families fall apart. Not a lot different than the messages that come out of the mouth of Bill Cosby regarding fatherless children and the irresponsible mothers & fathers who create those unwanted kids. I also see a lot of crime control support come from the gun lobby and support for NOT plea bargaining down gun crimes but it is amazing that many violent crimes are plea bargained down.

Enforce the current laws and see how things are.

What good will new laws do unlesswe change the enforcement? And how do we know the current laws won’t work since they aren’t being enforced in many cases?

EXACTLY my point too. We have laws we refuse to enforce.

 

[RobDH]

I don’t debate that, but what is the gun lobby going to do to reduce gun violence beside suggest that we put more guns on the street? Despite the rhetoric, I don’t accept that as a solution

I don’t suggest “we put more guns on the street”. I’m not part of “the gun lobby”; don’t belong to the NRA or any other organization such as that. But at the same time, I reject the premises of the "gun-control lobby”. We already have, as others have stated, numerous gun laws that we don’t enforce now. We don’t need more “gun control” what we need is more “gun law enforcement”. Leave the law-abiding gun owners alone and go after the criminals, and that includes those who sell guns illegally via the “straw buyer” method.

 

[Bennie_P]

Interestingly the gun lobby doesn’t look at “gun violence” per se. It looks at “violence” of all types. That “gun violence” focus is part of the anti-gun agenda because they tend to ignore the ROOT CAUSES of violence and just blame guns.

What I’ve seen come from the gun lobby is some broad sweeping common sense stuff like focusing on family stability and gang problems that arise when families fall apart. Not a lot different than the messages that come out of the mouth of Bill Cosby regarding fatherless children and the irresponsible mothers & fathers who create those unwanted kids. I also see a lot of crime control support come from the gun lobby and support for NOT plea bargaining down gun crimes but it is amazing that many violent crimes are plea bargained down. Lets get pro-active instead of re-active.

EXACTLY my point too. We have laws we refuse to enforce.

How many gun lobbist are voluteering thier time to be mentors to fatherless children in the innercenter? That would be a interesting thing to see and putting the walk into thier talk.

 

[RobDH]

How many gun lobbist are voluteering thier time to be mentors to fatherless children in the innercenter? That would be a interesting thing to see and putting the walk into thier talk.

I’m not a “gun lobbist” but I am a “big brother” as well as a gun owner, and have been so in several large cities mentoring “inner-city” youth in San Francisco CA, Little Rock AR and Louisville KY. How’s that?

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m not a “gun lobbist” but I am a “big brother” as well as a gun owner, and have been so in several large cities mentoring “inner-city” youth in San Francisco CA, Little Rock AR and Louisville KY. How’s that?

may God bless your efforts:thumbsup:

 

[melensdad]

How many gun lobbist are voluteering thier time to be mentors to fatherless children in the innercenter? That would be a interesting thing to see and putting the walk into thier talk.

I admit that I no longer do that. However, I used to mentor urban teens and young adults. Now I only informally mentor adults in financial matters helping them to work out their family financial problems.

All that aside, what does it have to do with the topic of gun control and the Catholic church? We seem to have strayed from the topic of gun control and the Church.

 

[Bennie_P]

I admit that I no longer do that. However, I used to mentor urban teens and young adults. Now I only informally mentor adults in financial matters helping them to work out their family financial problems.

All that aside, what does it have to do with the topic of gun control and the Catholic church? We seem to have strayed from the topic of gun control and the Church.

I wasn’t asking you what you did. It has to do with pro-active solutions to help in the areas you pointed out as the root problems. Such as Ted Nugent, though I think he is nuts, but he does run camps for children and that is a good thing, maybe? I wouldn’t mind seeing more things address those problems you pointed out, but it seems to me that the gun lobby is gripping onto thire guns so tight thier hands aren’t available to do anything else.