Gun Control & the Catholic Church

[Bennie_P]

Alright, I listened to it, including the 15 minute “web extra” portion and after the typical anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to agree with what I and others have pointed out about the issues behind high crime rates.

In the web extra portion in particular I found nothing I didn’t agree with. Basically, they all agreed that the social situation in the urban, inner-city areas is the problem.

So, they agree with me, I agree with them that guns don’t cause the problem. Social issues do. So I see no need for additional gun control. Why do you?

I do see a need to reform the Gun Laws we have. Did it not seem troubling how many guns from Mississippi, are finding thier way to Chicago? The Gun Laws need to be more even across the board and across the country.

I have to ask, why does the gun lobby keep saying the “gun control” doesn’t look at nor try to address the other issues, when in the piece, that proves to false? Of course I disagree with Mayor Dailey ideas about control(total ban), but how are you going to stop the idea of a total ban?, if you are not willing to work with these people and rethink some of your ideas such as with the issue registration of handguns?
Bringing up something that was mention in a earlier post about how we only register and licence automoblies that we are going to use, I wonder why would you own a handgun if you were not planning to use it if needed?

 

[Man]

I do see a need to reform the Gun Laws we have. Did it not seem troubling how many guns from Mississippi, are finding thier way to Chicago? The Gun Laws need to be more even across the board and across the country.

I have to ask, why does the gun lobby keep saying the “gun control” doesn’t look at nor try to address the other issues, when in the piece, that proves to false? Of course I disagree with Mayor Dailey ideas about control(total ban), but how are you going to stop the idea of a total ban?, if you are not willing to work with these people and rethink some of your ideas such as with the issue registration of handguns?
Bringing up something that was mention in a earlier post about how we only register and licence automoblies that we are going to use, I wonder why would you own a handgun if you were not planning to use it if needed?

Handguns are for self defense. Should police have handgun? Do I have the right to defend myself against a crooked cop?

Uh-Oh…

 

[melensdad]

I do see a need to reform the Gun Laws we have. Did it not seem troubling how many guns from Mississippi, are finding thier way to Chicago? The Gun Laws need to be more even across the board and across the country.

Gun laws fall into STATES RIGHTS issues. Remember we are a union of individual states. While you may make a point, you have to convince the folks in Mississippi that your point is valid to THEM.

. . .if you are not willing to work with these people and rethink some of your ideas such as with the issue registration of handguns?

Why shouldn’t they work with me instead of just telling me what they think I should be allowed to do? They are the ones trying to take my rights away, I see no need to freely give them up. When THEY show they will prosecute existing gun laws, when they take proactive steps to restore responsible welfare, when they stop enabling violence then maybe I will talk to and consider working with them.

Bringing up something that was mention in a earlier post about how we only register and licence automoblies that we are going to use, I wonder why would you own a handgun if you were not planning to use it if needed?

Again, come out to my property, I’d be happy to have you. You’d be welcome to use the guns on my property in accordance with my state’s laws. I own many handguns. I do use them. I also will be happy to show you 4 vehicles that do not have Indiana license plates on them but can be licensed (I’m not talking about golf cart type utility vehicles, but I have one of those too). I use those vehicles (legally) all the time on my property. Why should I register my vehicles or my handguns when all are legally owned, were legally purchased, and are legally operated on my property within the state laws.

 

[Bennie_P]

Handguns are for self defense. Should police have handgun? Do I have the right to defend myself against a crooked cop?

Uh-Oh…

The police handguns are registered? I don’t understand your question:shrug:.

 

[Bennie_P]

Gun laws fall into STATES RIGHTS issues. Remember we are a union of individual states. While you may make a point, you have to convince the folks in Mississippi that your point is valid to THEM.

I keep my guns on my property. I use my guns on my property. Why do I need to register what does not get used on your property, or carried into your state? Why should your state impose its will over the laws of my state (I live on the Indiana side of the state line just southeast of Chicago, Illinios is literally less than 1 mile from the back door of my house)…

Where a lot of the guns are bought through ‘straw purchases’ that wind up in Chicago. We don’t have border check points at state lines, so do you propose maybe we should start doing that in order stop guns from coming from your state to Illinois? It would it be Illinois’ right to do so wouldn’t it?

Yes we have State rights, Union rights, how about human rights?

 

[RobDH]

I do see a need to reform the Gun Laws we have. Did it not seem troubling how many guns from Mississippi, are finding thier way to Chicago? The Gun Laws need to be more even across the board and across the country.

And the ATF and FBI will tell you that “straw purchases” are the problem. Purchases that are already illegal. And why are more arrests and prosecutions not occuring? Lack of funding for enforcement.

I have to ask, why does the gun lobby keep saying the “gun control” doesn’t look at nor try to address the other issues, when in the piece, that proves to false?

I don’t see your point here. Gun control doesn’t address the social issues that are the root cause. Gun control doesn’t provide a better education, jobs, counseling, etc. Explain to me how it does please.

Of course I disagree with Mayor Dailey ideas about control(total ban), but how are you going to stop the idea of a total ban?, if you are not willing to work with these people and rethink some of your ideas such as with the issue registration of handguns?

Because you have stated one of the root problems within this issue. There are many in “gun control” who agree with Mayor Dailey and who do want a total ban.

Bringing up something that was mention in a earlier post about how we only register and licence automoblies that we are going to use, I wonder why would you own a handgun if you were not planning to use it if needed?

First, as someone else pointed out, you don’t register a vehicle unless you drive it on public roads. Many vehicles can and are used without ever driving them on such public roads. Many farm vehicles have no registration.

I don’t currently carry any of my firearms loaded and ready for use in public areas, other than the target range. Why should I have to register any of them?

If I do choose to carry a concealed weapon again, I will show my ability to use it properly and properly identify myself to obtain a license.

But I do not support across the board registration of firearms (notice I did not say handguns, because again, many “gun control” advocates want all firearms registered) for one main reason. I do not trust present and future governments to not use such registration to confiscate my legally obtained firearms.

Many “gun control” advocates seem to forget why our forefathers wrote the second amendment.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”(emphasis mine)

Let us not forget that the “free State” was established by bearing arms against an established, legal government. And one of the first actions by that government was an attempt to confiscate powder and arms.

 

[melensdad]

Where a lot of the guns are bought through ‘straw purchases’ that wind up in Chicago. We don’t have border check points at state lines, so do you propose maybe we should start doing that in order stop guns from coming from your state to Illinois? It would it be Illinois’ right to do so wouldn’t it?

Yes we have State rights, Union rights, how about human rights?

It would certainly be within the rights of your state to set up border checks. Illiniois currently does that for other products. In fact they regularly check for people bringing cigarettes into Illinois from Indiana . . . apparently they are more concerned with losing tax dollars on the sale of cigarettes in Illinois than they are with losing the lives of gang bangers who are make up most of the people shot in their state.

Heck in June the state people also set up border checks for fireworks that are brought back into Illinois after they are purchased in Indiana.

Maybe you should suggest they check for guns too After all, its the Illinois residents who your state police seem to be stopping with all the illegal cigarettes and fireworks, you might as do some cavity searches for guns too.

 

[Bennie_P]

.

Many “gun control” advocates seem to forget why our forefathers wrote the second amendment.
.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”(emphasis mine)

and the Gun Lobby don’t seem to like this part of it “regulated”

 

[melensdad]

and the Gun Lobby don’t seem to like this part of it “regulated”

No actually the Gun Lobby does seem to like that word in the historic context from which it was written. Please go back and look at the wording of our Constitution from the perspective of what the meanings of words and phases were in the late 1700’s. While you are at it, specifically look at some specific phrases like “right of the people” and “well regulated” and you will see that it is an individual right for honest adults.

It is the current crop of anti-constitutionalist who are trying to revise the meaning of the Constitution by applying today’s language, which is very fluid, to the words of the Constitution. How do you think abortion got legalized?

 

[Man]

The police handguns are registered? I don’t understand your question:shrug:.

I thought I was quoting something I wasn’t. I thought you said something about a general ban…

I am sympathetic to people under oppressive police forces.

 

[RobDH]

and the Gun Lobby don’t seem to like this part of it “regulated”

Regulated?

There is already a mountain of regulations at the federal level, as well as the state.

There are age limits. You must fill out a federal form that includes a complete description of the firearm and its serial number. You must properly identify yourself on the form and to the sales. For handguns, there is a background check system in place. To my knowledge, there are similar systems in place for the issuance of concealed weapons permits in all states. If you violate the laws involved with this system in any state, you are subject to arrest and prosecution.

So, here we are, back to enforcement.

If straw-purchase laws were enforced, if laws for the prosecution of criminals using any firearm in the commission of a crime were used, if real social reform was pursued, there would be a significant reduction in all crime, including crime involving firearms.

But this takes money. Money that your congressman and mine, your senator and mine, your state legislatures and mine seem to be unwilling to spend. And who decides how much tax and how much spending takes place in this country? It’s supposed to be you and me. Write your legislative representatives, I do so, regularly. And don’t forget to vote.

 

[RobDH]

It is my understanding that, over the years, the majority of constitutional experts (and my own limited reading seems to show that it is a large majority) have noted that the language contains two separate statements.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,”

and

“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The two are complimentary.

The need for a regulated militia requires that there should be no infringement on the right of all the people, not just those constituting a “well regulated militia”, to keep and bear arms. There is no implication that the government of the “free State”, is supposed to regulate the arms. Never-the-less, I see the need for ,and support, some regulation, just not across the board registration.

By the way, an excellent example for not trusting the government in this issue was well documented during the aftermath of Katrina. The police (local) and national guard (federal) confiscated firearms (not just handguns) during the same time that they could NOT protect the citizens. The courts determined that what they did was illegal and order the firearms returned. In spite of that, the legal owners of those firearms have had to sue for their return. In spite of THAT, the fast majority have still NOT been returned to their legal owners.

 

[melensdad]

Regulated?

There is already a mountain of regulations at the federal level, as well as the state.
. . . you are subject to arrest and prosecution.
. . .

Rob, I’ve purchased both a semi auto handgun and a semi auto rifle in the past 45 days here in Indiana. Indiana has, according to the Brady Campaign, very little regulation and is rated as a “D-” on the grade scale of gun control.

I must present a valid state issued photo identification. I must fill out forms that give my name, address, and state ID # or my SS#, I must provide written answers to a page of questions about my mental health, criminal record, etc. After doing all this, the gun dealer then takes my application and contacts the state police. The police run a background check on me for a history of criminal activity or mental instability. Only after I pass the police background check will the dealer even begin the process of the sale. The background check can take as little as 10 minutes or as long as a week. In Indiana the process to buy a handgun is the same as if I were to buy a rifle or a shotgun.

To get a Concealed Weapons Permit, I must apply in person at my local police station. Rural residents (like myself) must apply with the county Sheriff. We are again submitted to a full background check. We are also fingerprinted, etc. Each state has a different process for qualification, most require some sort of formal training and proficiency classes before applying. Not all states allow for concealed carry. Many that allow concealed carry have specific restrictions on where you can carry even with a permit.

In Illinois, before you can even do anything you must first apply for a Firearms Owners Identification Card which includes a background check. That process can take roughly 4 to 6 weeks. Then you go to buy a gun (any type) and you are subject to additional background checks. After passing the second background check you then are subject to additional waiting periods (varies by gun type). Further you are subject to city and county laws because Illinois has “home rule” so you can legally own a gun one day and the city can outlaw that gun the next day. Illinois is one of the states that forbids concealed carry by private citizens so no honest private citizen may carry in the state of Illinois, ever. Several cities have complete handgun bans (which were modeled after the Washington DC law that was just ruled UNconstitutional and may be heard by the Supreme Court). Others have bans on specific rifles and shotguns. Others have bans on magazine capacity, stock configuration, caliber, etc.

I’d say that is pretty well regulated.
Bennie P:

how about human rights?

I believe I answered this, but am surprised nobody else bothered to address this issue.

Let me just put a little finer point on this issue. If Illinois/Chicago was actually concerned about the health and safety of their citizens they would work with the existing laws they have on the books and they would actually PUT SOME EFFORT into the issues. Instead they focus on REVENUE streams like policing low price cigarettes that are bootlegged into the state from Indiana. A carton of Marlboro cigarettes costs about $37 in Indiana. That same carton sells for about $70 in Chicago, and about $55 in Cook County. There is a huge black market for cigarettes in the Chicagoland area because of the massive taxes that Illinois applies. Much of the bootlegging of cigarettes is done in the lower income areas because the tax is a very regressive tax. So the state has decided that it will financially punish the poor who can least afford to pay the high taxes. Then the state sets up stings to catch them when they bring cigarettes back into Illinois from the lower tax state of Indiana, where they confiscate the cigarettes and fine them with additional penalties. Clearly Illinois has little value for HUMAN RIGHTS because they totally seem to ignore the gun issues with guns that come to Illinois from Mississippi, but instead they focus on REVENUE SOURCES where they can easily pick up a few bucks.

Seems to me that Illinois doesn’t give a darn about human rights but is certainly willing to find ways to pad its pockets. But Illinois is quick to point out that all its problems are caused by OTHER states.

Yup, HUMAN RIGHTS are important to the politicians of Illinois. Sure they are.

 

[Sixtus]

Man posted:

Handguns are for self defense

Now hang on a minute, when I argued in favour of guns, I meant for serious target shooters. I did not intend to put forward an arguement which supported using a firearm in anger.

If self-defence [that is intent to harm another person] is the subject then please count me out.

I do not nor would not ever put forward any arguement which supports an individual’s claims to the right to carry them if they intend to use them against anything but a paper target.

Against fellow human beings or to murder animals NO NO NO DEFINITELY NOT! BAN EM!!

 

[RobDH]

Man posted:

Now hang on a minute, when I argued in favour of guns, I meant for serious target shooters. I did not intend to put forward an arguement which supported using a firearm in anger.

If self-defence [that is intent to harm another person] is the subject then please count me out.

I do not nor would not ever put forward any arguement which supports an individual’s claims to the right to carry them if they intend to use them against anything but a paper target.

Against fellow human beings or to murder animals NO NO NO DEFINITELY NOT! BAN EM!!

Then you disagree with the Church in this regard, at least in the matter of self-defense, whether personal or nationally speaking, which you do have the right to do. But that is, at least partly, what this discussion is about.

As for murdering animals?
Might I ask if you are a vegetarian?

By the way, you can’t “murder” an animal. At least not in the legal definition, since the term murder only applies to human beings. It also only applies in criminal circumstances, not self-defense. Then, it’s a homicide, but not murder.

 

[RobDH]

Yup, HUMAN RIGHTS are important to the politicians of Illinois. Sure they are.

About as important as they are here in California. Though the process still only applies to handguns, it’s ten “working” days in spite of the fact that the computerized background check only takes between a few minutes and a few hours at worst. With the last purchase I made, in November, the check was finished before I left the store. But I still had to wait the 10 days, which really means a minimum of 12, but if holidays happen to be involved then it’s more. I don’t like it, but I’m willing to put up with it.

But what if someone is being harrassed or menaced and would like to get a handgun quickly for self-protection? Tough. 12 days minimum.

 

[Red_Wolf]

Unless you have looked a 500+ pound grizzly bear in the eye, been charged by a moose, spent “quality time” with cougars, wolves and black bears in the wild; I respectively suggest that you have no valid opinion on my gun ownership and practice.

Straw purchases can be easily traced and prosecuted; as opposed to extra-legal importation from “former” communist countries, whose guns don’t even have serial numbers. Stealing is also cheaper than buying.

The transit shooting that killed Congresswoman McCarthy’s ex-husband, Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings have a common ground: they happened in gun free zones.

It seems reasonable to suspect that outlawing gun free zones would reduce violent crime, something none of the gun control laws has done. It also seems reasonable to suspect that repealing ALL of the gun control laws passed in the last 30 years would reduce crime by as much as those laws have increased it.

 

[Bennie_P]

I thought I was quoting something I wasn’t. I thought you said something about a general ban…

I am sympathetic to people under oppressive police forces.

Maybe you have read “1984” one too many times?

 

[Bennie_P]

Then you disagree with the Church in this regard, at least in the matter of self-defense, whether personal or nationally speaking, which you do have the right to do. But that is, at least partly, what this discussion is about.

As for murdering animals?
Might I ask if you are a vegetarian?

By the way, you can’t “murder” an animal. At least not in the legal definition, since the term murder only applies to human beings. It also only applies in criminal circumstances, not self-defense. Then, it’s a homicide, but not murder.

Your opinion on Church teaching is not binding and has some flaws in it concerning gun control.IMO

About as important as they are here in California. Though the process still only applies to handguns, it’s ten “working” days in spite of the fact that the computerized background check only takes between a few minutes and a few hours at worst. With the last purchase I made, in November, the check was finished before I left the store. But I still had to wait the 10 days, which really means a minimum of 12, but if holidays happen to be involved then it’s more. I don’t like it, but I’m willing to put up with it.

But what if someone is being harrassed or menaced and would like to get a handgun quickly for self-protection? Tough. 12 days minimum…

but it also protects others for example, if you happen to be mad at your boss, your girl friend, your wife’s boyfriend, your auto mechanic…etc…

 

[Bennie_P]

… but am surprised nobody else bothered to address this issue.

Let me just put a little finer point on this issue. If Illinois/Chicago was actually concerned about the health and safety of their citizens they would work with the existing laws they have on the books and they would actually PUT SOME EFFORT into the issues. Instead they focus on REVENUE streams like policing low price cigarettes that are bootlegged into the state from Indiana. A carton of Marlboro cigarettes costs about $37 in Indiana. That same carton sells for about $70 in Chicago, and about $55 in Cook County. There is a huge black market for cigarettes in the Chicagoland area because of the massive taxes that Illinois applies. Much of the bootlegging of cigarettes is done in the lower income areas because the tax is a very regressive tax. So the state has decided that it will financially punish the poor who can least afford to pay the high taxes. Then the state sets up stings to catch them when they bring cigarettes back into Illinois from the lower tax state of Indiana, where they confiscate the cigarettes and fine them with additional penalties. Clearly Illinois has little value for HUMAN RIGHTS** because they totally seem to ignore the gun issues with guns that come to Illinois from Mississippi,** but instead they focus on REVENUE SOURCES where they can easily pick up a few bucks.

Seems to me that Illinois doesn’t give a darn about human rights but is certainly willing to find ways to pad its pockets. But Illinois is quick to point out that all its problems are caused by OTHER states.

Yup, HUMAN RIGHTS are important to the politicians of Illinois. Sure they are.

and you are one that thinks regulation should stay a state issue, instead of reforming the laws and making them uniformed across the nation?