Gun Control & the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter melensdad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, BennieP, I give up.
You’ve beaten me into submission, you’ve won. I give up trying to discuss an issue when I don’t even know what it is you believe.
At least I stated mine, clearly and plainly.
I’m an evil gun-toting person and I’ll shut up now.
But I won’t give them up.
Maybe it is because you are trying to mold me into a pre-conceived idea. I not anti-gun, yet I’m not pro-gun. I haven’t ask anyone to give up thier guns, I have just suggested maybe you should offer them up … Guns and gun ownership, IMO, is evil, only if you put them above and depend on them more then God. The opposition to all or any gun control I just don’t buy into.

This is what I believe,

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body: And the life everlasting. Amen.
 
** I promote a uniformed set of laws** which would include registration of all Handguns
Why? Gun registration does not work.

Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.

Not in Australia. “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.” And this costs the Australian taxpayers over $200 million annually.

Not in Canada.
• More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others are silently ignoring the law.
• The provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have dumped both the administration and the enforcement of all federal gun-control laws right back into Ottawa’s lap, throwing the Canadian government into a paper civil war.
• And all at a cost more than 1,646% times the original projected cost (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada). “The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation,” according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association. “We have an ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them”, according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino.
• The system is so bad that five Canadian provinces (B.C. joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners that fail to register.

Not in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, and in fact only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving some 80% unaccounted for.

Not in Boston, Cleveland or California. These cities and states require registration of “assault weapons” . The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%. In California, it is about 10%.

Fact: Criminals don’t register their guns.
waiting periods
Why?

Fact: The “time-to-crime” of a firearm ranges from one to 12 years, making it rare that a newly purchased firearm is used in a crime - Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as reported by Time Magazine.

Fact: The national five-day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery. In fact there was a slightly increased rate of rape and aggravated assault, indicating no effective suppression of certain violent crimes. Thus, for two crime categories, a possible effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women - Source: Dr. John Lott Jr., University of Chicago School of Law.

Fact: Comparing homicide rates in 18 states that had waiting periods and background checks before the Brady bill, with rates in the 32 states that had no comparable laws, the difference in change of homicide rates was “insignificant” - Source: Dr. Jens Ludwig , Dr. Philip J. Cook, Journal of the American Medical Association.
 
Why? Gun registration does not work.

.
Source please?

Facts from Keep And Bear Arms -dot- com, Inc cannot be considered a reliable source and definitely not an unbias source, I was chastised earlier in his thread about using a pro gun-control source for information for backing up and/or illustrating my claims and ideas, so I went to unbias sources and pro-gun sources, so if if you cannot come up with independent information to back up your claims, your facts are mute.

http://www.baronbob.com/deadducklarge.jpg
 
  • Steven W. Kendrick, “Response to Philip Alpers’ submission to the California State Assembly Select Committee on Gun Violence”, January 2000
  • Professor Brandon Centrewall , American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 134, Page 1245-65
  • Chief Inspector Newgreen. Registrar of Firearms for the State of Victoria, Registration Firearms System CRB File 39-1-1385/84
  • Gary Mauser , “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales”, The Fraser Institute, 2003
  • David Ljunggren, “Ottawa Under Pressure Over Gun Registry Fiasco”, Rueters, December 4, 2002
  • Prof. John Lott, “When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives”, Firing Line, September 2001
  • Calgary Herald, September 1, 2000 “Opponents increase pressure to halt Canada’s gun control program”, Associated Press, Jan 3, 2002
  • “Victoria won’t enforce firearms act”, Vancouver Sun, June 06, 2003
  • Ted Drane, “Why Gun Registration will Fail”
  • David B. Kopel, “The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies” 231, n.210
 
  • Steven W. Kendrick, “Response to Philip Alpers’ submission to the California State Assembly Select Committee on Gun Violence”, January 2000
  • Professor Brandon Centrewall , American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 134, Page 1245-65
  • Chief Inspector Newgreen. Registrar of Firearms for the State of Victoria, Registration Firearms System CRB File 39-1-1385/84
  • Gary Mauser , “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales”, The Fraser Institute, 2003
  • David Ljunggren, “Ottawa Under Pressure Over Gun Registry Fiasco”, Rueters, December 4, 2002
  • Prof. John Lott, “When ‘Gun Control’ costs lives”, Firing Line, September 2001
  • Calgary Herald, September 1, 2000 “Opponents increase pressure to halt Canada’s gun control program”, Associated Press, Jan 3, 2002
  • “Victoria won’t enforce firearms act”, Vancouver Sun, June 06, 2003
  • Ted Drane, “Why Gun Registration will Fail”
  • David B. Kopel, “The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies” 231, n.210
Everyone of those are from pro-gun advocates, I wouldn’t consider them unbias nor verifiable,.🤷

http://www.baronbob.com/deadducklarge.jpg
 
The Vancouver Sun, the Associated Press, the Calgary Herald, etc.; are pro-gun advocates? Yeah, right :rolleyes: and eating fat will make you thin …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The Vancouver Sun, the Associated Press, the Calgary Herald, etc.; are pro-gun advocates? Yeah, right :rolleyes: and eating fat will make you thin …
There are editorials:shrug:

Speaking of editorials here is an analysis of an ad produced by the NRA. I didn’t vote for Kerry, but that had nothing to do with his stand on gun control, but abortion. But the gun Lobby will stop at nothing with thier propaganda, they stoop so low they scandalize innoncent dogs.🤷 Look at that shameful shirt they put on that poor poodle.The NRA should be ashamed of itself.
umdparc.org/AdAnalysisThatDog.htm
“By running such a campaign, the NRA has proven its ignorance if not its immaturity. Standard poodles are well known around the world as extraordinary hunting dogs, ideal retrievers well suited to work in the water.
OK, poodles have an image problem and the haircut doesn’t help. But poodles are highly intelligent dogs able to reason solutions to problems that will help their owners get what they want, whether it’s a newspaper from the front steps or a recently shot bird that landed offshore.

I’m neither an advocate for the poodle nor an enemy of the NRA. In fact, I own a Portuguese water dog, and I’m a supporter of hunters’ rights and Americans’ right to bear arms. But, like poodles, intelligent gun control laws aren’t as bad as the NRA makes them out to be. At this critical point in our nation’s history, wouldn’t it be nice if we started to use rational thinking and facts to back up our political opinions rather than slander and emotion?”
http://www.umdparc.org/poodlead.gif
 
Everyone of those are from pro-gun advocates, I wouldn’t consider them unbias nor verifiable,.🤷
Bennie, respectfully, several of the sources provided are government officials from Canada and the US and provided government numbers and official testimony. Seems to me they may or may not have a personal bias, but they also are verifiable and legitimate sources.

There are a couple names on there for college professors and legal scholars that I recognize who works are clearly pro-gun. Interestingly the pro-gun professor WAS an anti-gun professor who found that factual data could not support the anti-gun theories and he changed his positions. Further, his work has been substantiated by several additional studies. The lawyer, has provided court testimony and has sworn not to lie, clearly his information is also verifiable.

But, how about this: abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3149487

🤷
 
I loved reading this answer in response to the post by FightingFat. The reason I loved it was because FightingFat was so wrong in what was written that when I put up the challenge to prove any of what was said there was no response.

Clearly that post was NOT based on ANY fact. And now you have posted that you agree. But what do you agree with, the errors of the post?

So please, please show me where I have stated that the RCC advocates a pro-gun stance? Because quite clearly I have asked why it is so anti-gun! Yes, I am pro-gun. But I do not believe the Church is pro-gun. However I do believe that many here are actually advocating anti-self-defense positions which is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Bennie, are you suggesting that I am acting contrary to this message? If so, then you are suggesting that I am acting in some criminal way? Or in some aggressive way when I use my guns?

The anti-gun folks here seem to think that many of us who own guns cannot be trusted with them because we are apparently NOT peacemakers? Or because we might wake up one day and become criminals? Heck some just outright say that we are liars, as has been illustrated by several posts in this thread (not specifically aimed at anything written by Bennie). But seriously why do some here seem to believe that it is mutually exclusive to be BOTH a gun owner and a peaceful person?

Why cannot some people see that being pro-gun is actually consistent with being pro-life and respect for life?
This entire thread deals with the RCC’s stance on gun control, and many people justifying owning and carrying guns…as coinciding with the RCC’s views–when really the RCC believes in self defense, and defending others. I think pro self defense, is very different than pro gun. Respecting life really doesn’t have a lot to do with my choice to defend my family–actually that’s more instinctive than it is about morals, if you get right down to it. In a split second, someone breaks into your home–you have but a moment to think of the next action…and that action will be to possibly shoot someone in defense of your family’s (and your) best interest. It isn’t about respecting life…in that instant, it’s about instinct. (obviously to protect one’s own family from harm) That’s why the RCC condones it–because we are human, and in a situation like that, morality wouldn’t come in…at least not at that moment. I would think it’s pretty obvious that we respect our own lives, and that of our spouses, kids, etc…as it relates to your statement…about the consistency of being pro life with this issue.
 
The idea of wanting to protect your family is all in good, but what I refering to about fear, is when you

went into all this for justification, well just like you said it does sound outlandish and to me, I not making an judgement of your

heart or sincerity, it sounds like it is coming form someone that lives in fear, so I made a challenge to you on it.🤷
I was merely pointing out situations where gun control FAILED. I am in no way trying to justify why I own a gun. History does this for me. I would suggest you read about how last centrury was the most bloody of all time. Do some research on this. That is my challenge back to you. You will, hopefully, see that those who are unarmed get murdered by those who would have them as slaves and resist unarmed (read about communist Russia and China, also Cambodia). Those countries exploited the fact that its people were unarmed.
If the police came to your house right now and told you they needed to talk to you, but wouldn’t tell what

about, and you needed to go with them, would you one, shoot it out with them or two go with them?
I am finding that you like to insinuate a lot with your questions - you would do better to just state what you think as I have done.

No, I would not “shoot it out”. Law enforcement officers do not do that. They state their intentions clearly first, by law. Only in countries that are unprotected by a constitution (the same constitution that protects our right to bear arms) like ours can they question you or make you “go with them” without making the matter in question clear.

You need to get educated on our government, and the history of governments in the past - especially the past 100 years. This will make it clear what happens to those who are unarmed.

Have you heard the term Democide? Here’s a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

RJ Rummel’s book is well cited and very in depth. Start there.
 
I saw that video when it first aired, interesting video. One question that still goes unaswered, which one the listener’s feedback mention. Why is it the the USA has more then twice, close to three times the violent crime rate then any other developed nation?

Personally I think we as a nation put too high of a value on the gun, both the good guys and the bad guys. The bad guys always want what the good guys prizes the most. If society prizes money the most, then the bad guys wants money, if its expensive cars, then the bad guys want cars, if it is power then the bad guys want power, if it is guns…
It is just a matter of priorities and trust 🤷
If society claims they can have protection and sercurity through gun ownership, then that is the message we teach the children of our nation. When they feel insecure or threaten more and more are reaching for the gun. both the good and the bad…
http://www.lamblion.com/images/2006/Jesus_teacher.jpg
 
I was merely pointing out situations where gun control FAILED. I am in no way trying to justify why I own a gun. History does this for me. I would suggest you read about how last centrury was the most bloody of all time. Do some research on this. That is my challenge back to you. You will, hopefully, see that those who are unarmed get murdered by those who would have them as slaves and resist unarmed (read about communist Russia and China, also Cambodia). Those countries exploited the fact that its people were unarmed…
I really believe even if the Jews where armed, what happened in Gemany would still have happen for many of the Jews didn’t think nor had a clue that the Nazi’s would attempt to element a whole race of people, If they were armed, the Nazi’s would still have probobly had done the same, for the Jews where not organized in any fashion for such a situation:shrug: In China there was an opposing armed Chinese army at the end WWII and we(USA) abandon our support for them on the mainland. In Cambodia we abandon them also, when we left southeast Asia in the mid 70’s,besides the people of Cambodia were armed, that is how the Khmer Rouge took over the country and got into positon to commit thier crimes against the rest of the population.
I am finding that you like to insinuate a lot with your questions - you would do better to just state what you think as I have done…
I like to ask questions of people in order to get a clearer undestanding of what they are really saying, before a I make a rash, unjust or uncharitable reply. I too often say things I regret and I am trying to break that habit.
No, I would not “shoot it out”. Law enforcement officers do not do that. They state their intentions clearly first, by law. Only in countries that are unprotected by a constitution (the same constitution that protects our right to bear arms) like ours can they question you or make you “go with them” without making the matter in question clear.
When I was a young man, while asking a police officer a question about why they stopped me, I was told to shut up and when I asked again, I was slammed to the ground, kicked, handcuffed and thrown into the back of a police car - they made it clear, that they were in charge. The constitution didn’t seem to matter much at the moment and if I had a gun, it would have just made the matter worse. Because I wasn’t armed I didn’t go to jail and I’m alive to talk about it. I’m not saying the police officer had the intention of shooting me, but I might out of anger tried to shoot him, for I was scared and angry. I sometimes carried a pistol, when I was young, but not at that time.
You be amazed what some police officers will do. Thank God most police officers are very good people. Even though I had a bad experience with the police when I was young, I tend to trust them not fear them.
You need to get educated on our government, and the history of governments in the past - especially the past 100 years. This will make it clear what happens to those who are unarmed.

Have you heard the term Democide? Here’s a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

RJ Rummel’s book is well cited and very in depth. Start there.
Thank you for the suggestion.
 
This entire thread deals with the RCC’s stance on gun control, and many people justifying owning and carrying guns…as coinciding with the RCC’s views–when really the RCC believes in self defense, and defending others. I think pro self defense, is very different than pro gun.
I started this thread. Look at my very first post. Please.

I clearly states that I believe the Church is ANTI-GUN and it simply asks the question WHY?

One thing that has come out MANY TIMES in this thread is that MANY Catholics
  • disagree with the teaching of self-defense
  • believe that self defense with a gun is an aggressive, not defensive act
  • equate self-defense to “living by the sword” regardless of what weapon is used
Respecting life really doesn’t have a lot to do with my choice to defend my family–actually that’s more instinctive than it is about morals, if you get right down to it. In a split second, someone breaks into your home–you have but a moment to think of the next action…and that action will be to possibly shoot someone in defense of your family’s (and your) best interest. It isn’t about respecting life…in that instant, it’s about instinct. (obviously to protect one’s own family from harm) That’s why the RCC condones it–because we are human, and in a situation like that, morality wouldn’t come in…at least not at that moment.
I’m sorry to break the news to you but you are seriously wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official teachings of the RCC, has been quoted many times in context regarding self defense. It clearly does NOT talk about instinct. It talks about human rights, the value of your life over the life of an unjust aggressor, etc.

If people actually had a respect for life they would:
  • not abandon their children to the streets
  • not have unprotected sex and spawn scores of illegitimate children
  • not abuse drugs and destroy their lives
  • actually pay child support and be involved with the children they father
  • understand the difference between “self defense” by a just person and an “aggressive attack” by an unjust person (and several times in this thread many people have indicated that self defense of any type is ‘living by the sword’)
I would think it’s pretty obvious that we respect our own lives, and that of our spouses, kids, etc…as it relates to your statement…about the consistency of being pro life with this issue.
Clearly I have defended my right to own a gun. Clearly I have NOT said that the Church advocates carrying guns. At best it seems that the Church tolerates gun ownership. Still, the CCC of the church is very clear as it equates SELF DEFENSE to being a PRO-LIFE issue. In fact the section of the CCC that would require you to defend you life is only about 1 page away from the page on abortion, and both are within the same chapter and both use similar wording about defending life. In the same chapter it also clearly states we are to defend life around the world by feeding the starving because we are not defending their lives if we allow them to starve to death (such as in Darfur, Sudan).
I saw that video when it first aired, interesting video. One question that still goes unaswered, which one the listener’s feedback mention. Why is it the the USA has more then twice, close to three times the violent crime rate then any other developed nation?
http://www.lamblion.com/images/2006/Jesus_teacher.jpg
Bennie, first your statement appears that it may not be true regarding our rates of violence. It has certainly been questioned several times. It appears that it depends on how each of the various governments measure their crime statistics and what they consider violent but there have been internationals newspapers cited in this thread that claim the US is not the most violent overall, in fact one said we are not in the top 10. I do believe that there is room to question all the statistics.

That said, I believe we have also talked about the SOCIAL issues revolving around the causes of violence. You and I and others have not only discussed this point, but we’ve pretty much agreed on the fact that social issues in the inner cities are probably the root causes of vast majority of violent crime. Coincidently, inner cities are where most of the violent crime occurs.

So since we have discussed this many times in the thread, it seems unreasonable for you to now claim nobody has answered it. Please go back and re-read it.
 
I clearly states that I believe the Church is ANTI-GUN and it simply asks the question WHY?
Who is anti-gun? The Church would probably have all the handguns in the world removed from the population of the world, but… and many people don’t understand… it doesn’t say that you need to put down you hand gun when other people have one. The Cannon Law requires you to follow the law of the land or suffer the consequences.

So, yes, the Church is Anti-gun in that it believes that if there were no guns whatsoever there would be less people dead.

I strongly disagree. You and many US Catholics see the issue from the eyes of a person in the US. You don’t see it from the eyes of a person in Iraq. In Iraq, many adults carry a weapon. The Catechism is Catholic… it needs to be as Catholic as possible. I have posited that the Catechism might have a cultural bias, and in these (rare) cases things need to be clarified or updated.

Is it moral to carry a weapon into a place were there is none?

The exact interpretation is generally left up to the governments, with the bishops protesting when they think the government is oppressing people.

And then the discussion of the passage of the Bible including the two swords. So many Christians are practically Apollinarionist. The reason the footnote and so many interpretations exist is that the obvious… obvious reason for the swords is protection from thieves. If you role played this portion of the Gospels where would Peter’s sword come from. If I am peter what am I thinking?
 
Who is anti-gun? The Church would probably have all the handguns in the world removed from the population of the world, but… and many people don’t understand… it doesn’t say that you need to put down you hand gun when other people have one. The Cannon Law requires you to follow the law of the land or suffer the consequences.
. . . You and many US Catholics see the issue from the eyes of a person in the US.
First, I am pro-gun, but you are certainly correct that I typically see this from the perspective of a US citizen.

As for “who is anti-gun?”

Take a look at the writings of the USSCB. The US organization of Bishops clearly takes much of its anti-gun writing DIRECTLY from Sarah Brady’s anti-gun campaigns!
 
I started this thread. Look at my very first post. Please.

I clearly states that I believe the Church is ANTI-GUN and it simply asks the question WHY?

One thing that has come out MANY TIMES in this thread is that MANY Catholics
  • disagree with the teaching of self-defense
  • believe that self defense with a gun is an aggressive, not defensive act
  • equate self-defense to “living by the sword” regardless of what weapon is used
I’m sorry to break the news to you but you are seriously wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official teachings of the RCC, has been quoted many times in context regarding self defense. It clearly does NOT talk about instinct. It talks about human rights, the value of your life over the life of an unjust aggressor, etc.

If people actually had a respect for life they would:
  • not abandon their children to the streets
  • not have unprotected sex and spawn scores of illegitimate children
  • not abuse drugs and destroy their lives
  • actually pay child support and be involved with the children they father
  • understand the difference between “self defense” by a just person and an “aggressive attack” by an unjust person (and several times in this thread many people have indicated that self defense of any type is ‘living by the sword’)
Clearly I have defended my right to own a gun. Clearly I have NOT said that the Church advocates carrying guns. At best it seems that the Church tolerates gun ownership. Still, the CCC of the church is very clear as it equates SELF DEFENSE to being a PRO-LIFE issue. In fact the section of the CCC that would require you to defend you life is only about 1 page away from the page on abortion, and both are within the same chapter and both use similar wording about defending life. In the same chapter it also clearly states we are to defend life around the world by feeding the starving because we are not defending their lives if we allow them to starve to death (such as in Darfur, Sudan).

Bennie, first your statement appears that it may not be true regarding our rates of violence. It has certainly been questioned several times. It appears that it depends on how each of the various governments measure their crime statistics and what they consider violent but there have been internationals newspapers cited in this thread that claim the US is not the most violent overall, in fact one said we are not in the top 10. I do believe that there is room to question all the statistics.

That said, I believe we have also talked about the SOCIAL issues revolving around the causes of violence. You and I and others have not only discussed this point, but we’ve pretty much agreed on the fact that social issues in the inner cities are probably the root causes of vast majority of violent crime. Coincidently, inner cities are where most of the violent crime occurs.

So since we have discussed this many times in the thread, it seems unreasonable for you to now claim nobody has answered it. Please go back and re-read it.
what I’m trying to say here, is that it’s both instinctive and moral to want to defend one’s own family…I am Catholic, and it’s logical, in addition to Catholic and moral to do such a thing. I can’t imagine, stopping for a moment as an intruder tries to take the life of my kids, and think…is this Catholic? Is this moral? It’s instinct first, and in addition, it is moral to defend our own lives, and that of our friends and family. I think you are trying to pick apart too many people’s posts, without really reading what we are trying to say. I am not against self defense…and I never said the Church was against it. But, the Church’s stance since it is pro life, would naturally want us to protect ourselves. I can’t imagine She is pleased however with where our society is heading…lay people now ‘having’ to carry guns in order to protect themselves.
 
I will say though, that this is not a dogma of the RCC–this is the RCC’s opinion on the matter. If I choose to be anti-gun…or pro gun CONTROL, it does not mean that I’m going against the teachings of the RCC. It’s not a dogma like Reconciliation, purgatory, and the like. Let’s make that distinction. People should want to follow the Catholic’s teachings…this is not a teaching…that one must carry a gun in order to protect one’s family and friends. If one chooses to carry a gun to do so, the RCC is merely stating that is supports that right. I would imagine that the RCC is not happy that as a society, we are leaning to becoming gun carrying lay people…in order to protect our families. I can’t imagine that it’s pleased with such a turn of events.

But, in reality…mankind has always been violent to one another!😦
 
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?
Bennie:

I have been out for a few days, but could not help but notice how you dodged a very direct and relevant question based on a position you have repeatedly indicated your support of (nationally uniform and sensible firearm regulations): are you willing to endorse uniform gun laws across the nation that mirror the laws in place where violent crime is the lowest, even though that would just happen to mirror that places you criticize as being too easy to make straw purchases?

Do you agree or disagree that a set of uniform laws would be most sensible if modeled after the regulations in place where the public is in the least danger of being a victim of violent crime?

Also previously asked but ignored: Do you have any evidence whatsoever that your proposal for stricter gun registration reduces gun or other violent crime?

These are simple questions, and will answer clearly the question as to whether your target is reducing violent crime in general versus disarming law abiding citizens for more troubling motives. That you have repeatedly avoided taking a firm position on so many key issues while also accusing others of being selective (when they have clearly been very broad in thier citations while you stick mainly to rhetoric yourself) makes me inclined to think that disarming the populace is more important to you that either reducing violent crime or facilitating an individual’s Christian obligation to defend themselves and other innocents from aggression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top