Obama plans curbs on guns

[Theo520]

Yes, I am sad to say as a Christian that in America it’s more important for humans to have the right to a gun than it is for humans to have healthcare.

That is an inane trade-off, a non sequitur.

 

[JonNC]

That is an inane trade-off, a non sequitur.

It’s also not true. No one that I know of is being denied access to health care. I am not aware of a background check requirement in order to obtain health care. Even criminals who are denied access to arms are not denied access to health care.

In the U.S. There are all kinds of government funded programs that pay for health care services. I haven’t seen any that provide funding for people to exercise the second amendment right. Nor should there be, because government should not provide access to rights at the expense of others

Jon

 

[7_Sorrows]

There are a few of his proposals directed at dealing with mental illness, and mental illness has been a factor in most mass shootings. $500 million for mental health treatment-- could be of benefit if directed at the folks at risk. Could be flushed down the toilet of padding existing salaries, contracts to crony companies, and diverted to other uses. Details, details, details

• What is the methodology for identifying at risk folks and ensuring they get treatment?
• Doctor patient interactions do have a high potential for identifying at risk folks. How do we get the at risk people to co-operate and take advantage of treatment early (maybe deal with issues like loss, serious illness, stress before they’re at a stage where rights need to be taken away). Yes, there are privacy issues with medical records, how do we address them?
• Folks have already pointed out they won’t cooperate with a doctor even discussing firearms out of suspicion of the doctors beliefs motives, As well as the lack of due process if they do agree to give up their firearms while undergoing treatment for getting it restored. Details, details, details.

We do need to address mental illness related to gun violence. (yes, there is a lot more violence associated with social factors-- break down of the family in large portions of the population, no fault divorce, absent fathers etc.) If these proposals are a starting point to working out all the details for an acceptable solution- I’m for it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

During the LA riots, Korean store owners were being targeted by looters. What protected them were --guns. NOT the cops. I certainly feel safer. The LA riots aren’t exactly ancient history…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can’t use a gun if you don’t have access to one

Catholic doctrine does not guarantee your right to a gun. It only says you may use one if you get the chance.

Your example is pure hyperbole. Come back when you are reasonable…

Nevertheless, it proves the point that the right to access and the moral permission are two separate things. The Church grants you moral permission. It says nothing about your right to access.

Owning a gun is not a human right. If it were a human right, it would be the obligation of government to provide everyone with a gun, whether they could afford one or not.

 

[ucfengr]

Catholic doctrine does not guarantee your right to a gun. It only says you may use one if you get the chance.

This makes no sense. You’re allowed to use a gun, but you’re not allowed to have one…

Owning a gun is not a human right. If it were a human right, it would be the obligation of government to provide everyone with a gun, whether they could afford one or not.

This also makes no sense, but it does illustrate that you have no understanding of the concept of rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This makes no sense. You’re allowed to use a gun, but you’re not allowed to have one…

No, the Church does not forbid you to have a gun. Neither does it guarantee you the right to have one. The Church is neutral on this.

This also makes no sense, but it does illustrate that you have no understanding of the concept of rights.

How so? Since when did a human right depend on one’s ability to afford it?

 

[zz912]

How so? Since when did a human right depend on one’s ability to afford it?

Since forever.

You’re free to yell on the street corner to exercise your right to free speech. But if you want to publish pamphlets, flyers, books or newspaper ads, you have to pay for it.

If you want to worship, you can do so in a public park. If you want to worship in a tabernacle or temple, you need to pay for it and build it.

If you want to exercise your right to self defense, you can use your fists or any hard object near you. If you want to use a better weapon (a gun) you must buy it.

Same with health care. You can walk into a hospital or dr’s office any time they are open. But you need to pay for it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, unfortunately I am afraid you summed up the current state of America rather well. If Obama is for it, Republicans are against it. It has sadly been that way since Inauguration night of his first election when a group of Republicans were meeting on that very night after our newly elected President had just been sworn in, taking his oath on the Holy Bible, to plot their opposition. Had the Bible been hot off the presses, the Republicans didn’t even give it time for the ink to have dried. Note the current Speaker of the House was on the guest list.

It is well that Repubs were/are against the Obama agenda to the extent that often-timorous crew felt brave enough to act on it. While Obama deceived many in some of his pre-election positions (opposition to Catholicism, endorsement of homosexual marriage) in many respects he made his agenda quite clear. Whether any particular person was favorable to his promise to “fundamentally transform America”, many people were just fine with America as it was and didn’t think it needed “fundamental transformation”.

To those who were familiar with his past, it really was clear what he meant by that, at least in broad strokes.

And so he got elected, and we later found that he lied about his opposition to homosexual marriage, about what Obamacare really was, his promise of “transparency” and other things.

Some, Repubs among them, didn’t believe him from the start because his past told them he was lying about a lot of things. They can, and should be criticized for not being more forceful in their opposition, not less.

So now, among other things, we have skyrocketing health insurance costs, increased taxes, the Little Sisters of the Poor defending themselves against ruinous fines, Catholic charities cut off from government funding for social work because they won’t refer for abortions, the profanation of marriage, and government agencies acting as political “hit men” for Obama’s administration.

Is there something else the Repubs needed to know in order to oppose Obama’s real agenda?

 

[zz912]

Yes, unfortunately I am afraid you summed up the current state of America rather well. If Obama is for it, Republicans are against it. It has sadly been that way since Inauguration night of his first election when a group of Republicans were meeting on that very night after our newly elected President had just been sworn in, taking his oath on the Holy Bible, to plot their opposition.

Why should he be any different than any other President in the history of the US? Why should he be immune to political opposition? He’s not the messiah, right? What short memories some people have.

And Obama really has no one to blame but himself. He is the one who is attempting to “fundamentally transform” our country. He was raised by people who hate freedom, grew up his whole life with other people who hate freedom, went to school with people who hate freedom, was mentored by people who hate freedom, worked with people who hate freedom, and hung out with people who hate freedom.

When exactly did he learn any type of love for this country? When was he educated on the principles of limited government, private property rights and personal freedom? Answer, he never was. His entire existence has been surrounded by Marxists and socialists. He doesn’t even understand what America is.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since forever.

You’re free to yell on the street corner to exercise your right to free speech. But if you want to publish pamphlets, flyers, books or newspaper ads, you have to pay for it.

Freedom to publish flyers, books, etc. is not a human right. It is a constitutional right.

If you want to worship, you can do so in a public park. If you want to worship in a tabernacle or temple, you need to pay for it and build it.

Freedom to have a edifice in which to worship is not a human right.

If you want to exercise your right to self defense, you can use your fists or any hard object near you. If you want to use a better weapon (a gun) you must buy it.

Freedom to have a powerful weapon is not a human right.

 

[zz912]

Freedom to publish flyers, books, etc. is not a human right. It is a constitutional right.

Freedom to have a edifice in which to worship is not a human right.

Freedom to have a powerful weapon is not a human right.

Freedom of speech is not a human right?

And you don’t seem to understand freedoms and our Constitution. The rights listed out in the constitution were not granted by the Constitution. They existed before the Constitution. The Constitution merely recognizes them and explicitly protects them.

Second, various things can be used in the exercise of freedoms, like speech, worship and self-defense. So there is a human right to be able to acquire these things. You would be infringing on a human right if you forbid people from buying paper so they couldn’t print out flyers. You are infringing on human rights if you forbid people from buying concrete to build their temples. Same with guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Freedom of speech is not a human right?

No, it is a constitutional right.

And you don’t seem to understand freedoms and our Constitution. The rights listed out in the constitution were not granted by the Constitution. They existed before the Constitution.

If it existed before the Constitution, you cannot use the Constitution as your primary evidence for this right. The courts also upheld the right to privacy as a pre-existing right to an abortion that the law would not infringe. Yet the courts were wrong in so doing. If you are going to use documents of the US government to support claims of universal rights, you would have to accept that ruling too.

Second, various things can be used in the exercise of freedoms, like speech, worship and self-defense. So there is a human right to be able to acquire these things.

No, merely a US government recognized right. It is not a right elsewhere in the world. Just because a US government founding document says it is universal does not make it so.

 

[ucfengr]

No, the Church does not forbid you to have a gun. Neither does it guarantee you the right to have one. The Church is neutral on this.

How so? Since when did a human right depend on one’s ability to afford it?

Again, you don’t understand rights. The right to free religious exercise doesn’t obligate the government to provide me a church and a pastor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again, you don’t understand rights. The right to free religious exercise doesn’t obligate the government to provide me a church and a pastor.

That is correct. Nor does it obligate the government to allow you to build a church anywhere you want.

 

[JonNC]

No, the Church does not forbid you to have a gun. Neither does it guarantee you the right to have one. The Church is neutral on this.

How so? Since when did a human right depend on one’s ability to afford it?

So, you think government should provide a printing press to everyone who wants to exercise their right to free press? Or a gun to everyone who wants to exercise their constitutionally mandated human and civil right?

that’s not how rights work. If the taxpayer is required to pay for rights of others, then the payer is denied the right to their property, and the recipient now has an unearned entitlement.
The taxpayer becomes a servant, effectively a slave, of the recipient.

Government’s only job is to guarantee that rights are not prohibited. It does not provide them, save one; the right to an attorney if charged with a criminal offense.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, you think government should provide a printing press to everyone who wants to exercise their right to free press?

Of course not.

Or a gun to everyone who wants to exercise their constitutionally mandated human and civil right?

Ditto.

That’s not how rights work.

I don’t disagree with you on how Constitutionally mandated rights work. I simply maintain that the right to own a gun is nothing more than a legal construct with no basis in Natural Law or Catholic Moral Doctrine.

 

[Leo2014]

It’s also not true. No one that I know of is being denied access to health care. I am not aware of a background check requirement in order to obtain health care. Even criminals who are denied access to arms are not denied access to health care.

In the U.S. There are all kinds of government funded programs that pay for health care services. I haven’t seen any that provide funding for people to exercise the second amendment right. Nor should there be, because government should not provide access to rights at the expense of others

Jon

Please elaborate on these healthcare programs? Aside from Medicare & Medicaid, there are no programs. Please don’t mention Obamacare. Because as much as they like to claim it as providing “affordable” healthcare - it does not. Many recipients find themselves having such a high deductible that they are better off not having the coverage. Heaven forbid that your income for the year increases even by the smallest percentage - you will find yourself being taxed for the coverage you received!

The conclusion; no you are not denied “healthcare”, but if you cannot afford - your economic situation will close that door for you. With Americans, more unhealthy than ever, you would be surprise how many people come in the office needing care and willing to barter or beg for it. It really tests ones faith…

Sorry for being so callous, but what kind of neighborhood do you live in that you need to have a weapon present?

 

[Abynissa]

Somewhere is this thread was statistics on enforcement of gun registration laws by the Federal govt. As it stands now, it varies among the states so that some states enforce gun registration laws not the Fed. govt. So any statistical numbers that were shown by the Feds do not take into account States who have enforced and arrested individuals on gun registration.

Given that, the law as it stands is not enforceable. The Federal and State government do not have the manpower nor funds to enforce gun registration. Until a viable way by means of technology can validate those purchasing guns, I see it as wasted effort. There is technology available but it is not being used in this situation.

Also why do some people always turn every thread on here as political. Repubs can do no wrong and Obama can do no right. Why not leave politics out it. Bush wanted to extend the assualt weapons ban…hello?

In fact a blast from the past this article
Five Ways Bush’s Era of Repression Has Stolen Your Liberties Since 9/11

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t know what is going to make Americans break on this issue other than perhaps time and boredom. Eventually, too many people become steeped in computers, video games, pornography, marijuana, and social media to be bothered with guns or the revisionist interpretation of the 2ND amendment that arose in the 70s… the issue cools off and then lawmakers make their move. Dead children are insufficient motivation. Firearms exist in a compartmentalized area that is immune to the common sense safety laws that are everywhere. I applaud the move to undemocratically defy the mob, but these changes are going to be limited. We just need to wait for a Congress in the future that is different.

Different how?