Obama plans curbs on guns

[Lily_Bernans]

LOL, do you have any source to back this up, that you only get a chance for one shot?

While one round may be enough, being a quick shooter is not recommended.
You should watch the bar scene in Unforgiven, he explains why your strategy doesn’t work.

I’m sorry. I don’t provide sources for what is common knowledge.

Just ask anyone in law enforcement. They are the experts and the ones who told me.

 

[JonNC]

The problem with those extra rounds is that people usually only get one chance. If they don’t put their assailant down with the first shot, he usually puts them down. That’s why I said she should immediately shoot to kill.

I’ll take my chances with lots of rounds.
Jon

 

[Theo520]

I’m sorry. I don’t provide sources for what is common knowledge.

Just ask anyone in law enforcement. They are the experts and the ones who told me.

No, it’s not ‘common knowledge’ and I’ll bet you can’t find a reference.

LEO certainly have the time to unload their full magazine, if the numerous videos are to be believed.

 

[Gorgias]

I respect Aquinas greatly, he was a towering intellect, however, I love and respect Christ more.

Or, at least, you love Lonergan more than Aquinas.

I see you’ve not read Lonergan, at least not the “Law of the Cross.”

That’s not unusual unless one is an upper-level theology student.

Good scholars don’t make unwarranted assumptions. And principled ones certainly don’t use their degree as a bludgeon.

How do you reason that self-defense – which is not an expression of one’s own sin (to which one might choose to die in order to transform himself) – meets the description of the “law of the cross”? We can certainly reason that this is what Christ – in his perfection – did; but what we do, in order to actualize the law of the cross in our lives, is to die to that which makes us slaves to our own sin. Are you really suggesting that choosing to eschew self-defense is a death to our own sin?

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sorry. I don’t provide sources for what is common knowledge.

Just ask anyone in law enforcement. They are the experts and the ones who told me.

Just like it’s common knowledge that citizens in the Swiss army don’t keep their firearms at home? Just like your personal anecdotes about Swiss soldier-citizens led to accurate generalizations? Umm… ok.

 

[johnnyc176]

I’m not married, so I have the money for both and more.

I’ve read the ENTIRE Summa. In fact, I teach from it. I own the whole thing. Have been reading it since my teens and I’m thirty-two now.

Didn’t Christ say to “turn the other cheek?” Did he defend himself? No. I refer you to Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross.” We do not defeat evil with an even greater evil. Evil can only be defeated with love. This was Christ’s great lesson, although Lonergan goes into much, much more detail. It’s very interesting despite one’s view on gun control and more interesting than debating gun control because with guns que sera, sera. It’s out of our hands.

Yes gun control is just politics. The gun is a tool that may be used for evil purposes just like the scalpel or forceps are tools that may be used for evil purposes. What needs to be addressed is the why, and not the how of evil actions. One of the biggest whys being that if we are not respectful of life at it’s conception than we should not be surprised when there is no concern for life at other stages whether it’s a gun or pulling a plug.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yes gun control is just politics. The gun is a tool that may be used for evil purposes just like the scalpel or forceps are tools that may be used for evil purposes. What needs to be addressed is the why, and not the how of evil actions. One of the biggest whys being that if we are not respectful of life at it’s conception than we should not be surprised when there is no concern for life at other stages whether it’s a gun or pulling a plug.

Totally agree! Great post! You said it wonderfully.

 

[JonNC]

Yes gun control is just politics. The gun is a tool that may be used for evil purposes just like the scalpel or forceps are tools that may be used for evil purposes. What needs to be addressed is the why, and not the how of evil actions. One of the biggest whys being that if we are not respectful of life at it’s conception than we should not be surprised when there is no concern for life at other stages whether it’s a gun or pulling a plug.

Best post of the the thread, ISTM.
thanks

 

[Sy_Noe]

Define “common sense gun control”. Mine is prevention of those who are mentally impaired such that they present a risk to themselves and others, or those who have been convicted of a criminal offense of a violent nature.
common sense gun control should be targeted specifically at the above mentioned.
It is not common sense sense gun control to require ALL citizens to register firearms.
It is not common sense gun control to prohibit citizen who are on a no-fly list from owning or purchasing without due process / adjudication.
It is not common sense gun control to prohibit Social Security recipients from owning or purchasing simply because others help them process their benefits, without due process/ adjudication.

Common sense gun control ONLY targets those who are a risk to themselves and the greater society, and requires the government to prove, in court, that they are a risk. It is not common sense gun control to confiscate a constitutionally protected human and civil right without due process / adjudication. Instead, it is tyranny.

Jon

As with most matters, we can and indeed do disagree. I define as common sense some of the things you don’t believe are common sense. And as with most matters, I’m not going to change your mind. And I can guarantee you, you most certainly are not changing mine. I pray President Obama takes the executive actions and I shall leave it at that.

 

[Sy_Noe]

FWIW the Holy Father of the Catholic Church had something to say about weapons manufacturers and those who invest in weapons.

"He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today … they say one thing and do another.”

huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/pope-francis-weapons_n_7636416.html

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No, that’s not accurate. Those who do not exercise their 2nd amendment rights don’t “have nothing to hide”; rather, they simply have no data.

Nor do those who advocate gun control – those who might choose to hide behind undefined terms like “ultra-lethal bullets” and “assault rifles” – have nothing to hide; what they hide is their actual intent behind these vague terms…

I am not “hiding.” LOL I would not care if I had to provide personal data to the government to buy a gun. However, I can’t see any situation in which I’d own a gun.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No, it’s not ‘common knowledge’ and I’ll bet you can’t find a reference.

LEO certainly have the time to unload their full magazine, if the numerous videos are to be believed.

I don’t know where you are, but where I live, it’s common knowledge.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I wholeheartedly and without any reservation whatsoever applaud President Obama for these anticipated actions. In a 2014 poll a whopping 80% of Americans favored closing the gun show loophole.

uml.edu/News/press-releases/2014/gun-control-poll-2014.aspx

The Republican led Congress has had their chance and more than enough time to listen to the American people. Yet they have failed miserably. So if it then takes President Obama to lead the way and to do something, anything, within his power, about the gun violence in this country, may God bless President Obama for attempting to do something it. These only seem to be common sense, reasonable steps. Not an all out assault on the 2nd amendment although I’ve little doubt the NRA, the gun lobby, Republicans and their cohorts will play it up to be.

If it’s such a great idea loved by most people, why couldn’t a Democrat super-majority with a radical, largely uncompromising president do it?

 

[Sy_Noe]

If it’s such a great idea loved by most people, why couldn’t a Democrat super-majority with a radical, largely uncompromising president do it?

Umm… because for 75% of his Presidency, President Obama has had a Republican Congress and the murders of innocent children at Sandy Hook and the murders at a SC church and at a CO movie theatre and as Lily so rightfully pointed out, at a Christmas party… all have occurred since the Republicans had the majority.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I am not “hiding.” LOL I would not care if I had to provide personal data to the government to buy a gun. However, I can’t see any situation in which I’d own a gun.

I’m even on a first floor and owning a gun has never appealed to me. I went hunting with an uncle once yrs ago and I didn’t enjoy it. But I also just don’t get the fascination Americans have with guns. Not with their need to own high magazine assault weapons and so forth. But there’s no reason why anyone should object to background checks and registering their guns unless they indeed have something to hide. Have you checked further on getting yourself a nuke bomb?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Umm… because for 75% of his Presidency, President Obama has had a Republican Congress and the murders of innocent children at Sandy Hook and the murders at a SC church and at a CO movie theatre and as Lily so rightfully pointed out, at a Christmas party… all have occurred since the Republicans had the majority.

My question wasn’t about when republicans were in the majority. I’m talking about in 2008-2009 when the Democrats were in control. A lot of minority children died in those years and hundreds of other Americans were murdered by guns in blue districts.

Where was the urgency then? Or didn’t they need it because inner-city minorities vote Democrat and it wasn’t worth their time----not that federal gun control could have ever worked.

I would point that most every mass shooting in America has happened where there already is gun control.

Guns were banned at the CO movie theater, Sandy Hook and in the church.

Why didn’t gun control work at any of those places?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m even on a first floor and owning a gun has never appealed to me. I went hunting with an uncle once yrs ago and I didn’t enjoy it. But I also just don’t get the fascination Americans have with guns. Not with their need to own high magazine assault weapons and so forth. But there’s no reason why anyone should object to background checks and registering their guns unless they indeed have something to hide. Have you checked further on getting yourself a nuke bomb?

China will be glad to sell one to anyone with the cash and they don’t care what it’s used for.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Sy Noe;13553342]I’m even on a first floor and owning a gun has never appealed to me. I went hunting with an uncle once yrs ago and I didn’t enjoy it. But I also just don’t get the fascination Americans have with guns. Not with their need to own high magazine assault weapons and so forth.

Well, it’s important to be familiar with what an assault weapon is.

I think too many people get their gun fears from Hollywood.

If anything, guns serve as to deter crime, and the vast majority of gun owners want to avoid conflict. It’s really there as a last resort because they (wisely so) don’t have much confidence in the timely arrival of unionized public servants.

But there’s no reason why anyone should object to background checks and ]registering their guns unless they indeed have something to hide.

Would this logic also apply to mosque surveillance?

Have you checked further on getting yourself a nuke bomb?

Gun control advocates like this argument. Guess I’d have to use the progressive strategy of extremes to try and invalidate sensible, mainstream thinking.

And let’s explore that further: if the idea is to protect one’s family and home, how does irradiating the whole joint help?

And how come no one argues the police should have nuclear weapons?

Because the idea is to serve and protect, not to destroy yourself in the process.

But in any case, why would that matter, since some Democrats ultimately don’t seem to mind Iran or North Korea having nukes.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

My question wasn’t about when republicans were in the majority. I’m talking about in 2008-2009 when the Democrats were in control. A lot of minority children died in those years and hundreds of other Americans were murdered by guns in blue districts.

Where was the urgency then? Or didn’t they need it because inner-city minorities vote Democrat and it wasn’t worth their time----not that federal gun control could have ever worked.

I would point that most every mass shooting in America has happened where there already is gun control.

Guns were banned at the CO movie theater, Sandy Hook and in the church.

Why didn’t gun control work at any of those places?

A lot of kids were killed when Reagan and the Bushs’ were president as well, yet nothing was done. And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in the US occur when Bush Version Two was president? I’m sure it did. Did Bush turn a blind eye to terrorism? Was he not concerned that the US has so many enemies? Enemies he was making with his war?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Sy Noe;13553342:

I’m even on a first floor and owning a gun has never appealed to me. I went hunting with an uncle once yrs ago and I didn’t enjoy it. But I also just don’t get the fascination Americans have with guns. Not with their need to own high magazine assault weapons and so forth.

Would this logic also apply to mosque surveillance?

Gun control advocates like this argument. Guess I’d have to use the progressive strategy of extremes to try and invalidate sensible, mainstream thinking.

And let’s explore that further: if the idea is to protect one’s family and home, how does irradiating the whole joint help?

And how come no one argues the police should have nuclear weapons?

Because the idea is to serve and protect, not to destroy yourself in the process.

But in any case, why would that matter, since some Democrats ultimately don’t seem to mind Iran or North Korea having nukes.

Regarding protecting home and family:

minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Seems that’s a myth and gun owners are really putting their home and family at risk, instead. I could cite dozens more articles that say the same thing, but we all know how to use Google.