Obama: Working On Gun Control Under The Radar

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306964855' post='2248916']
You are not very good at this whole understanding of how analogies work do you. Regardless you are attributing an improper attachment to Church teaching to the statement.

For starters his statement is objectively false, Weapons have never done anything, ever, I have yet to se a rifle get up and shoot anyone, just like I have never seen a hammer get up and buil a house. Where are the miraculous house building hammers anyway? Regardless Weapons are tools that are sometimes used to to kill people, they are alsoused to feed people, protect them from harm and other more esoteric uses ( for example 8 gauge shotguns, with lead shot are used in oil refineries to clear scale of the inside of certian equipment). They have no power by themselves they are used by people ( and chimpanzies, but we will leave that be for now). So his statement is inaccurate from the beginning.

However, let us give him the benifit of the doubt.
The statement does not fit within Church teaching, all men have the right to self defence... that is Church teaching since ancient time, removing thier ability to defend themselves with a reasonable chance of success is not in keeping with that teaching.

THe context was somewhat helpful however, he was on a committee trying to get a particular treaty accomplished...... HMMMM , sounds like he was acting exactly as I said he wa, as a diplomate not as a bishop, and certianly not as a speaker for the Church. You do realize that diplomates use Pathos to accomplish goals all the time, this hardly means
Since his statment was not formally made on behave of the Church, an not even made in the context of his offie of bishop, it is not a particularly compelling statement.



I do want to say, I'm impressed, you have managed to turn this entire arguement to a discussion of a trivial statment by an single cardnil whose statement is no more binding that " kill them all, God knows which ones are his".

THe statement has been discussed to death, are you capable of making an actual arguement about why Gun control is just, or even remotely good?

Are you capable of presenting an arguement at all:?

Or are you indeed just a troll?
[/quote]

What I am is the most patient person you know outside of kilroy. I've been waiting six years for you to present a scripture passage you know doesn't exist or at least acquiesce and say you were wrong.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1126301919' post='717411']
Actually I was thinking of another I ill find it for you later, the NFP thread has consummed all my spare time.
[/quote]

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=38962&view=findpost&p=717411

Regardless of what you feel, I've stated my opinion on gun control.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306964855' post='2248916']
Weapons have never done anything, ever, I have yet to se a rifle get up and shoot anyone,
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YftEAbmMQ[/media]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306965626' post='2248923']
What I am is the most patient person you know outside of kilroy. I've been waiting six years for you to present a scripture passage you know doesn't exist or at least acquiesce and say you were wrong.



http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=38962&view=findpost&p=717411

Regardless of what you feel, I've stated my opinion on gun control.
[/quote]
Part one:

I was trying to remember who I owed something too.



I haven't the time to find the scripture right now, but the during the Sack of Jeruselm by the babylonians, the rich escaped and the poor were slaughtered. I will have to find the appropriate passages later, but they are there.


part 2": So what your saying is that it is your opinion,and you have no arguement.... You see I can accept that, you have the right to your opinion. Even if it is wrong.

[Don John of Austria]

I assume that you accept as it has been accepted for thousands of years, that tthebabylonian captivity was a punishment from G od

[Winchester]

Your face is a punishment from God.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306897074' post='2248502']
As a representitive of the government of the vatican, as a government?


Or as the the Church?
[/quote]
I know this is all the way back on page 7, and probably not of much relevance to the thread anymore, but I just thought I should point out that Cardinal Migliore was the representative of the Holy See mission to the UN, not the Vatican mission, so he was not representing the Vatican as a government.

[kujo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1306518778' post='2246825']
You can't tell people that they can't live without schools, hospitals, international development, and all other kinds of institutions, and then tell them they are competent to handle guns responsibly. Violence is always committed because you are powerless, and through violence you hope to gain some kind of power. We live in a modern technocratic empire (and I'm not just referring to government). The proliferation of guns and violence is a logical consequence...we are a society of people who have been convinced that we are incompetent/powerless to do anything unless it is planned and directed for us. We do not live in the 18th century. We do not live in a society of farmers wielding rifles.

We live in a militarized police state. We have abandoned "security" to the government's institutional practitioners of violence (the military and police). Conservatives are the ones who are always calling for a "strong military" and being "tough on crime." Conservatives want to secure society through violent institutions. Okay. But when you abandon security to the government's institutions, in the name of "protection," you cannot then disperse that task of protection to private citizens who have been raised to depend on society's institutions.

That was my long way of saying: conservatives, for all their wailing against gun control, are committed to some of the key social structures that make gun control necessary.
[/quote]

This is the best answer because, as usual, this thread has been dominated by the hysterical, fear-mongering, saber-rattling nonsense we typically hear from conservatives on this issue.

The fact of the matter is that it ought to be intuitive: there is a gigantic difference between owning a handgun, and amassing a stockpile of semi-automatic rifles and other Modern Warfare, Call of Duty-type guns. There's got to be a middle ground, where sensible people can agree that there is a class of weapons that really ought not to be available for public consumption. Armor-piercing bullets, grenades...there's no need for any of that sort of military-grade weaponry if your goal--in your Lockean fantasy world-- is to defend your family. A simple handgun will probably do the trick against most home-invaders.

So please--spare me the "they want our guns" bologna. There's no gun on the market today that will help you overthrow the "tyrannical/socialist/authoritarian/autocratic/Muslim" government we have.

Edited June 1, 2011 by kujo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1306971952' post='2248968']
This is the best answer because, as usual, this thread has been dominated by the hysterical, fear-mongering, saber-rattling nonsense we typically hear from conservatives on this issue.

The fact of the matter is that it ought to be intuitive: there is a gigantic difference between owning a handgun, and amassing a stockpile of semi-automatic rifles and other Modern Warfare, Call of Duty-type guns. There's got to be a middle ground, where sensible people can agree that there is a class of weapons that really ought not to be available for public consumption. Armor-piercing bullets, grenades...there's no need for any of that sort of military-grade weaponry if your goal--in your Lockean fantasy world-- is to defend your family. A simple handgun will probably do the trick against most home-invaders.

So please--spare me the "they want our guns" bologna. There's no gun on the market today that will help you overthrow the "tyrannical/socialist/authoritarian/autocratic/Muslim" government we have.
[/quote]
Right. I'm so much of a conservative, you don't even know!
It's easy to tell because of all the times I've suggested that governments are made up of bureaucratic morons and authoritarian thieves.

[Winchester]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1306971952' post='2248968']
This is the best answer because, as usual, this thread has been dominated by the hysterical, fear-mongering, saber-rattling nonsense we typically hear from conservatives on this issue.

The fact of the matter is that it ought to be intuitive: there is a gigantic difference between owning a handgun, and amassing a stockpile of semi-automatic rifles and other Modern Warfare, Call of Duty-type guns. There's got to be a middle ground, where sensible people can agree that there is a class of weapons that really ought not to be available for public consumption. Armor-piercing bullets, grenades...there's no need for any of that sort of military-grade weaponry if your goal--in your Lockean fantasy world-- is to defend your family. A simple handgun will probably do the trick against most home-invaders.

So please--spare me the "they want our guns" bologna. There's no gun on the market today that will help you overthrow the "tyrannical/socialist/authoritarian/autocratic/Muslim" government we have.
[/quote]
So why limit guns in the hands of private citizens? Not fear, right? You sell fear of a different sort, but you're still trading in the same commodity. Sensible people admit that stockpiling weapons means nothing. [s]Sensible [/s] Knowledgeable people also know that semi-automatic rifles are too broad a category to bring up as some scary weapon. I don't care if my neighbor stockpiles guns. I know many people who have a ridiculous amount of guns, and none of them are criminals, paranoid or otherwise undesirable. They like firearms. So. What. People who stockpile guns because they want to aren't a worry, and people who want weapons to commit crimes won't care about your laws. Because they're criminals. It's like laws against drugs. It accomplishes nothing but increase of government spending and power.


As for no gun on the market today being able to overthrow a government---a war against citizens would require maintaining infrastructure. It's a cost issue, in part.

Is it a coincidence that in the UK, with strict gun control, you can also be arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting"?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306968470' post='2248947']
I assume that you accept as it has been accepted for thousands of years, that tthebabylonian captivity was a punishment from G od
[/quote]

Ibumped the thread. What you were arguing was that there was scripture that backed your claim of the rich being able to buy their way out of God's Wrath.


There is no such scripture, though you kept on saying "I found it but I don't have time to post it"

So feel free to share

[Socrates]

The Church has long recognized the right of people to self-defense, and defense of their families.

The vast majority of gun-owners in the USA are law-abiding citizens who have never murdered anyone with their weapons.
For most of law-abiding citizens, owning a gun gives them their best chance at defense against a violent attacker. Guns have in fact saved many lives.

(For those who claim protecting lives is the job of police, often by the time the cops show up, it is too late.)

Banning guns would merely deprive law-abiding citizens of the means to legitimate self-defense.
Most gun violence is from violent criminals who have contempt for the law, and will find ways to obtain weapons illegally.
(If you think the government declaring something illegal will successfully keep it out of the hands of criminals, just look at the current "war on drugs." Outlawing these weapons will simply result in a thriving black market for them, with attendant criminal violence.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1306971952' post='2248968']
This is the best answer because, as usual, this thread has been dominated by the hysterical, fear-mongering, saber-rattling nonsense we typically hear from conservatives on this issue.

The fact of the matter is that it ought to be intuitive: there is a gigantic difference between owning a handgun, and amassing a stockpile of semi-automatic rifles and other Modern Warfare, Call of Duty-type guns. There's got to be a middle ground, where sensible people can agree that there is a class of weapons that really ought not to be available for public consumption. Armor-piercing bullets, grenades...there's no need for any of that sort of military-grade weaponry if your goal--in your Lockean fantasy world-- is to defend your family. A simple handgun will probably do the trick against most home-invaders.

So please--spare me the "they want our guns" bologna. There's no gun on the market today that will help you overthrow the "tyrannical/socialist/authoritarian/autocratic/Muslim" government we have.
[/quote]
Ooooh, those awful conservatives!

The Second Amendment (which mentions the need for a militia of armed citizens), was made with military-grade arms in mind - weapons which could be used to dispel a military attack by foreign or domestic tyrants. The issue at stake was not squirrel hunting.


No doubt you would dismiss the founding fathers of our country themselves as hysterical fear-mongering lunatics.

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306977876' post='2249017']
Ooooh, those awful conservatives!

The Second Amendment (which mentions the need for a militia of armed citizens), was made with military-grade arms in mind - weapons which could be used to dispel a military attack by foreign or domestic tyrants. The issue at stake was not squirrel hunting.


No doubt you would dismiss the founding fathers of our country themselves as hysterical fear-mongering lunatics.

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm house."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
[/quote]

What a bunch of Tea Party radicals!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306979699' post='2249025']
What a bunch of Tea Party radicals!
[/quote]
They're such extremists they probably didn't even support Medicaid and the Department of Education. May they burn forever for their depraved and unenlightened opinions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1306979699' post='2249025']
What a bunch of Tea Party radicals!
[/quote]
Well they did start the original Tea Party!

They should've shut up with the divisive fear-mongering rhetoric, and let King George take care of all their problems.

[Amppax]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_x-JfNQ__Y[/media]

[Socrates]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBHFrqVKnYY[/media]