Obama: Working On Gun Control Under The Radar

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306943802' post='2248714']
I think you've posed a more sound argument than others.
[/quote]


I used your on number and analysed it... if it was not sound it is your own fault for citing a BS number.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941666' post='2248687']

There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. [b]If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.
[/b] [/quote]

Again False. Use of antibiotics is consistent with church teaching but if his Excellency wereto get up and say we should use amoxicillian to treat cancer, while completly consistent with Church teaching, it would be incompetant.


His Excellency is not a doctor, therefore, his is not competent to make medical judgements, even if they are in keeping with CHurch teachings.

His understanding of small arms could be, and probably is similarly disadvantaged.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306941666' post='2248687']
There are many things that aren't binding to the faithful. And you are giving him more credit than your buddy. Nihil thinks he's actually not competent. If he's stating things that are consistent with Church teaching, (as you agree) then he's showing competency.
[/quote]
I said he's more than competent in Church teachings, but he may very well not be in secular disciplines such as criminal justice.
Once again: He Is Competent In Church Teaching.

I've said that literally this entire time. He may have every single tiniest bit correct about Church Teaching, but if any of his position is being modified by bad assumptions or invalid arguments in secular subjects, then his conclusions may end up being incorrect. So while it is consistent [i]with Church teaching[/i], it may be flawed as a whole.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306949673' post='2248759']
Again False. Use of antibiotics is consistent with church teaching but if his Excellency wereto get up and say we should use amoxicillian to treat cancer, while completly consistent with Church teaching, it would be incompetant.


His Excellency is not a doctor, therefore, his is not competent to make medical judgements, even if they are in keeping with CHurch teachings.

His understanding of small arms could be, and probably is similarly disadvantaged.
[/quote]

How would the use of imoxicillin to treat cancer be consistent with Church teaching? Where in Church teaching would you see treat a artery bleed with a bandaid? It doesn't make sense.

However let's look at this

[quote][indent]Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican's permanent observer to the U.N., spoke in October to a committee working on disarmament and international security. There had been a U.N. Small Arms Review conference in July - it closed without agreement. The archbishop said that debates on weapons were undertaken "in abstract concerns from preconceived positions." Let's move from the abstract to the human dimension, he suggested, and perhaps then we can get an Arms Trade Treaty.[/indent] Weapons "kill and maim tens of thousands, spark refugee crises, undermine the rule of law and spawn a culture of violence and impunity." He said they had deep impact on children. [/quote]

Ever heard of any Church teaching talking about the human dimension or speak against violence? Ever hear the Church speak out on refugees or children?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1306953375' post='2248778']
How would the use of imoxicillin to treat cancer be consistent with Church teaching? Where in Church teaching would you see treat a artery bleed with a bandaid? It doesn't make sense.

However let's look at this



Ever heard of any Church teaching talking about the human dimension or speak against violence? Ever hear the Church speak out on refugees or children?
[/quote]


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?

[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