Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 24th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Way to post something that really says nothing at all, does not contribute anything to t...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

Way to post something that really says nothing at all, does not contribute anything to the discussion, that could just as easily, if not more easily, be posted in opposite.

--hide--
Well maybe you should understand most Americans don't like it, when someone including our government tries to take or change our rites. It is a rite in our constitution and it is not theres or antone elses rite to take it away. You can always make and argument about any thing. The big reason we have abortion is because they used the argument about women dying from illegal abortions and made it a rite for women. This is one of the reason we have this rite to bare arms and thank God we do, www.glennbeck.com

Jan 24th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Well at least you're on the right path towards agreeing with me As I've said,...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



Well at least you're on the right path towards agreeing with me
As I've said, it's not so much the more restrictive gun laws that I promote, but moreso the attitude surrounding them. I think that just having more guns makes it easier for criminals to get a hold of them - both those criminals who are actively seeking to acquire guns, as well as, and probably moreso, those people who can cause more serious damage quickly due to their easy access to guns.

Speaking to Meg's comment...Yes, there are lots of other weapons that can be obtained or made, but generally, there are not many, if any, other weapons that can be easily obtained or made that cause the same amount of damage to human health and life as guns. As an example, with the recent Sandy Hook shootings, if the mother of the shooter had not had such a large supply of guns, the shooter quite likely might've tried to go on a rampage, but the damage he could do with another weapon (say a knife or machete) is likely much less than he was able to do with a gun.

I may be wrong, but I thought you guys voted specifically for the president?? I know here in Canada we do not vote directly for our Prime Minister. And it may be a bit more indirectly, but if you do vote for the president, and the president appoints the supreme court justices, there is still some degree of democracy to that process (i.e. if you don't like the supreme court justices your president appoints, maybe that's a sign you voted for the wrong president, though I recognize this is a longer term thing to try to change, and it is more difficult when the people who are elected are not honest about their intentions)

And yes, my comment about handing out guns to everyone everywhere was definitely hyperbolic and a joke, but it was intended to make a point though too. :)

I think it was a brave, but pretty accurate comparison you made of Americans to Muslims. Kudos to you for that

I'll have to listen to some Johnny Horton tonight...I remember listening to a cassette of his when I was a kid, but I likely didn't realize the politicalness of his music as a 10 year old :)

--hide--


I assure you that we do not vote for the president whatsoever in the USA. There is an electoral college appointed which votes for the president. There is a popular vote, also (treated mainly as a preference), that some electors are sworn by oath to vote in the same fashion, but to my knowledge, no elector has ever been punished for breaking that oath. There have been times in the USA where the popular preference and the elected president did not match.

Jan 25th 2013 new
(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Thanks for your thoughts Meg. I guess I'm still a bit confused as to how you do not fear your neigh...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



Thanks for your thoughts Meg. I guess I'm still a bit confused as to how you do not fear your neighbor (or fellow persons) but you fear being a statistic? You would only become a statistic from your neighbor (or fellow persons)

I won't argue that governments (and really societies) have a propensity to grow, in size and power, and that power corrupts. I'd have to learn more about past governments/dictatorships to speak knowingly, but off the top of my head I'm struggling to think of past governments/societies where citizens were much less well-equipped with weapons than the USA. I mean if you compare the weapons that typical Americans have now (rifles, handguns, etc) to what the US government/military has (missiles, fighter jets, nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction, etc), I think the gap is wider than pretty much every government/society in the past.

--hide--


We are well equipped in the U.S., Peter, and I would like to keep it that way.

As far as fearing my neighbor, you have a good point in your reply. What I failed to accurately convey is the image of one fearing their neighbor vs. fearing criminals who would like to attack or rob me. It is a question of semantics. I felt that fearing my neighbor sounds paranoid, which I am not. I would like to be prudent in knowing that I too can become a victim of crime.
Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Thomas-699657 said: Well maybe you should understand most Americans don't like it, when someone including our go...
(Quote) Thomas-699657 said:

Well maybe you should understand most Americans don't like it, when someone including our government tries to take or change our rites. It is a rite in our constitution and it is not theres or antone elses rite to take it away. You can always make and argument about any thing. The big reason we have abortion is because they used the argument about women dying from illegal abortions and made it a rite for women. This is one of the reason we have this rite to bare arms and thank God we do, www.glennbeck.com

--hide--

So how was the constitution made? How were the amendments to the constitution made? Didn't those change your rights? Weren't those made by the government and/or someone else? scratchchin

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I assure you that we do not vote for the president whatsoever in the USA. There is an e...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I assure you that we do not vote for the president whatsoever in the USA. There is an electoral college appointed which votes for the president. There is a popular vote, also (treated mainly as a preference), that some electors are sworn by oath to vote in the same fashion, but to my knowledge, no elector has ever been punished for breaking that oath. There have been times in the USA where the popular preference and the elected president did not match.

--hide--

So there is a popular vote, but it just doesn't mean anything? Is there proof that electors have broken the oath? Do all electors have to swear that oath, or only some? If only some, why is that?

You did refresh my memory that the popular preference and the elected president don't always match...I wonder how many people here were upset about that when George W. Bush was elected president even though he did not win the popular vote?? scratchchin

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Meg-920823 said: We are well equipped in the U.S., Peter, and I would like to keep it that way. As far as f...
(Quote) Meg-920823 said:

We are well equipped in the U.S., Peter, and I would like to keep it that way.

As far as fearing my neighbor, you have a good point in your reply. What I failed to accurately convey is the image of one fearing their neighbor vs. fearing criminals who would like to attack or rob me. It is a question of semantics. I felt that fearing my neighbor sounds paranoid, which I am not. I would like to be prudent in knowing that I too can become a victim of crime.
--hide--

Do you think that the US citizens are proportionally that much more well-equipped than their government as compared to past countries/societies that became totalitarian?

Yes, I realized that the word neighbour was probably not a good word choice, which is why I changed/clarified it to "fellow persons".

I also wonder how you make the distinction between "neighbours" or "fellow persons" and "criminals who want to attack you" - in many cases the "criminals who want to attack you" (for however briefly, in a crime of passion) are your neighbours, family, fellow persons...especially when it is so ingrained into many Americans that they should arm themselves. How many people the day/week/month/year before the Sandy Hook tragedy (or many other tragedies) would've said that the shooter was a criminal and who would've tried to limit the shooter's access to firearms?

Jan 25th 2013 new

I thought irrationality was an Ahmedinajad thang.


Anyway:


Is the mass legal availability of abortion a tyranny?


If it isn't, why not?


If it is, does it invalidate the guns-protect-Liberty idea?







Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: That is really interesting Angela! If I'm following you correctly, the American revol...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



That is really interesting Angela! If I'm following you correctly, the American revolutionaries were NOT conservatives, but now it seems that the most ardent conservatives in the US are more conservative than our Canadian conservatives. That seems like a pretty big flip flop!

--hide--



Well, it's not really a flip-flop, it's that over time, as different issues arise, the political landscape starts to look different. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and abolished slavery, but in the 1960's, it's a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson (and his Democrat successor JFK) who usher in civil rights reforms.

And I'm not surprised that somebody accused you of "bashing" because you are having a conversation. American political discourse has become very polarized, with average political discussions in the US becoming less civilized than our Question Period, which is pretty bad, because Question Period can degenerate into name-calling pretty quickly. It's almost like people from a political party get so wrapped up in identifying parties with a force for good or evil (when they are just collections of people pursuing democratic goals and objectives) that the "other" side gets demonized pretty quickly. Terrorists and mass murderers (like Osama bin Laden) deserve the vitriol, democratic political representatives do not, generally.

I'm starting to address other questions here ... but here we go .... all democratic rights are cherished in every country that has them. However, rights are not absolute. All democratic countries have the right to freedom of expression, for example. But in every country that has that right, you are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, shopping centre or other public place because you are using your right to undermine the freedom of others. We do not live in isolation. We live in society, surrounded by others who have rights too.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: However, there's a rational side to firearm possession as well...and that is a Catholic...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:


However, there's a rational side to firearm possession as well...and that is a Catholic doctrine called subsidiarity (matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority; that is, from individual up to the state level, whichever is the lowest competent authority). In the case of firearm ownership, if a person is not legally declared a minor person and assigned a guardian, it is in his own realm of authority to determine whether or not to own one: If you do not wish to own a firearm, fine, I defer to your judgment for your life decision. If I wish to own a firearm and have not been declared a minor person by the state, fine, that is my business. If John Doe down the street wishes to own an arsenal and has not been declared a minor person by the state, fine...I defer to his judgment and leave it as his business.

--hide--



Subsidiarity can be a bit more complicated than the freedom of a silly person to do what he wants. A conscience per se means nothing: it has to be an informed conscience. Subsidiarity refers to the level that is likely to be the best informed about whether or not to do something. While you may be at the level of subsidiarity that is best informed about whether you should go to the bathroom before stepping onto a municipal bus, the level of subsidiarity that is best informed about whether you should be taking the bus trip at all may be your parent or the civil emergency authority in your town.


Is the 'competence to know what is the wise thing to do' in regards to owning a dozen AK47s at the subsidiarity level of the mind of the single gun collector or does it rest with the many minds in a legislature?



Why is there a necessary logical requirement for you to defer to John Doe's desire to own an arsenal when your own risk assessments suggest that your physical safety could be impaired? Is his brain better than yours? Why isn't there a necessary logical requirement for you to be a rational steward of your own interests and advocate to the legislature that they restrict John Doe's ability to own an arsenal? Rights under law (except for constitutional rights) aren't static. If they were, there wouldn't be lobbyists and there would be no need for an NRA. Why can't you argue that the status quo allowing John Doe to amass an arsenal be changed and let him argue the opposite?

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Angela-374523 said: Well, it's not really a flip-flop, it's that over time, as different issues ...
(Quote) Angela-374523 said:




Well, it's not really a flip-flop, it's that over time, as different issues arise, the political landscape starts to look different. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and abolished slavery, but in the 1960's, it's a Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson (and his Democrat successor JFK) who usher in civil rights reforms.

And I'm not surprised that somebody accused you of "bashing" because you are having a conversation. American political discourse has become very polarized, with average political discussions in the US becoming less civilized than our Question Period, which is pretty bad, because Question Period can degenerate into name-calling pretty quickly. It's almost like people from a political party get so wrapped up in identifying parties with a force for good or evil (when they are just collections of people pursuing democratic goals and objectives) that the "other" side gets demonized pretty quickly. Terrorists and mass murderers (like Osama bin Laden) deserve the vitriol, democratic political representatives do not, generally.

I'm starting to address other questions here ... but here we go .... all democratic rights are cherished in every country that has them. However, rights are not absolute. All democratic countries have the right to freedom of expression, for example. But in every country that has that right, you are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, shopping centre or other public place because you are using your right to undermine the freedom of others. We do not live in isolation. We live in society, surrounded by others who have rights too.

--hide--

Yeah calling it a flip-flop might not have been the most accurate, but it was definitely a shift over the generations...I can just imagine what it would be like if the tories from the time of the American Revolution could meet and discuss with the current-day conservatives.

I guess that's something that annoys me, when people seem to take a position and defend it more on the ideology (or more often probably, attack others' positions based on their perceived ideology) and won't even consider or even listen to other sides of the argument, and don't take into account that there are real, normal people on the other side, and start demonizing them.

Posts 71 - 80 of 101