Do you support the second amendment?


Cath13 can’t and won’t. It doesn’t fit his narrative that only government should have the guns.


The NRA does not give anywhere nearly as much money as anti-gun groups.

But, please, provide the actual numbers of members, dollars, etc.


I am not heavily into supporting the second amendment but I think your poster shows a very fair point. Of course those wishing to do their religion through the state cannot understand such independence. A million M16’s will stop the American army especially when many members of that same army will be standing with the rebels holding them and politicians dependent on votes and political stability will not risk trying to take them.

Those on the Left side of politics should read up on Hitler’s Socialists, Mussolini’s fascist socialists and the Russian socialists. There is a terrible evil on the left hand side of politics and while I am sympathetic to gun control the evil of Left wing government utopia’s are a fair reason for a populace to be armed.


No, it isn’t. Every financial supporter of PP supports abortion. Virtually no NRA member supports mass shootings or criminal shootings of any type.


Look, two means that result in the same end are not equally virtuous or vile on that basis alone.

You can deny this fact if you want, but all that does is leave you unable to pass a sophomore-level philosophy course on Arisotlelian logic.

And since virtually all of the rest of the civilized world has some sort of universal healthcare scheme, I’m sure you have loads of examples of this insanity actually happening. Oh wait… there are none.

Your irrational boogey-men rear their heads yet again.


As long as you occasionally speed on the highway (as I do most everyday), the government will never be able to “do it’s job” to 100% compliance. And as we’ve pointed out, the last time the ATF did a study on it, straw-buyers and crooked dealers (NOT theft) were the primary sources for criminals obtaining guns. How the heck does “the gubmint” stop THAT?

There’s only one solution. You have to make these things harder to own. For everyone.

The notion that they should remain legal because they exemplify “good men” who stop the body count at 20 instead of 25 is another truly disgusting argument.

You have to make these things harder to own.


$5,900,000 is a very small amount of money especially when spread among so many candidates.

Harvey Weinstein ALONE gave many many times that amount.

George Soros ALONE gave MANY MANY times that amount.

The former mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City gave MANY MANY times that amount.


what about the gun banners what have they contributed?

i know politico has written bloomberg gave $65 million to those pushing gun control and the sugar tax.

$6M versus $65M, kind of pales in comparison


he says one thing and the catechism says something else. which carries more weight; years of doctrine or a statement that may have been translated right or may not have?


yes, there are examples. is there any data on exactly how many? i don’t know

one example:
a canadian i know was rushed to the hospital here in the states and needed emergency surgery. the doctors said without it he had a very short time to live. the canadian government refused the cost and told the man to come home. he did. he was scheduled for surgery beyond his life expectancy time. he was a former bigwig in local government and pulled some strings to get immediate surgery. he said the doctor performing the surgery said he would have died if the surgery wasn’t performed when it was.

now this story sounds like a man mad at his healthcare so i talked to a doctor and a nurse i know to see if they heard the same thing. they both confirmed that the canadian government routinely refuses health request and makes the patient come home.

as to the emergency of his case; obviously it is hearsay and can’t be verified.


you didn’t answer the question:

which carries more weight; years of doctrine or a statement that may have been translated right or may not have?


bloomberg’s donations gives him control.

he combined mayors against illegal guns’ and ‘moms demand action for gun sense in america’ to form everytown for gun safety. they are the face of gun control and he bankrolls the new group.

as to your last point . i am not a talk radio or tv fan and don’t follow any of them on the net. both sides are agenda driven.


This won’t do. He’s saying that national systems deliberately euthanize people. This unambiguously requires citation. Not a story you heard one time from a buddy who read it in a paper while waiting on a train. No offense.


Of course, a comparison of life expectancy rates more or less crushes this baseless accusation.

But nonetheless, if Jon’s going to make that vapid claim, then hopefully he’ll see the absurdity of it when he tries to stretch stories of hospice care to suit his indefensible point.


deliberately euthanize people are your words.

his issue was the wait time would have killed him.

we saw that here in the states with the va.


Specifically, after crunching the numbers we estimated between 25,456 and 63,090 Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times during this period. Large as this number is, it doesn’t even begin to quantify the possibility of increased disability and poorer quality of life as a result of protracted wait times


Congress did. 21 years ago they set up the NICS. Had government officials followed the law, did what they were supposed to do, it would not have happened, at least not as easily.

Additionally, the fact is more is given to politicians by the anti-2nd crowd than the NRA. Clinton received more anti-2nd money than a Trump did NRA money.


Not so fast. You don’t get to paraphrase for your ideological comrade. So lets look at his exact statement.

“Under government healthcare, the expensive old man who no longer adds value to the society is simply allowed to die by attrition.”

In his example, he cites the expense of caring for the man and he cites that the man dies “by attrition”.

Refusing care because it’s expensive is euthanasia if the care is reasonably demonstrated to work.

As an aside: If it’s not reasonably demonstrated to treat the disease, then insurance - both government and private alike - is not going to approve payment for the care, particularly if it’s expensive.

Neglect and deliberately refusing care on the basis of cost are not the same thing and shame on the liar that presents them as such.


Jon… That’s not how PACs work. Not even close.

They don’t give money to the candidate, typically.


does it matter that i don’t give it to the candidate if i spend it the same way she would have? the job gets done.


Spot on. It does an excellent job circumventing the campaign finance laws that are presently in place.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit