It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA declares opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

So then you had no issue when the Virginia governor restored voting rights to felons?


Nope as he restores their right to own a firearm right along with it.

Of course he won't, and you proved it by trying to violate a persons 8th amendment protection NOT to have their entire lives against held against them by practising a clear right.




posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Lab4Us
What the disingenuous are leaving out is that the liberals are trying to include in this bill that transgender males must be admitted to women’s shelters and prisons. Apparently a transgender male to female already raped two women in a UK prison. But let’s pretend it’s about guns if it makes the liberals feel better!

www.dailysignal.com...


Exactly........

But why would the op leave this out of his hit piece, er I mean thread?????

Hmmmmm



Nice dig. I guess for some people it's just impossible not to be an a hole.

The reason I left out the transgender part was I did not read anything about transgender in the two articles I referenced.


An ahole huh? There's irony in the fact that you're the one calling names.......

The reason you left it out is because you have a vendetta against the NRA and it would have undermined your blatantly bias and completely false narrative of your thread...... Kinda like how you left out my mention of your other thread that accuses the NRA of working w Russia

Otherwise, you should probably be more thorough in your research before making your hit pieces.....


What was the "hmmmmmm" supposed to mean?

I never called you names. I said "some people".

I have no vendetta against the NRA. Read my last sentence in the OP. You are the one who is being a total jerk by turning this into something about transgender. If you want to focus on your love for transgender issues start your own thread.


LOL I'm a jerk for along w other people pointing out you left a key reason why the NRA is actually against the bill?????

OH, so so sorry for combating the narrative you tried to paint w facts....... God forbid

Hey guys, we're in the wrong thread, sorry this is echo chamber only for the OP.....

Our mistake



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: dfnj2015

Should people convicted of domestic violence lose their right to free speech? Or their right to vote?

Why do you think it's okay to take some rights and not others?

Assault is already illegal, making it more illegal doesn't make it happen less.


It is interesting to see how some amendments are "more important" than others.
IMO they are equally important and should be equally protected.
If it is not serious enough to take all away, why should only some be taken?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

So then you had no issue when the Virginia governor restored voting rights to felons?


What is the logic behind not allowing ppl to vote? Punishment?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So obviously we take away peoples rights to some things when they are deemed a danger or risk to others. And for good reason. Recidivism is very real.

I have a friend that's an investigator and the amount of people he catches who are repeat offenders is just staggering.

Taking away gun rights from someone who may show violent tendencies towards others might not be a bad thing.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

The problem is your not taking snip away from them.

They're buying guns out of trunks of cars on the local corner.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

However you just said recitivism is real... And it's already high....

So breaking the law again obviously isn't an issue.... And we already know that felons get firearms illegally already at a very high rate....

So what good does the law help, but hinder felons w out violent or gun related crimes, and that have already paid their debt to society?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I think one huge problem here is the term "felon".

I have a felony on my record that was entirely related to traffic charges, none of which caused any actual harm to anyone, except maybe the insurance company, that didnt receive my premium in a timely manner.

This happened many years ago (young, and dumb).

Should somthing like this, that happened decades ago, forbid me from exercising a constitutional right?

All felonies are not the same.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Soon as they remove the anti-gun parts it will be supported.

Its already a crime to physically harm others.

Don't need special protections for forms of assault. Leave the person, get a restraining order or use your own gun rights to end the threat once and for all.

Sick of gun rights being attacked - especially when so many of these cases are just simple assault or battery.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I think one huge problem here is the term "felon".

I have a felony on my record that was entirely related to traffic charges, none of which caused any actual harm to anyone, except maybe the insurance company, that didnt receive my premium in a timely manner.

This happened many years ago (young, and dumb).

Should somthing like this, that happened decades ago, forbid me from exercising a constitutional right?

All felonies are not the same.


In short: Not a damn chance in hell

Our Constitution - and second amendment - says nothing about criminal law violations negating your rights. In fact, our founders would find the idea itself offensive. On top of that, when you "pay your debt" to society it is supposed to be done and over with - not have one of our most sacred rights # on by useless liberals who want knee-jerk and "feel good" laws

Personally, if I were you, I'd never follow such a law. I have a feeling it won't matter within a few years anyhow
Besides, ATF prosecutes less than 1% of these cases. Dims want good Americans disarmed, so it they will be easier to control and brutalize. Don't give them the satisfaction Just get your weapon and tell nobody


I don't support disarming "dangerous felons" either - only because ANY individual regardless of criminal past that poses a real threat will be stopped by a good guy with a gun. It'll thin out eventually. Again if only our second amendment had exceptions to "Shall not be infringed"

Those cretins will regret their attempts to redefine these words one day.
edit on 4/4/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Is there a demonstrable decrease in domestic violence due to the VAWA bill? If there isn't, it's kind of dumb to pursue further sanctions.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
That's the problem the NRA, and myself have with the legislation.

You can be taken to jail, and convicted of a domestic charge that involves no violence whatsoever. I can understand the night in jail, as it is essentially a cooling off period, and may stop things from escalating, depending on the specific situation.

Anyone who is painting this as the NRA protecting wife beaters is not being honest, and have an alternate agenda.


In the early 90's I worked as an armed guard at a facility where they hid battered spouses and their children, that had a verified threat against them. The majority of the spouses were MEN! Twice I disarmed a woman who was there to kill her ex-husband.

In 2001 a friend of mine got divorced. He was a police officer. His ex filed for a Protection From Abuse order, stating that he had pulled his gun on her. The day and time that she said this happened, her ex was testifying in Court. Nobody was interested in prosecuting her for making a false statement. Their reasoning was that they didn't want the publicity. By the way my friend is not allowed to carry a gun and he lost his certification to be a police officer because of her complaint.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Its sounds like we agree that it's just bad legislation.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

But anyone who wants to debate this or thinks it is a bad law is "against violence against women", right?
phoney baloney bs is what it is



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Pretty much.
It's like anybody being against green legislation is pro kill the planet.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Who is convincing these idiots to take these positions?
Why pretend there is no middle ground?



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
It's like DUI. There's a lot of male cow feces going on, but, nobody will fix it because it is political suicide to try.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Bluntone22

Who is convincing these idiots to take these positions?
Why pretend there is no middle ground?


OP would be one example.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

As a retired police officer, I can attest that people (both men and women) misuse domestic violence orders of protection against a spouse they are angry at.

Worst part is, many don't realize how many rights are summarily revoked - even when a "temporary emergency order of protection" (one with no due process at all) the subject loses his/her gun rights. Ridiculous

They also think they can self-dismiss the order, while not realizing that having any contact whatsoever is actually a crime whether its consensual or not.

Terrible laws, written by low-IQ idiots who knee-jerk feel good legislation to make themselves look good. The real answer is armed spouses, and when this # happens the attacker is once and for all done.



posted on Apr, 4 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Boadicea

Its sounds like we agree that it's just bad legislation.


Yes. Good intentions are all well and good, but we also know the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

I don't like any law that singles out one group or demographic for criminalizing an act or deed. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. Likewise, if it's not criminal for one person to do it, then it shouldn't be criminal for anyone to do it. Period.

Maybe, if carefully done, such extenuating circumstances could be used in sentencing, but again, only if it applies to all and not just "this" person or "that" person. But not for determining guilt itself. For example, if the judge decides to throw the book at the big brawny 6' 250-pound man who brutally beat his 5' 100-pound girlfriend, then the same size/weight advantages should apply when the big burly 6' 250-pound woman brutally beats her 5' 100-pound boyfriend.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join