NRA declares opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's not hyperbole. That actually happened.

So you do believe that felons should not be allowed to own a gun.

I think criminals are going to get guns regardless of any law that says they can't........

That's seriously the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable.

Yeah sure, most hardcore crims can get their hands on a firearm, no matter what laws they enact.

But you do realize that just because a person commits a criminal act, it doesn't mean they've been initiated into some kind of organization, right?

Its as if you think some random dude who beats the piss out of his partner, automatically joins some elite group, where they can acquire any prohibited item they desire... Just so long as they provide there "criminal" membership card and burglar masks they received in the mail... lol.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It's not hyperbole. That actually happened.

So you do believe that felons should not be allowed to own a gun.

I think criminals are going to get guns regardless of any law that says they can't........

That's seriously the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable.

Yeah sure, most hardcore crims can get their hands on a firearm, no matter what laws they enact.

But you do realize that just because a person commits a criminal act, it doesn't mean they've been initiated into some kind of organization, right?

Its as if you think if some random dude who beats the piss out of his partner, automatically joins some elite group, where they can acquire any prohibited item they desire... Just so long as they provide there "criminal" membership card and burglar masks they received in the mail... lol.

I think you are the one being naive.

Have you been down in the "hood" of any metropolitan area in the last half century?

Pretty much anything you care to have is for sale, and there are no questions asked, or forms to fill out.

a reply to: Mach2

As true as that may be... I think if you didn't belong there, you'd be just as likely to end up getting bashed & robbed, if you just rocked down there flashing money around asking for whatever it was you were looking for.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Mach2

So my fiancee's piece of # ex that held a gun to her head while he let his friend rape her should be allowed to still own a gun?

Should the falsely accused lose rights because of something others did?

originally posted by: Boadicea
But do you really believe that men are abused by women to the same extent that women are abused by men?

Not to butt in, but he didn't say that so why pretend he did?

Would you feel differently about this bill if it applied equally to men and women, as opposed to protecting women only?

I'm against any law that takes away Rights permanently, including prison.

The only punishments I'm in favor of are:

Restitution (if someone is damaged, Restitution should always be part of the punishment)
Public Flogging / Shaming (bring back the stocks)
Declared an Outlaw (bring back the doctrine of Outlawry), either perm or temporary (up to jury)
Death

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Mach2

So my fiancee's piece of # ex that held a gun to her head while he let his friend rape her should be allowed to still own a gun?

No, he should be declared an outlaw, and let nature take its course.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

the fact you think that some law is going to stop someone who is apparently use to breaking laws is the naive part , not only is it naive its downright stupid.

Its as if you think some random dude who beats the piss out of his partner, automatically joins some elite group, where they can acquire any prohibited item they desire... Just so long as they provide there "criminal" membership card and burglar masks they received in the mail... lol.

Its almost like you think that someone whose bent on carrying out a crime cant figure out how to get a gun
Do you ride a Unicorn and sleep on rainbows? I would love to live in your world of make believe

Mandbehind is right, felon or not, if the person isnt going to commit crimes like that with a gun, whether he has one or not hes not going to do it.

The same logic works for the guy bent on murder, hes going to get one either way, and anyone with any money cant get a gun right now legal or not, regardless of what laws you think will stop it.
Many states will KILL YOU for killing other people, it doesnt stop people who want to murder

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: watchitburn

Felons lose their right to vote already.

Your argument is invalid.

Only in 9 US states and the felon can petition the state to have the Right restored. Where firearms are concerned, not so much... it's a federal prohibition, so it impacts all 50 states and it is impossible to restore the Right in absence of a retrial and exoneration of the initial conviction.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Good for the NRA... this law needs stopped because it is little more than scaremongering leading to an excuse to infringe on Rights.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

IF that was the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable, you surpassed it with your argument.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in the country - if a person wants to shoot up a load of people, they will be able to get a gun - easily - whether they are banned or not.
Unless of course you think the guns will be turned in LOL.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

IF that was the most naive and ridiculously ignorant argument imaginable, you surpassed it with your argument.
There are hundreds of millions of guns in the country - if a person wants to shoot up a load of people, they will be able to get a gun - easily - whether they are banned or not.
Unless of course you think the guns will be turned in LOL.

Where did I advocate for "banning" anything?

Also, this thread was about whether men who have a history of beating their partner should be allowed to own guns, not mass shootings... But I guess a Strawman Fallacy was probably your actual intention, right?

But whatever, I'm sure allowing wife beaters to own firearms makes perfect sense, what could possibly go wrong?

Well we're at it, why bother taking drink drivers licences away? Since logic dictates they'll just find a way to drive a car anyway.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Thank you.

Goes to show that in certain instances your rights can be taken away if you're a knucklehead.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Not to butt in, but he didn't say that so why pretend he did?

Excuse me? I "pretended" nothing. Did you not notice the question mark at the end, indicating that I was asking a question? Which is, by definition, the opposite of making a statement.

Would you feel differently about this bill if it applied equally to men and women, as opposed to protecting women only?

Unlike you, who ignored that I was asking a question, inviting further thoughts and explanation to clarify that position, and presumed to frame my question as a statement.

So I ask you the same basic question: I didn't say that, so why pretend that I did?

There is already a law against VAW. It's called assault, assault and battery. We do not need a "special law" with a fancy, emotionally charged, catchphrase name.
To many laws that piggyback other laws, are just tools created for DA's to enforce governments roll in our "free society". And to provide more "counts" to charge with.

There is commonsense law and then there is absurd and redundant law. A VAWA is both the latter.

Just like gun banning laws. It's already illegal to murder. We don't need anymore laws than that. According to FBI stats murder and assault are more times committed by blunt objects. Nobody trying to ban hammers.
You libs are going to lawyer yourselves into needing a "license", (legal permission) just to leave your safe space.

Bedsides, I thought the two genders were equal? Why not a "special law" for VAM?
Will a Lesbian sheman, be charged with this law when she slaps her "partner" that isn't being man/women enough?

You libs.

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

100 lbs woman? Are you sure we're talking about American women here?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Excuse me? I "pretended" nothing. Did you not notice the question mark at the end, indicating that I was asking a question?

Sure. I also noticed the wording...

"Do you really believe...", which obviously suggests that you believe that they did/do.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh dear... okay.

You can read whatever you want into that that you so choose. If that's where you want to go with that... if that's the best you can do with the discussion... okay. Enjoy!

But I'm not playing. I asked another member to expand on his thoughts, I invited further discussion about the greater implications and inferences, as one does on a discussion forum. It was a good conversation. I'm happy with that.

You can play your superficial semantics without me.

originally posted by: Boadicea
You can play your superficial semantics without me.

Without semantics, all you have is gibberish. Maybe you don't know what semantics actually means (most people don't so don't feel bad).

And I did add to the conversation, you just chose to focus on my calling out your unjust insinuation.

Peace...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Doubling down, eh? Okay, I'll play... for my own purposes...

Without semantics, all you have is gibberish. Maybe you don't know what semantics actually means (most people don't so don't feel bad).

Semantics

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

Perhaps you are also familiar with homonyms? (Don't feel bad if you don't, lots of people don't.) Those would be words that are spelled the same and sound the same, but have different meanings. Such as "really."

The word "really" does not always question the reality or veracity of a matter.

Sometimes, "really" is used to convey the extent or depth or extremity of something. I can say, "It's cold outside," and that could mean anything from there's a little chill in the air to frigid temperatures. If I want to convey that it is very cold, then I might also say, "It's really cold outside."

If I am discussing and/or responding to another comment, and I repeat that person's words and ask if they "really" believe what they just said, that would be questioning their statement. (I did not do this)

However, if I take that discussion or comment a step further and invite someone to expand on their thoughts, obviously the use of the word "really" in that context is asking that person for some introspection and deeper thoughts. (I did do this)

And I did add to the conversation...

Well, yeah, okay... monkeys flinging poop add something too.

... you just chose to focus on my calling out your unjust insinuation.

LOL! I insinuated nothing. I asked a clear question for further discussion which expanded and built upon that discussion. And it was a good discussion.
------------------------------------------

Now, let's take this nitpicking a step further. What practical purpose did it serve? None. What did it add to the thread and/or the discussion? Nothing. Did it in any way address the issue of the NRA declaring opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act? Nope. Did it in any way address the related discussion between the other commenter and I? Nope.

You cherry picked one word to pick a fight with me... or maybe you just thought you were showing everyone how awesome possum clever you are. Whatever, it was petty and shallow and disruptive, and served no practical or productive purpose.

Except that maybe now a few more folks know what "semantics" and "homonym" means.

Whatever happened to EQUAL protection under the law? Why should women or anybody get special treatment just because of their sex or because they are in a relationship with somebody?

Assault and battery are already crimes. Malicious wounding, wanton endangerment and felonious assault are all felonies where, upon conviction by a jury of your peers in accordance with due process, the convicted individual's firearm rights will be revoked.

Besides, battered spouses have the same gun rights as the abuser. Step one: Leave the A-hole! Stop associating with that individual, don't stick around them and play nice the next day... Leave. Them. In. The. Cold. Step two: Arm yourself If the abusive SOB tries to harm you, and you are in fear of severe/grievous bodily harm or death then use it to defend yourself

Stop trying to use the law to protect yourselves - it was never intended to protect anybody. Instead, it is designed to punish crimes after they happen. Your RKBA is to protect you from severe violence and deadly threats