Santorum and the 2nd amendment - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Santorum and the 2nd amendment (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:11:06 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2012/01/santorums-liberal-record-on-gun-rights/

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows. And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.
Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

The evidence is clear… he has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.

Lautenberg Gun Ban or The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104-208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996.

Part of the budget

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns. What was the name of the bill?

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004. He followed the Republican party endorsement.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman. He followed the Republican party endorsement.

The evidence is clear Texas_Sig is a Paulbot

Every conservator candidate that gets ahead in the polls you come out with some bogus bullshit against them. Nobody is perfect not even your idol/god Ron Paul.

Page 2

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:15:16 AM EDT

[#2]

And the paulbots complain when people post things against ron paul

and say the anti rp people should muzzled for speaking against ron paul

Hypocrites! the paulbots were some of the most vocal in attacking Cain!

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:17:16 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

And the paulbots complain when people post things against ron paul

and say the anti rp people should muzzled for speaking against ron paul

Hypocrites! the paulbots were some of the most vocal in attacking Cain!

How dare you talk about Ron Paul that way.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:24:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

How dare you talk about Ron Paul that way.

yeah, what ever... you're one of the ones that have told me to gtfo

INSERT QUOTE TEXT

wtturn

Member

Posted: 12/22/2011 4:18:19 PM

[Last Edit: 12/22/2011 4:23:19 PM by wtturn]

WTF is wrong with you?

Another RP thread to prove there are too many RP threads?

Additionally- it seems not to be the "paulbots" that spam the board,
but Paul-obsessed antis. Which you proved with this post. Good job,
now GTFO.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:25:28 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

How dare you talk about Ron Paul that way.

yeah, what ever... you're one of the ones that have told me to gtfo

INSERT QUOTE TEXT

wtturn

Member

Posted: 12/22/2011 4:18:19 PM

[Last Edit: 12/22/2011 4:23:19 PM by wtturn]

WTF is wrong with you?

Another RP thread to prove there are too many RP threads?

Additionally- it seems not to be the "paulbots" that spam the board, but Paul-obsessed antis. Which you proved with this post. Good job, now GTFO.

That's my point. I'm mad at you, now GTFO.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:29:07 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We must stop thinking of just ourselves, he says.

Must make sacrifices for the greater good.

Quit making up stories and putting words in people's mouths.

"That is not a society that is devoted to the common good"

Go to 2:00

"The definition of liberty as our founders understood it, was freedom with responsibility. Resonsibility to who? Themselves? No. Responsibility to others. Responsibility to your family. It was not just your family, it was to your neighbors and your country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI&feature=player_embedded#!

Santorumexposed dot com? Just say no to left wing extremism. You can do it, you're not an idiot.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:31:10 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

How dare you talk about Ron Paul that way.

yeah, what ever... you're one of the ones that have told me to gtfo

INSERT QUOTE TEXT

wtturn

Member

Posted: 12/22/2011 4:18:19 PM

[Last Edit: 12/22/2011 4:23:19 PM by wtturn]

WTF is wrong with you?

Another RP thread to prove there are too many RP threads?

Additionally- it seems not to be the "paulbots" that spam the board, but Paul-obsessed antis. Which you proved with this post. Good job, now GTFO.

He doesn't like the NRA either. Sound familiar? lmao.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:33:40 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

And the paulbots complain when people post things against ron paul

and say the anti rp people should muzzled for speaking against ron paul

Hypocrites! the paulbots were some of the most vocal in attacking Cain!

The started that shit waay before Cain.
The Paulgalos have been systematically attacking every single republican that hits the news (candidate or not) since the day after the 2008 election.

Posted: 1/3/2012 8:34:09 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We must stop thinking of just ourselves, he says.

Must make sacrifices for the greater good.

Quit making up stories and putting words in people's mouths.

"That is not a society that is devoted to the common good"

Go to 2:00

"The definition of liberty as our founders understood it, was freedom with responsibility. Resonsibility to who? Themselves? No. Responsibility to others. Responsibility to your family. It was not just your family, it was to your neighbors and your country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI&feature=player_embedded#!

Santorumexposed dot com? Just say no to left wing extremism. You can do it, you're not an idiot.

Did you watch the video? The shit he says is ridiculous collectivist bullshit.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:27:02 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2012/01/santorums-liberal-record-on-gun-rights/

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows. And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

But worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

He also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

The evidence is clear… he has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.

For this alone he should be boola-boola'd.

However- if the constipated looking fuck miraculously gets the nomination, I will kick old ladies in the ass to get to the front of the line to vote for him against the jug-eared-wookie-humper.

Vote however you like in the primaries, boys, but come November you had better get your minds right and vote for the lesser of two evils one last time.

Hell, I'll vote for Ron Paul if he's the nominee and I've heard him speak in person. He is 89% sane and 11% fuck a cat in the ass on heroin crazy.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:31:45 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.

In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

You don't have to be convicted. The accusation will jam you up all by itself.

Just a restraining order will do it.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:34:37 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

If you have ever been convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", you are prohibited from owning firearms for life. Anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or ammunition. Do you realize how easy it is for a woman to get a restraining order against her estranged spouse? Half of the women going through a divorce claim threats of violence and get a restraining order.

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 contains a provision which prohibits the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms and ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or ammunition. Intimate partners include spouses, former spouses or significant others, but do not include significant others with whom the defendant has NOT cohabited. A qualifying court restraining order is one where:
•the court order must include a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the other person OR the order explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the other person.
•the order was issued after a hearing. Minnesota OFPs issued under the no-hearing law provisions Minn. Stat. 518B.01 subd. 7 would NOT qualify.
•the defendant had to have received actual notice of the hearing and have had an opportunity to participate in the hearing.

If a respondent of a qualifying court restraining order possesses firearms or ammunition, then they have committed a federal crime. If the restraining order expires or is dismissed, the respondent can then possess firearms again. The prohibition lasts as long as the restraining order.

A respondent does not need to be told about this prohibition against possessing firearms. They do not need to be ordered to not possess firearms. The penalty for violation of this federal firearm statute is a maximum of 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Although law enforcement officials are exempt from the restraining order law, the exemption applies only to department-issued firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 925(a). Therefore, a police officer who is the respondent of an OFP could still have their service revolver, even off-duty. That police officer just could not possess other guns.

MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 amended the Federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Under these provisions, it is unlawful for an individual convicted of a state or federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to "ship, transport, possess or receive firearms or ammunition."

A "misdemeanor crime of violence," pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(33)(a), means an offense that:
has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

Law enforcement officers and governmental employees (such as security guards or military personnel) art not exempt from this law with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Therefore, law enforcement and other government employees who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition or any purposes, including performing their official duties.

Furthermore, the law makes it unlawful for any person, including governmental agencies, to sell or otherwise issue firearms or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence.

As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.

With respect to all persons convicted, the law would NOT apply if the conviction is defective procedurally due to representation or trial issues, such as the person's constitutional rights to counsel and/or a jury trial were not knowingly and intelligently waived. Also, the law would not apply if the conviction has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored and the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:42:46 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

If you have ever been convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", you are prohibited from owning firearms for life. Anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or ammunition. Do you realize how easy it is for a woman to get a restraining order against her estranged spouse? Half of the women going through a divorce claim threats of violence and get a restraining order?
[/span]

Truth. Ask me how I know.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:44:06 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

I have a high school friend who got into a fight with his brother (17 and 18yrs old respectively) and now both can't ever own guns.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:50:12 AM EDT

[#15]

So everytime one of these sorry candidates gets attacked y'all are going to blame Paulbots in an attempt to derail the thread and divert criticism....

You don't have to be a Paulbot to know that Santorum sucks!!! The Santorites are really outing themselves....is he the next candidate du jour.....

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:53:00 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
So everytime one of these sorry candidates gets attacked y'all are going to blame Paulbots in an attempt to derail the thread and divert criticism....

You don't have to be a Paulbot to know that Santorum sucks!!! The Santorites are really outing themselves....is he the next candidate du jour.....

If it makes you feel better, I fucking hate all of them. I will vote for whomever gets the nomination.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:54:32 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:55:46 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Most of ARFcom would choose him over Ron Paul.

Not me.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:58:06 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Nope, it did exactly what they wanted. Disarm more people over bullshit.

Posted: 1/3/2012 9:58:52 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
THEY ALL SUCK. WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Yeah I am getting tired of picking the lesser of two evils .....

Yes, me too

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:03:04 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Nope, it did exactly what they wanted. Disarm more people over bullshit.

I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:07:16 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

As does 90% of America. This is just another hit piece from the RP crowd.

It is funny that they would use Lautenberg Gun Ban as if it was a bad thing. I guess if you are a wife beater or child abuser it would offend you though.
ETA Does RP think felons should have guns?

I am in no way a defender of abusive men, but in a he said/she said situation, I can see a guy losing his rights over a bunch of lies and bullshit and that is wrong. Look at how many false rapes are reported. If the supposed 4 out of 5 reported rapes being a lie figure is accurate, it's clear that there are a number of women out there that are perfectly happy to falsely accuse a man of wrong doing. That's a LOT of potentially good guys that could lose their rights. I guess you didn't think about that?

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic and reason, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

Not every situation is cut and dry. There are plenty of people out there that are deprived of their rights over absolute bullshit and lies and that is unacceptable.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:11:22 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We must stop thinking of just ourselves, he says.

Must make sacrifices for the greater good.

Quit making up stories and putting words in people's mouths.

"That is not a society that is devoted to the common good"

Go to 2:00

"The definition of liberty as our founders understood it, was freedom with responsibility. Resonsibility to who? Themselves? No. Responsibility to others. Responsibility to your family. It was not just your family, it was to your neighbors and your country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI&feature=player_embedded#!

Santorumexposed dot com? Just say no to left wing extremism. You can do it, you're not an idiot.

Did you watch the video? The shit he says is ridiculous collectivist bullshit.

Stop reading into what he's saying then. He's right on the money just like Speaker Gingrich was on Congressional subpoena power and executive duty to defend positive liberty. Here, Santorum's not talking about positive liberty vs negative liberty government like the current marxist in chief does. Do you get it now?

One is slavery to gov, one is freedom from gov. A Republic of States with a charter of positive liberty. That's us now. That's what team obama wants to fundamentally change, like the rest of the euro socialist world they adore. But positive liberty also requires an individual duty to be a part of an overall free society. That's all.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:14:01 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

I have a high school friend who got into a fight with his brother (17 and 18yrs old respectively) and now both can't ever own guns.

I find your anecdote really hard to believe. You can be honest here.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:17:40 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Nope, it did exactly what they wanted. Disarm more people over bullshit.

I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Your "ground" is wrong. The system as it is set up is simply too easy to abuse. So you can go whine and cry all YOU want. It doesn't change the fact that judges hand out EPO's like they are despensing PEZ. I have personally witnessed dozens of hearings where the respondent(almost exclusively men) was not even afforded an opportunity to speak before being stripped of 2A rights, on top of being barred from seeing their children. It happens everyday. If someone is convicted, fine, bar them. The EPO thing is bullshit, and any fair minded person can see that.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:23:23 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
THEY ALL SUCK. WHY IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

This

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:39:37 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.
eta these laws were past in 1996

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:43:31 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:43:53 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Nope, it did exactly what they wanted. Disarm more people over bullshit.

I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Your "ground" is wrong. The system as it is set up is simply too easy to abuse. So you can go whine and cry all YOU want. It doesn't change the fact that judges hand out EPO's like they are despensing PEZ. I have personally witnessed dozens of hearings where the respondent(almost exclusively men) was not even afforded an opportunity to speak before being stripped of 2A rights, on top of being barred from seeing their children. It happens everyday. If someone is convicted, fine, bar them. The EPO thing is bullshit, and any fair minded person can see that.

That's all true and I don't disagree with alot of what you say but what's your solution? Divorce is a messy business. Tempers flair. But it is a temporary solution to a permanent issue. That's what you said happened to you anyway. And most likely occurs in 90% of epo cases.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:46:14 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Most of ARFcom would choose him over Ron Paul.

No, but every day over McRomney.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:46:29 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:48:36 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.
In the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

I agree with that one. AKA Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and you have to be convicted.

The problem is what constitutes "domestic violence". In some cases you can be convicted of DV for raising your voice. I read of one guy convicted for throwing a cheeseburger at someone, another guy was convicted for punching the couch. These were misdemeanors but the people involved lost their right to own firearms for life. If the DV attack is serious enough to be a felony and ends in conviction then the perp has lost his right to legally own a firearm without this amendment. Do you really support people losing their 2A rights for a misdemeanor?

Seriously, if you throw a cheeseburger at your next door neighbor and it hits him it might be misdemeanor assault and you'd probably get the equivalent of a traffic ticket but if you throw a cheeseburger at your girlfriend you can never legally own a firearm again? How does that make sense?

Seems to me this was another one of those bills that they had to pass to see what was in it.

Nope, it did exactly what they wanted. Disarm more people over bullshit.

I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Your "ground" is wrong. The system as it is set up is simply too easy to abuse. So you can go whine and cry all YOU want. It doesn't change the fact that judges hand out EPO's like they are despensing PEZ. I have personally witnessed dozens of hearings where the respondent(almost exclusively men) was not even afforded an opportunity to speak before being stripped of 2A rights, on top of being barred from seeing their children. It happens everyday. If someone is convicted, fine, bar them. The EPO thing is bullshit, and any fair minded person can see that.

That's all true and I don't disagree with alot of what you say but what's your solution? Divorce is a messy business. Tempers flair. But it is a temporary solution to a permanent issue. That's what you said happened to you anyway. And most likely occurs in 90% of epo cases.

My temporary EPO lasted nearly 3 years and many thousands of dollars in attorney fees. My solution? Simple. You can NOT strip someone of rights over an accusation. Conviction or nothing.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:50:24 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

They can. It's called a protective order and they can be made permenent. No trial.

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:55:33 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Most of ARFcom would choose him over Ron Paul.

no way

Posted: 1/3/2012 10:59:08 AM EDT

[#35]

So we have Romney as no friend of the 2nd, and Santorum no friend of the second, who is left? Are there really any true conservatives running, or just statists from the other end of the spectrum?

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:01:11 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

They can. It's called a protective order and they can be made permenent. No trial.

2-5 years and can be permanent if you have a shitty lawyer and for it to be permanent everyone still goes to court and someone still testifies in front of a judge under oath.

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:07:18 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

They can. It's called a protective order and they can be made permenent. No trial.

2-5 years and can be permanent if you have a shitty lawyer and for it to be permanent everyone still goes to court and someone still testifies in front of a judge under oath.

Really? I see it happen all the time. The judges fucking rubber stamp them nearly everytime. I'd much rather put it in front of a jury rather than a judge who has to be re-elected. But wait, you can't take it to a jury because you haven't been charged with a crime. Sounds fair, right?

e
ETA: Under oath? Please tell me you're joking. It's he said/she said. How would they ever prove perjury?

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:10:31 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

They can. It's called a protective order and they can be made permenent. No trial.

2-5 years and can be permanent if you have a shitty lawyer and for it to be permanent everyone still goes to court and someone still testifies in front of a judge under oath.

Really? I see it happen all the time. The judges fucking rubber stamp them nearly everytime. I'd much rather put it in front of a jury rather than a judge who has to be re-elected. But wait, you can't take it to a jury because you haven't been charged with a crime. Sounds fair, right?

If you see it all the time, than you know the Judge hears 2 sides of the story.

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:14:21 AM EDT

[#39]

So what? She says something, he denies, order gets issued. SHE HAS ZERO REQUIREMENT TO PROVE ANYTHING.

How in the blue fuck can you call that fair or just?

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:16:58 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Most of ARFcom would choose him over Ron Paul.

I would.

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:17:35 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I personally have experience with 2 different abusers. 1 is my POS alcoholic brother in law and the other is my other sisters X (dead in murder suicide with his new girlfriend) so you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair the laws are but TS, I will stand my ground.

Apply logic, not emotion. You're talking like a gun grabber. Doesn't look like the law stopped that guy from doing a murder suicide btw.

The only reason I mentioned the Murder suicide is because the police didn't pursue it the first go around, in 1992. My sister won't talk about it either. I am no gun grabber but if you bring the man into your life and expect any less you are off your meds. And Rape is not a misdemeanor crime, you could apply the same reasoning to petty theft or armed robbery.
So back to the subject at hand, you have to be convicted of DV to lose your gun rights.
So logic says if spouse or Live in is an abuser, no guns allowed. Seems pretty simple.
And if abuser is convicted in a court of law (trial with jury of peers), no Guns.. Seems pretty logical to me.
Laws in your state may very.

As has been pointed out, REPEATEDLY, in this thread: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. All that is needed is a bullshit story and a PC judge. Bye-bye gun rights.

So you are saying a Judge can just take away your gun rights forever? Without a trial? Hmm

They can. It's called a protective order and they can be made permenent. No trial.

2-5 years and can be permanent if you have a shitty lawyer and for it to be permanent everyone still goes to court and someone still testifies in front of a judge under oath.

Stripping away such fundamental rights should not be done without a jury.

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:18:20 AM EDT

[#42]

It's moot anyway. All of this ignores the fact that someone who is truly dangerous will not be stopped by a piece of paper.

Posted: 1/3/2012 11:21:32 AM EDT

[#43]