Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/27/2002 6:20:03 AM EDT
This is excerpted from my Libertarians of Greater Cincinnati email newsletter. [i]HR 31 The Citizens Self-Defense Act is in Congress. It’s being pushed by GOA, Gun Owners of America. www.Thomas.gov finds its text. In the FINDINGS heading, Congress FINDS that the police cannot protect, and cannot be liable for failing to protect, individual citizens. . . Courts have decided that police assume a duty only to protect the public at large, not individual members of the community. (Exactly what does that mean?) It must mean something, because that’s what courts have decided. Also, every year more than 2,400,000 people in the US use guns to defend themselves against criminals—more than 6500 a day. More than 192,000 of these are women defending themselves against sexual abuse. And, law-abiding citizens are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a gun in self-defense. So, HR31 would allow a citizen to possess and use a firearm to defend his life and property. HR 1455, the States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment restoration act, would repeal the Lautenberg gun ban. This would end gun bans for domestic violence, which has no connection to interstate commerce, hence is no business of Congress. HR 950 would extend the right to carry a concealed weapon from a person’s home state to any state in the nation. Gun Owners of America is pushing for these changes. I don’t own a gun, but I (and Ron Paul) support them. We used to have a Constitution, with its Second Amendment. Now nobody reads the constitution, so we need special legislation to restore the rights it contains—wrong. Not to restore any rights—to restrict government to the limitations therein.[/i]
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:25:09 AM EDT
Would be nice! Just don't see it happening.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:33:16 AM EDT
Note that I am a Canadian commenting on US domestic issues so do not be alarmed.....start calling me a LIEberal etc.. However.... To me it seems more than a little silly to allow people convicted of domestic violence to obtain firarms. Perhaps its a function of your various state laws versus federal law but I still cannot advocate such an idea.....
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:36:54 AM EDT
And I would not advocate any Canadian owning a firearm.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:39:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Note that I am a Canadian commenting on US domestic issues so do not be alarmed.....start calling me a LIEberal etc.. However.... To me it seems more than a little silly to allow people convicted of domestic violence to obtain firarms. Perhaps its a function of your various state laws versus federal law but I still cannot advocate such an idea.....
View Quote
Let me tell you a story about my cousin. He was married to a really nasty woman. 10 years ago they lived in FL and she came home drumk one night. An argument ensued and escalated when she got physical (to this day she will admit it). The cops came and arrest both of them. When she sobered up, she wanted to drop charges against my cousin, but the prosecuting atty said he was pressing the case on BOTH of them. 10 years later, he is remarried to another woman and has never even had any incident requiring LEO in that time. However, he cannot buy a firearm because of what amounts to the actions of another person and an overly zealous prosecutor. He LOVES to shoot skeet and trap, but cannot own a gun. How is this law appropriate for people like him?
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:45:27 AM EDT
Ahh Haaaa.. Bendover I knew someone would post something along that line... Your story is an indication that the domestic violence laws need to be altered. At present they are leaning FAR FAR to much to the females case. They also tend to be guilty till proven innocent etc. The fact remains that men do beat women and women do beat men and in BOTH cases they should have weapon bans against them.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:51:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Your story is an indication that the domestic violence laws need to be altered. At present they are leaning FAR FAR to much to the females case.
View Quote
While I agree with you in principle, if you pay more attention to his post that the prosecutor charged BOTH of them--no male/female bias there.
The fact remains that men do beat women and women do beat men and in BOTH cases they should have weapon bans against them.
View Quote
See above.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:51:45 AM EDT
Domestic violence is a misdemeanor NOT a felony. If you wish to prevent those CONVICTED of domestic violence from owning a gun, raise the offense to a felony!! Currently the only misdemeanor that removes a persons Constitutional rights! The current laws on domestic violence are insane, written by NOW and their ilk. Cops HAVE to arrest someone or fill out a ton of paper. Even over an ARGUMENT?! This is nuts!! Not that I advocate a man and wife beating on each other, I don't. There are assault laws which adequately address the problem; I see no reason for "domestic violence" to be a separate crime. Lautenburg is just another antigun sneak attack to disarm people. Another nail in the coffin, so to speak. I have no problem with Canadians; those I have met are good people. However, in froming a government they failed to adequately protect themselves from that government run wild and are now paying the price as their freedoms slip away. WE HAVE A GOOD CONSTITUTION! Our problem is forcing the politicians to obey it! Please do not apply your f**ked up policies south of the border, we don't want or need them! An armed society is a polite society!
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 6:53:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Ahh Haaaa.. Bendover I knew someone would post something along that line... Your story is an indication that the domestic violence laws need to be altered. At present they are leaning FAR FAR to much to the females case. They also tend to be guilty till proven innocent etc. The fact remains that men do beat women and women do beat men and in BOTH cases they should have weapon bans against them.
View Quote
He took the case to the judge in FL last winter for expungement but he refused.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 7:01:28 AM EDT
Micky.....did I ever say I wanted Canadian laws to apply down there?? If so please point it out. What I did post and standby is that people guilty of domestic violence should not be armed. Plain and simple. If they cannot control their anger without a firearm it just does not make sense for them to be allowed to be armed. Ben.....again this is evidence that the judicial system in the US needs to be revamped...not as much as the Canadian one needs mind you.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 7:23:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Note that I am a Canadian commenting on US domestic issues so do not be alarmed.....start calling me a LIEberal etc.. However.... To me it seems more than a little silly to allow people convicted of domestic violence to obtain firarms. Perhaps its a function of your various state laws versus federal law but I still cannot advocate such an idea.....
View Quote
Clearly, Canadians are not capable of clarity of thought. Firearms in the hands of such individuals should be prohibited.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:25:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:34:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl:
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Note that I am a Canadian commenting on US domestic issues so do not be alarmed.....start calling me a LIEberal etc.. However.... To me it seems more than a little silly to allow people convicted of domestic violence to obtain firarms. Perhaps its a function of your various state laws versus federal law but I still cannot advocate such an idea.....
View Quote
Clearly, Canadians are not capable of clarity of thought. Firearms in the hands of such individuals should be prohibited.
View Quote
WTF! Damn you are one spun individual. If you are any indication of AMERICAN logic it is a sad sad thing. You actually think that it is a GOOD thing to let wife/husband beaters have firearms?? What about drug dealers? Afterall they need to defend themselves from the cops.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:42:34 AM EDT
It is a bit ironic, that before 1968 there were no Federal laws prohibiting anyone from owning a firearm, but now there are plenty. I wonder if there are any stats to show that we are better off now......[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:49:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Damn you are one spun individual. If you are any indication of AMERICAN logic it is a sad sad thing. You actually think that it is a GOOD thing to let wife/husband beaters have firearms?? What about drug dealers? Afterall they need to defend themselves from the cops.
View Quote
Wait a sec... that is a complete and total generalization. That is the reason I posted the story about my cousin. He is one of the most gentle people on the planet who had the misfortune of getting entangled in a relationship with a total psycho. Then the system failed him because instead of being given a fair shake, they just lumped him in a class of generalization and threw the book at him. Incidently, the prosecutor and judge were BOTH democrat liberals. When you generalize like this, you sound a lot like they do.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:54:02 AM EDT
Exactly Ben.....your cousins example is why I am leery of laws such as this.. I almost feel like saying "if it saves just one life"......then I shake my head back to reality. That said there are MANY cases in which the assault is obvious. Your cousins case should NOT have gone as it did. What is the answer?? Damned if I know but letting wife beaters (convicted and obvious) cannot be a good thing.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:57:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/27/2002 8:58:12 AM EDT by BenDover]
Originally Posted By Stormbringer: Exactly Ben.....your cousins example is why I am leery of laws such as this.. I almost feel like saying "if it saves just one life"......then I shake my head back to reality. That said there are MANY cases in which the assault is obvious. Your cousins case should NOT have gone as it did. What is the answer?? Damned if I know but letting wife beaters (convicted and obvious) cannot be a good thing.
View Quote
What's the diff between a wife beater and any other assault? My attitude is that if you have a restriction on the basis of domestic violence misdemeanors, then to be equitable, you must also have a restriction on ALL misdemeanor violence charges. And that dog will never hunt. Therefore, you cannot pass a law which restricts in such a fashion. Judges must be given the opportunity to evaluate and weigh each case based upon the circumstance. What good is a judge if there's mandatory legislation for everything under the sun? That puts the legislative branch in the judicial business. This is why I am also against mandatory sentences.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 8:59:58 AM EDT
BINGO!! Now there is an idea that I can live with. Of course it would require judges that actually know what the F they are doing....
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 9:02:25 AM EDT
Any asinine argument for gun control, any gun control, is just plain stupid. A wife beater can beat his wife to death with his hands or a bat, or etc.......... These laws are only passed to let them include more people on their "restricted list" period. And those who can not see this are ignorant.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 9:04:22 AM EDT
I know that all of us have said that we will never hit a woman, and most of us meant it. The truth is that sometimes good people make mistakes. Nobody on this board really knows me personally, but those who do think me to be a pretty standup guy. One night after work I am lying on the couch arguing with my girlfriend at the time, and I pushed the wrong button. I don't rememer what I said to her that set her off like it did, but the next thing I know she is airborn and incoming. I tried to calm her while she hit scratched and slapped. After a 20-30 seconds, I stood up with her in my arms and dropped her on her ass. I walked across the room and asked if she was finished yet and after a long silence, she says yes. As she goes towards the bathroom to take the shower she had been going to take, I fall in behind her to get to the kitchen. Just as I came into armsreach, she spun and hit me two more times. I reacted ONCE. I reached up with an open hand and I slapped her. I am not proud of this, and I do not know if in the exact same situation I would do the same again, but it is done. This snapped her back into reality and after a lot of talking/appologizing, we calmed things down and had a good relationship for several more months. My point is this, if she had called the cops I would probably still be in jail, and would never be able to own a firearm again, while odds are she would go to her mothers for a while. All because I responded to being atacked multiple times.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 9:16:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ar10er: Any asinine argument for gun control, any gun control, is just plain stupid. A wife beater can beat his wife to death with his hands or a bat, or etc.......... These laws are only passed to let them include more people on their "restricted list" period. And those who can not see this are ignorant.
View Quote
Okkkkkk???? Thats the answer.... Lets even let the child killers have firearms..that way they can defend themselves from the lynch mob!! You are not ignorant.....scary yes....ignorant nope.
Link Posted: 7/27/2002 9:37:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stormbringer:
Originally Posted By ar10er: Any asinine argument for gun control, any gun control, is just plain stupid. A wife beater can beat his wife to death with his hands or a bat, or etc.......... These laws are only passed to let them include more people on their "restricted list" period. And those who can not see this are ignorant.
View Quote
Okkkkkk???? Thats the answer.... Lets even let the child killers have firearms..that way they can defend themselves from the lynch mob!! You are not ignorant.....scary yes....ignorant nope.
View Quote
And before 1968? The gun is merely a tool. There are many "tools" that can be used in the place of a gun.
Top Top