Gun ownership restricted for domestic offenders

[kronus]

thanks for the completely factual and accurate biography. I didn't realize you were keeping notes, would you like a more complete record so that you have a better idea of the kinds of people I interact with day to day?

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone thought you were implicating all women in this behavior, but that's a complete strawman and not worth arguing.

In your opinion, does this not-violent-enough-domestic-violence scenario happen frequently enough that it offsets the actual intended point of the ruling? Why not just come out and say that you don't give a shit about the actual point, and just want the government off your lawn, out of your gun closet, out of your personal life and back to prosecuting gays and invading middle eastern countries because they pose a threat to american corporate interests?

[einhander]

So Buddy, you mean like a plea deal where you plead GUILTY even though it's formality because both lawyers and the judge know it's BS, and it was 15 years ago, and you end up with a misdemeanor slap on the wrist and 1 year of probation for throwing a coffee cup at a wall in a heated argument with the spouse over the electric bill?

I never understood why people throw things against walls in their own home. Take pride in that shit. You can have a heated argument and not degenerate into a baboon.

[Farbin Kaiber]

sleeve, kronus actually works for Kelp, it's lesser known, Vegan-centric portal, and he actually lives in a commune that is a majority of fiftysomethings, and there is actually crack rocks slung across the alleyway from his Fair Trade hammock tent in their trendy warehouse/artists loft, which they share with the Mythbusters.

Why not just come out and say that you don't give a shit about the actual point, and just want the government off your lawn, out of your gun closet, out of your personal life and back to prosecuting gays and invading middle eastern countries because they pose a threat to american corporate interests?

I'm thinking you look just as judgemental and assumptive as he did, but I'm thinking from your hoity toity magnificent loft in liberal-land, you were actually being funny. ;)

[kronus]

Jamie fucking snores like a walrus, I hate that guy.

[M-technik-3]

Lautenberg Admendment has been in place since 98 if I remember correctly.

[einhander]

Lautenberg Admendment has been in place since 98 if I remember correctly.

SCOTUS upholding the law. Article isn't terribly clear.

[kronus]

I'm thinking you look just as judgemental and assumptive as he did, but I'm thinking from your hoity toity magnificent loft in liberal-land, you were actually being funny. ;)

yup, that was the general idea!

[cale]

This progress you speak of only holds true if you have the convoluted perception that someone involved in a domestic is in fact a lunatic, which most certainly is not guaranteed. The term domestic violence is far too encompassing to be used to strip someone of a right or declare them a potential murderer.

[mrsleeve]

This progress you speak of only holds true if you have the convoluted perception that someone involved in a domestic is in fact a lunatic, which most certainly is not guaranteed. The term domestic violence is far too encompassing to be used to strip someone of a right or declare them a potential murderer.

did we just sorta agree on something???

thanks for the completely factual and accurate biography. I didn't realize you were keeping notes, would you like a more complete record so that you have a better idea of the kinds of people I interact with day to day?

Hey I try, I remember the damnedest pointless shit sometimes, Nahhh I don't think a litany of your personal interactions is necessary to continue on. ;)

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone thought you were implicating all women in this behavior, but that's a complete strawman and not worth arguing.

sorry if my sarcasm meter is a little out calibration, I will send that out and have it checked.

In your opinion, does this not-violent-enough-domestic-violence scenario happen frequently enough that it offsets the actual intended point of the ruling? Why not just come out and say that you don't give a shit about the actual point, and just want the government off your lawn, out of your gun closet, out of your personal life and back to prosecuting gays and invading middle eastern countries because they pose a threat to american corporate interests?

I think I covered that in my 1st post with the caveat to all this parts in bold for added emphasis

I dont like the misdemeanor provision of the law, I think its a necessary law for true wife/husband beaters but in a lot of ways it puts even more incentive out there to "massage" or embellish a story to gain a legal advantage. Since many Domestic cases are he said she said kind of deals, that in many cases the out come favors the woman I think there needs to be some more definitive proof or running history involved when the forfeiture of a RIGHT is on the table thats all I am trying to say really.

[einhander]

This progress you speak of only holds true if you have the convoluted perception that someone involved in a domestic is in fact a lunatic, which most certainly is not guaranteed. The term domestic violence is far too encompassing to be used to strip someone of a right or declare them a potential murderer.

Abusing a family member - physically, violently, emotionally, whatever - is lunacy to me.

Keep guns away from lunatics!

[cale]

No chance the judicial system has ever failed or people have taken guilty pleas for a slap on the wrist huh? You're ignorant if you think everyone with a domestic violence charge to their name is first and foremost a violent individual, or even guilty to begin with.

Way to rationalize through emotion and not via logic.

[mrsleeve]

kinda thought thats what I said in a much more round about long winded sort of way

[einhander]

Way to rationalize through emotion and not via logic.

OMG, I could be in the NRA arguing for more guns for more people!

How about this:

The majority of women who are victims of murder were done in by their husbands/significant other. Most of those were victims of abuse at some point prior in the relationship. It stands to reason, that with adequate enforcement, some of those victims may not experience such a disappointing fate if limits can be on the ability of potential offenders to acquire guns.

Meanwhile, would like to see if this law applies to women in a child-abuse context, as most children who are killed by their parents are done by their mothers.

Also, the law was upheld unanimously. That means fucking Clarence Thomas voted for it. Really unsure where you guys think there is an issue with upholding the law.

[LSM3]

So Brandon, you mean like when you constantly come up with far-fetched hypotheticals as an attempt to prove an ill-conceived point?

Lol.....Nailed it.

1st--I know from experience that vast majority of domestic violence ARRESTS (not accusations) are legit with corresponding physical evidence not some B.S. phone call scenario.

2nd--If an innocent person CHOOSES to plea to a charge they are innocent of they are an idiot.

With that said. If a person wants to kill their spouse with a gun a law will not stop them, but that does not mean there should be no laws....Its a complicated subject.

[ParsedOut]

Ok, so more laws that we can't enforce nor would they make a damn bit of difference. If a "lunatic" husband wants to kill his wife, there are much quieter and cheaper methods of doing such. What would stop him from sliding a kitchen knife between her ribs while she sleeps, or bashing her head in with a baseball bat in the hallway, or kicking her teeth in with steel toed boots. I know, I'm being really graphic here but there are many many many ways to kill a person, especially one of lesser physical stature (generally).

This law is nothing but a step towards broadening the definitions of "mentally unfit" and therefore lessening the pool of potential gun owners. All of which are a well documented strategy in place by liberals that don't like an armed society.