Posted on 07/01/2016 6:03:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
“.... and I’d rather go with safe then sorry”
Spoken like a good little lefty. Go away, you’re on the wrong website.
Perfect analogy to the case. The Left is the abuser, threatening violence upon the peaceful Right by spinning defense as facilitating evil. Trying to protect self by following rules, the system is used to tear down to utter destruction. At some point the harm becomes existential, and Domination vs Liberty becomes a hot war.
If I’m not mistaken, you’ve always been somewhat of a weak sister in the 2A fight. But either way, you are adopting the language of our enemy, and thus ceding the fight.
Example: We do not fight for “terrorist rights”. We fight for “due process and equitable treatment”.
Really? So how is that going to stop someone who already has firearms? Move to Chicago where illegal firearms are okay?
How many anti-gun women will go out with a man with the specific goal of getting a DV conviction? Its for a good cause!! Eliminate guns!! “73 of my former boyfriends can’t own guns! Yee haa!”
Please note the Court was just enforcing an act of congress. Congress passed the law.
If wife beaters wants to get a gun, they’ll get a gun. No amount of laws will stop them. This has been proven time and time again.
Cue up the Chris Rock video on interacting with the police.
I’ve been on and off FR since the 90’s. I love this site and what it stands for, but occasionally it seems like a majority of folks here (or at least the ones who post frequently) really do sound like nuts.
I think reasonable people can agree or disagree with this ruling, even those who are very pro-2nd Amendment, but when you guys start berating people who disagree with you on a legitimate issue, you remind me of those on the other side.
Let people argue their opinions and don’t try to shut them up. Personally I think this ruling is quite reasonable.
It is now federal law that any person who has thought of, heard of, listened to, wrote about, or referred to the song “Hey Joe” performed by Jimi Hendrix cannot possess any firearms.
But this is going too far....*way* too far.
True, but the blame should go to their fathers, or lack thereof.
NO, it's not about lists, it's about due process. The people on both sides of this issue who are making it about "lists" are playing right in to the hands of the anti-gunners. No one would argue that terrorists should not have access to guns. Constitutionally, we don't do that by taking away due process rights, though. Like wise, no one would argue that someone who has committed a felony of any sort should be allowed to have access to firearms. Constitutionally, and morally, though once that person has paid their debt under the law, their rights should be reinstated. There's the problem with the SC ruling, as I read it. Someone who has been convicted of domestic abuse is never allowed to pay that debt off under the law. They are always labeled a domestic abuser in perpetuity.
Part of the "problem" of having a free society is that sometimes bad people get to do bad things and we can't do anything about it until after the fact. The solution isn't taking away due process from everyone, which is EXACTLY what the current trend is.
“How many anti-gun women will go out with a man with the specific goal of getting a DV conviction? Its for a good cause!!”
_____________________________________________________
Exactly right, and the point of the ruling, im my opinion.
And how about extortion? “If you don’t pay me X amount of dollars now, I’ll claim domestic violence”...
I don't think there is even one Freeper who would disagree with you.
HOWEVER, "should" is different that "cannot legally posses".
The far more dangerous course is the one making possession illegal.
Millions will die as a result of such laws.
No, not millions, tens, maybe hundreds of millions.
I bet the firearms sales in Walmart parking lots will diminish because of this.
ping.
The problem is not “fighting for terrorists rights for weapons and domestic violence people to have weapons.” The problem is that in both cases, the *definition* of who is a “terrorist” and who commits “domestic violence” are so nebulous, ill defined, and often corrupt that they are easy to abuse.
Innumerable government agencies can put you on a “terrorist” list, or a “no fly” list or a “domestic abuser” list and any other of their lists, with incorrect and incomplete information. And these lists contain no information about where the data came from. There is no central authority that confirms or edits the list, and it takes a federal judge to order someone’s name removed once it is on it.
In other words, this scheme is a poorly designed farce, managed incompetently, and yet can strip a person of a major civil right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.