Posted on 02/08/2014 1:05:18 PM PST by aimhigh
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- A gun in the hands of a domestic violence victim: protection or a dangerous weapon? The issue is gaining steam with Kentucky lawmakers. The goal is for victims to be able to protect themselves if their attackers come back. . . . .
The bill cleared the Senate judiciary committee on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at wdrb.com ...
Well isn’t that nice. The government giving people the opportunity to protect and defend themselves.
The fact that the state government is in the way, not letting people defend themselves against attackers, but is merely considering “allowing” people to defend themselves, is an abomination.
Everyone who isn’t in prison or jail should be able to carry as they wish.
I like this kind of publicity.
This is the kind of thing that penetrates people’s thinking.
Glad they finally realize nonviolent conflict resolution techniques don’t work well with obsessive homicidal psychopaths! /s;)
Yes, as is the fact that this will, as usual, tend to exclude males from the same right to protect themselves, because of the grounds on which it’s based.
I dont know this Bill guy but as I consider government spying a violence against the right to privacy and illegal search all Americans should carry concealed or open.
If they were carrying in the first place, they probably wouldn’t be victims.
Not really. Male domestic victims will speak up and demand equal protection, and other men will support them, and...
Oh, who am I kidding?
So they point of this is they get the permit immediately?
Fine, as long as they are not closet lesbians with PMS.
I hope they do this because I know it works.
Back in the 1970s there was one judge who was sick to death of the same beaten women appearing before him time and again, with ex-boyfriends and husbands and ex-husbands who totally ignored protection orders.
So he had a brainstorm to use bench orders that when in public, these women were required to be armed with a loaded gun, and a copy of the order in case they were questioned by the police.
He soon modified his idea so that if a woman could not afford a gun and ammo, the judge would buy her both out of his own pocket.
Shortly thereafter, the number of women appearing before him more than once dropped to zero. Nobody got shot, either.
When the police department found out about it, they likewise being sick to death of domestic abuse, they even took up a collection to defray the cost to the judge of buying guns and ammo.
This worked very well for several years, until the judge retired, and his successor discontinued the program on the grounds that a gun could not possibly improve a domestic violence situation.
My only suggestion to the great state of Kentucky would be for them to sponsor a fund to buy poor women the guns and ammunition they need. I am sure that there are many people out there willing to donate to such a worthy cause.
>
In Virginia, right after the Brady waiting period went into effect, a female victim of spousal abuse tried to buy a handgun as her ex said he was going to kill her. The dealer said he couldn’t sell her a gun as there was now a three-day “cooling off” period.
Two days into the waiting period, her ex (military) stormed in through the patio doors that night and stabbed her to death with a bayonet.
Whenever anyone uses that “But if it saves only ONE life, wouldn’t you be for it (gun control ver 8.0)?” I reply, “Suppose it only cost ONE life?” Deer-in-headlights reaction. Then I tell them the above story.
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.