Posted on 07/01/2016 6:03:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
“...but we are talking mostly Muslims and I’d rather go with safe then (sic) sorry.”
Uh huh. But THEY are talking mostly FReepers, Christians, Constitutionalists (2A defenders!) and Patriots. To THEM, WE are all a bunch of little Timmy Mc Veighs.
The answer to the Muslim problem is restrictions on immigration. Obama upped the quota percentages. We can reverse that.
Wake up, FRiend.
That was smart of him.
Why stop with terror lists and misdemeanor DV? What about if you get into a scuffle in a bar and get charged with assault? Or DUI? Or what if you get charged with child endangerment because you get a ticket for not having a child in an approved carseat? I could go on...
Why stop with terror lists and misdemeanor DV? What about if you get into a scuffle in a bar and get charged with assault? Or DUI? Or what if you get charged with child endangerment because you get a ticket for not having a child in an approved carseat? I could go on...
Nah. No “legs cut off the NRA.”
It’s simply saying that convicted spousal abusers can’t own firearms. Seems reasonable.
What *doesn’t* seem reasonable is prohibiting those on the TSA watch list from owning firearms.
You do understand that at the end of the day, somebody up in the federal food chain will decide who is on that list, don't you? Have you not already read that gun owning conservative Christians have been labeled "terroristic?"
If govt cared about potential terror attacks they'd be vetting raghead "refugees." Govt isn't vetting raghead refugees, therefore, doesn't really care about potential terror attacks.
Govt is, however, desperate for future tools to muzzle conservatives. Your brand of naivete' is what gets us into trouble in the first place.
Women’s rights? Faux lefty argument.
Think of it this way: Hillary now gets to b!tchslap Bill and hurl ashtrays at his cranium all the live long day, but if Bill picks up the ashtray and chucks it back at her, he gets listed. No glock for you, Bubba!
Malarkey. Women’s rights means more women should arm and train to defend themselves against abusers.
“Great, now we need a ruling on hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives, automobiles, plumbing pipes, 2x4’s, ropes, rocks, screw drivers, box cutters, etc. etc. etc.???”
There you go, engaging in that “white privilege” racist logic.”
You do realize that this position is a proponent of if not outright slavery then certainly 2nd-class citizenry.
We talk about a debt to society
, but what is a debt that can never be repaid? Surely you've seen some TV show where the acquaintance/friend/coworker/sibling does something that hurts someone and tries to make it up only for that person to refuse to forgive them holding the debt over them. It is like that but without the "happy ending" of eventually obtaining their forgiveness, precisely because the government-as-an-entity doesn't care about you. (And, arguably, about justice; as recent history shows.)
Most of the arguments here center around people being falsely accused or convicted of these crimes, or possibly being convicted for something extremely minor. These are all real concerns but it speaks to a different issue which needs to be addressed regardless of the gun ban.
If someone is falsely convicted of domestic violence, not being able to buy a gun is probably the least of their troubles. It may impact their ability to get/keep a job, may impact their relationships with friends/family/neighbors, etc., as well as many other things. So I say deal with the real problem which is frivolous or vindictive complaints about domestic violence, but make sure those convicted of real crimes do in fact lose their rights.
The underlying issue there is Justice — it simply is not just to convict the innocent.
But it is likewise unjust to have a justice system wherein nothing can be balanced, debts paid off: the Crucifixion of Jesus, the most unjust event in human history, is how a Just God reconciles the debt of sin and provides the propitiation Himself and allowing Him to show His mercy towards mankind.
Eff, the due process.
May your chains rest lightly.
All that aside, it ignores the fact that the underlying 'law' is contrary to the Constitution.
You see, the Constitution strictly forbids Ex Post Facto law, both at the federal and State level — even by the limited form that the USSC declared wherein only criminal law is so constrained it fails. This is because it added on the prohibition of firearm ownership to people who had already served their sentence or who had been given there sentence and were in the process of paying it off.
Now you might make the argument that it all happened so long ago and all those people are dead (or close to it) and/or a very tiny minority, but that doesn't make the 'law' legitimate.
Hmmm. Honor killings will become domestic abuse or culturally acceptable as ‘just part of the Islamic culture.’
Marriage rate is dropping in the US, wonder what this ruling will do to it? Appears to me a man would have to be fool to get married. Old saying If it flys, floats, or f——, rent it.
Look for more gun sales to take place from the open trunk of a car.
HEY, HOLD ON THERE!
You have got the wrong poster, dude.
I am fully aware of what kind of state keeps secret "lists", and their function - Nazis kept them, Soviets kept them, Obozo's banana republic keeps them.
I am many things, but naïve is not one of them.
He's the naive one. Anybody who thinks the govt is going to pass a far reaching gun law that is potentially unlimited in scope, and won't use that law to attack legitimate gun owners, is naive. Napscoordinator thinks it will only be used against terrorists.
According to DC, we're the terrorists, and this law will bite us in the end.
So now the woman’s last words will be “You aren’t allowed to have that”.
bkmk
In Florida, if a 911 call is made for domestic violence, someone gets charged and goes to jail, period. It’s their way of diffusing the situation. If they left without charging/arresting someone and the fight continued with someone getting seriously hurt or killed, leo could be held responsible. CYA. I have a sister that has a real bad temper, possibly bipolar. She used to throw things at her husband. Dishes mostly. Tried to come at my EX bro in law with things to hit him. As far as I know, the only thing he ever did was grab her wrists to hold her back. My sister is tiny. IF she had ever gotten a scratch and called 911. He would have a DV charge against him from defending himself from her. Small female+photo of bruises/cuts=male gets charged and convicted and gets jail/probation/anger management classes, period. That’s just the way it is in FL and probably many other states.
Your a Muslim lover. I don’t have time for your type.
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.