What's this I'm hearing about moms demand action flooding the G.A.?

TFred said:

ETA: Just to connect the dots, you can accomplish the same ends by screaming at a starving person, "EAT SOME FOOD, you moron!"

TFred

Click to expand...

Well, if there is a door and after the door is a large banquet, this would be excellent advice! Otherwise..GROW SOME FOOD or FIND SOME FOOD would be more in order. If not able to do any of these, of course the person likely would die ~ I imagine it happens everyday on this marble.

But TFred, you have not answered the question ... do you support taking a person's RBKA?

1245A Defender said:

Removing the RTBA from an abusive spouse,,,,
Will NOT protect the Abused person!!!
There are axes, knives, bats, fists,,, ETC!!!!!

Abused spouses can ONLY be PROTECTED,,, by,,, leaving,,, taking responsibility for their safety...
BY GETTING AWAY!!!!!

Click to expand...

The sooner they realize this the better. This has always been my advice. Take it or leave it. Of course the abuser should be arrested if a crime is committed.

Can we go back to the woymn who were having their multiple hissy fits at the GA?

Their point was that people who are violent should not be allowed to posses firearms because if they were not allowed to posses firearms they would not be violent in the first place. In other words, they wanted to lock the barn door before the horse was put in to make sure that the horse never had a chance to get out of the barn.

No. Really. That was what they were saying.

On top of that, they wanted to create a laundry list of misdemeanors that would qualify someone to lose a constitutional right. The Lautenberg Amendment http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec922.pdf at least had the decency to provide an explanation of why Congress saw fit to withdraw a Constiututional right from someone convicted of a misdemeanor.

It seems now that gun control proponents no longer feel it necessary to explain why they are twisting the law in order to strip someone of their rights. And that is the scariest part. Not only can you be charged for eating a ham sandwich, there are people who want to lock you up in case you might think about eating a ham sandwich.

stay safe.

The group moms demand action for gun sense in America flood the general assembly building holding what's called a stroller jam….

...With their kids in tow, these women lobby for legislation protecting domestic violence victims like Lisette Johnson, a Midlothian mother herself, who was shot several times by her husband in 2009, before he took his own life.

Click to expand...

lol! I believe we have the new poster child for "appeal to emotion". It's really quite funny how far these ladies are from even beginning to fathom the notion of an actual argument. :lol:

After all, being that they can't even vote, what do kids have to do with anything? Oh yeah: emotional effect.

marshaul said:

lol! I believe we have the new poster child for "appeal to emotion". It's really quite funny how far these ladies are from even beginning to fathom the notion of an actual argument. :lol:

After all, being that they can't even vote, what do kids have to do with anything? Oh yeah: emotional effect.

Click to expand...

But it's for the chillllldrennnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

If they could have passed a law that would have prevented her husband from possesing a handgun before he actually did anything then her kids would not have continuing psychiatric problems.

Yes, I know she claims he was "verbally abusive" - but some of the examples she has let slip would not amount to the most liberal judge in the land agreeing that it actually rose to the minimum standard of "abusive". More of the "I have a right to not feel bad" stuff.

The primary outcome of what they were lobbying for was the creation of a bunch of misdemeanors being elevated to the level of "misdemeanor domestic violence" - a criome that does not exist in the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. The end outcome they were lobbying for was to take away a civil right they felt was icky.

stay safe.

davidmcbeth said:

I disagree ... word has to get out to these people who are victims ... "don't stay with the abuser".

Instead, people think that the gov't should actually do something about these situations. The gov't can do little in reality.

People have to take personal responsibility for their own personal safety.

This is not the 1950's.

Click to expand...

Psst. In the 1950's, people were far more responsible and willing to take responsibility for their actions, and far less of a mind to expect government to by their crutch.

Bloviating reporter math fail

2012 UCR "Murders and non Negligent Homicides" 14827
UCR data male vs female rates of murder 3.6 times more likely male.
Quote "8000 Women are killed each year by guns", a more scatological a pronouncement than escapes our president.

Let's do the math:
8000 women
+28800 men (8000x3.6)
=36800 murders a year
Oh, wait these figures don't work. How about that?

Then of course she blathers further about the "seven times more likely" which has been debunked more places than I can count. Someone got a manure spreader I can borrow? She just dumped a load on us.

SouthernBoy said:

Psst. In the 1950's, people were far more responsible and willing to take responsibility for their actions, and far less of a mind to expect government to by their crutch.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

The Wolfhound said:

2012 UCR "Murders and non Negligent Homicides" 14827
UCR data male vs female rates of murder 3.6 times more likely male.
Quote "8000 Women are killed each year by guns", a more scatological a pronouncement than escapes our president.

Let's do the math:
8000 women
+28800 men (8000x3.6)
=36800 murders a year
Oh, wait these figures don't work. How about that?

Then of course she blathers further about the "seven times more likely" which has been debunked more places than I can count. Someone got a manure spreader I can borrow? She just dumped a load on us.

Click to expand...

Let's turn it around, Wolf.

14,827 = men + women
14,827 = 3.6 x women + women (If I read your comment correctly, 3.6 times as many men are murdered as women.)
women = 14,827 / (3.6 + 1) = 3,223 murders
men = 14,827 - 3,223 = 11,604 murders

Yeah, the numbers don't work.