Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Domestic Violence and Guns?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1290775" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>Exactly, thank you - the man always gets the shaft in a tie; and sometimes not even a tie; when it's clear the woman was the aggressor. </p><p></p><p>We're gonna base our fundamental rights retention decisions on people who are known to regularly lie (both men and women mind you) in domestic situations, to get out of being charged? We are doing this now, because you don't even need to be CONVICTED of a misdemeanor, let alone convicted of a felony, to lose your RKBA for 3 years - all that it takes is a bare allegation, which gets the woman an ex parte emergency TRO, and zing, you're disarmed. What's wrong with this picture? Sorry, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves..... And I would never touch a woman in anger, myself - except in self-defense of course. And even if you get your rights restored, you're gonna be NICS-delayed for the rest of your life every time you get a gun, just because of an unfounded allegation - even if no full hearing on the TRO ever occurs because the woman drops it after the ex parte order. This stuff is maddening to me. It can happen on both sides, but men get screwed a lot, LOT more.</p><p></p><p>One of the reasons it's maddening is because it's anti-marriage / anti-family when you think about it. If all it takes is a bare allegation, and no proof, who in their right mind (such as myself) would ever get married, even if they want to? Or I suppose the counter-argument is that it's pro-marriage, because it forces the guy and gal to date years before the gun-owner of the couple will be willing to marry, after getting to know the other party thoroughly - which is a good thing, because this intimate knowledge will work in favor of a long healthy marriage - so I guess it does have an upside, arguably, depending on how you look at it.</p><p></p><p> And does anyone really think that the a-hole wife beaters that are pre-disposed to killing the woman are gonna be deterred by a TRO/DV conviction disarmament? Or just get even more PO'ed, get a gun and do what they were gonna do? The answer is not to disarm the misdemeanor one-time offender, but for women to arm themselves and shoot *******s that beat them.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njs</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1290775, member: 7123"] Exactly, thank you - the man always gets the shaft in a tie; and sometimes not even a tie; when it's clear the woman was the aggressor. We're gonna base our fundamental rights retention decisions on people who are known to regularly lie (both men and women mind you) in domestic situations, to get out of being charged? We are doing this now, because you don't even need to be CONVICTED of a misdemeanor, let alone convicted of a felony, to lose your RKBA for 3 years - all that it takes is a bare allegation, which gets the woman an ex parte emergency TRO, and zing, you're disarmed. What's wrong with this picture? Sorry, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves..... And I would never touch a woman in anger, myself - except in self-defense of course. And even if you get your rights restored, you're gonna be NICS-delayed for the rest of your life every time you get a gun, just because of an unfounded allegation - even if no full hearing on the TRO ever occurs because the woman drops it after the ex parte order. This stuff is maddening to me. It can happen on both sides, but men get screwed a lot, LOT more. One of the reasons it's maddening is because it's anti-marriage / anti-family when you think about it. If all it takes is a bare allegation, and no proof, who in their right mind (such as myself) would ever get married, even if they want to? Or I suppose the counter-argument is that it's pro-marriage, because it forces the guy and gal to date years before the gun-owner of the couple will be willing to marry, after getting to know the other party thoroughly - which is a good thing, because this intimate knowledge will work in favor of a long healthy marriage - so I guess it does have an upside, arguably, depending on how you look at it. And does anyone really think that the a-hole wife beaters that are pre-disposed to killing the woman are gonna be deterred by a TRO/DV conviction disarmament? Or just get even more PO'ed, get a gun and do what they were gonna do? The answer is not to disarm the misdemeanor one-time offender, but for women to arm themselves and shoot *******s that beat them. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njs[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Domestic Violence and Guns?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
