Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:14 PM Jun 2014

NRA: Stalkers deserve guns, too



The National Rifle Association is challenging proposed legislation that would prohibit stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence from buying guns, arguing that not all stalkers are violent and that the bill violates their Second Amendment rights.

The bill, introduced by Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar, would shore up some loopholes in existing federal law, which already bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against “intimate partners” to include those who harm “dating partners” and adds convicted stalkers to the grouping.

The NRA wrote to senators to voice their opposition to the bill, noting that the group “strongly opposes” the legislation because it “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for firearm prohibitions,” according to the Huffington Post, which obtained the letter.

The NRA also argued that stalkers shouldn’t be prohibited from buying guns.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/nra-stalkers-deserve-guns-too
83 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NRA: Stalkers deserve guns, too (Original Post) onehandle Jun 2014 OP
These people have to be pro-murder shenmue Jun 2014 #1
The NRA is not stupid Electric Monk Jun 2014 #4
Which is Exactly why guns owners should be registered and insured like automobile owners. nt onehandle Jun 2014 #5
To carry in public already requires a license hack89 Jun 2014 #12
Then why does the NRA feel that registering guns is onerous? Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #48
The ACLU also feels registering guns is onerous hack89 Jul 2014 #52
Got a source for your claim about the ACLU? Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #53
ACLU: Toomey-Manchin bill would make national gun registry less likely hack89 Jul 2014 #58
First, thank you for the ACLU stuff Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #61
So you don't consider loss of privacy a harm? hack89 Jul 2014 #63
A permit to buy with government sponsored firearms training for teenagers? hack89 Jul 2014 #64
There Really is No Depth These People Will Not Sink To, Sir, Is There? The Magistrate Jun 2014 #2
Nothing That Has Been Explored By Man or Robot. TheCowsCameHome Jun 2014 #19
The Kola Superdeep Borehole (more than 7 1/2 miles) tclambert Jun 2014 #37
That would be a great place to put all the guns once we confiscate them Michigander_Life Jun 2014 #38
"... arguing that not all stalkers are violent..." etherealtruth Jun 2014 #3
It sounds a lot like the bill sarisataka Jun 2014 #11
That could be etherealtruth Jun 2014 #17
I think the Minnesota bill was about domestic viiolence, not stalking. Jenoch Jul 2014 #47
No, they should NEVER get their guns back Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #49
I believe in rehabilitation. Jenoch Jul 2014 #51
I spent nearly two decades as a volunteer at an agency for victims of domestic violence. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #54
I don't believe that all cases are the same. Jenoch Jul 2014 #57
Enough of them are that there should be a blanket rule Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #60
EVER BEEN STALKED, Jenoch? I have...FOR 21 YEARS!! If you walked in my shoes, I DOUBT Ecumenist Jul 2014 #81
A stalkers goal in the end is violence.It usually ends up that way if they're not stopped. SummerSnow Jul 2014 #80
Allowing stalkers to buy guns is a bad idea. The stalkers would at least be temppted Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #6
The NRA is evil. To belong to the NRA and DU is dichotomy that should not exist. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #7
both sides use Duckhunter935 Jun 2014 #8
The NRA has perfected both to an art form. TheCowsCameHome Jun 2014 #20
and I can say the same Duckhunter935 Jun 2014 #22
Yes, of course, Bloomberg and the parents of Sandy Hook are JUST like the NRA. Barf. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #32
In some respects, yes Duckhunter935 Jun 2014 #34
Yes, they are, but they have so many defenders even on this site, their propaganda works. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #31
No, we just think you gun nuts place your guns above our children's lives. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #50
... BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #23
I don't think "both sides" are attempting to deny the CDC from studying valid health issues... LanternWaste Jun 2014 #41
No, it's just the gun nuts Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2014 #55
glad to see you took some time awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #56
That's real nice Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #67
Whether you take me serious or not... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #74
As you well know Duckhunter935 Jul 2014 #75
You too... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2014 #76
I would take a step further etherealtruth Jun 2014 #9
How do you propose to end this "existence?" Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #44
I will vote to hide any post in support of the NRA etherealtruth Jul 2014 #66
Well, have fun. I have this theory: Things have gone Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #68
In the wake of all you cite ... etherealtruth Jul 2014 #69
Still didn't get what you mean by support. Anyhoo, Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #70
Whatever etherealtruth Jul 2014 #71
I don't "hate" Fox or the NRA and you think I shouldn't be here? A Simple Game Jun 2014 #28
I try not to hate anyone Duckhunter935 Jun 2014 #33
I joined the NRA briefly, thinking as a member I might get some say in the organization's positions. tclambert Jun 2014 #40
See #44. Same question to you. nt Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #45
Can I ask a question? AngryAmish Jun 2014 #10
Generally, yes. aikoaiko Jun 2014 #14
The NRA shouldn't fight this. aikoaiko Jun 2014 #13
+ 1 red dog 1 Jun 2014 #25
These people are sick malaise Jun 2014 #15
The only people that shouldn't have guns Aerows Jun 2014 #16
Cray-Cray is on the range. Baitball Blogger Jun 2014 #18
Can we call them a hate and terrorist organization yet? BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #21
It should be illegal to be this fucking stupd. n/t DeadLetterOffice Jun 2014 #24
^^ This ^^ Marie Marie Jun 2014 #26
Its already illegal for anyone convicted jamzrockz Jun 2014 #42
IMO, the NRA is a terrorist organization! red dog 1 Jun 2014 #27
As the President said, "it happens every week now." Utopian Leftist Jun 2014 #29
The 2nd Amendment.... librarylu Jul 2014 #77
OMG, why do these people get to BREATHE????? nt valerief Jun 2014 #30
Stalking, domestic violence, and belonging to the NRA toddwv Jun 2014 #35
Wonder if old Wayne LaPierre dgibby Jun 2014 #36
The right wing gun lobby billh58 Jun 2014 #39
Never blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #43
the nra is out of it's ever-loving fucking mind. spanone Jul 2014 #46
This is fucking stupid hack89 Jul 2014 #59
"domestic violence is one area where all discretion should be given to the potential victim until it Ecumenist Jul 2014 #82
You are right. Nt hack89 Jul 2014 #83
I've never understood why the NRA doesn't fight for guns in prisons rock Jul 2014 #62
I've read that guns aren't allowed at NRA national HQ. rickford66 Jul 2014 #65
Fuck the NRA! smirkymonkey Jul 2014 #72
And the horse that billh58 Jul 2014 #73
What the hell is wrong with these people? SummerSnow Jul 2014 #78
Majority of domestic violence victims and victims of stalking SummerSnow Jul 2014 #79

hack89

(39,171 posts)
12. To carry in public already requires a license
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:51 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:42 AM - Edit history (2)

It is called a concealed carry permit.

Insurance is dirt cheap. Remember that crime is not covered and accidents are very rare. Insurance companies figured it out a long time ago. There is a reason a swimming pool or a certain type of dog will raise your home owner insurance rates but not owning guns.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
52. The ACLU also feels registering guns is onerous
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:45 AM
Jul 2014

they view it as an unwarranted intrusion into personal privacy.

And to answer your question, the NRA accepts a higher degree of regulation for public carry.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
53. Got a source for your claim about the ACLU?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jul 2014

And the NRA has gone on record as saying that registering guns would only make the job of the "gun grabbers" easier, so it is against gun registration.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
58. ACLU: Toomey-Manchin bill would make national gun registry less likely
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:24 AM
Jul 2014

They changed the post Sandy Hook gun control legislation to address ACLU concerns over registration.

But in an interview with me today, the same ACLU privacy lobbyist tells me those concerns have been resolved in the new compromise proposal put forth by Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin. Not only that, he said the language in the compromise proposal creates stronger prohibitions against any national gun registry than exist under current law.

In the initial interview that conservatives grabbed on to, Calabrese raised several key concerns (at that point, he was responding to the Chuck Schumer placeholder bill, not the Manchin-Toomey compromise, which didn’t exist yet). He worried it would treat records for private purchases very differently than records on those done by licensed sellers. (Under current law the latter category of records on legit gun transfers must be destroyed within 24 hours; Calabrese worried that the Schumer language didn’t make it explicit enough that this must be applied to new record keeping.) Calabrese also worried that such record keeping could ultimately lead to “the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us.” And he said that gun “transfers” were too broadly defined, which could lead the law abiding to unwittingly break the law.

But Calabrese says the new Manchin-Toomey language deals with his objections — and then some. He points out that the bill says at the top: “Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.” And it also says: “Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to…allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.”

“The existing Manchin Toomey language is even stronger than current law in making it clear that none of these records can become part of a national gun registry,” Calabrese told me.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/

One reason they oppose registration is that it will not save lives. It will have no impact on suicides (which are two thirds of gun deaths). It will not stop mass shootings (The Sandy Hook rifle was registered.) It will not deter criminals (not only is there a huge pool of unregistered guns for criminals to choose from, but criminals are not required by law to register illegal guns due to 5th Amendment concerns.)

Registration may be useful to help solve crimes after the fact but even that is debatable. Chicago had a gun registry for 45 years - they also had some of the highest rates of gun violence in America. It is argued that the only purpose of the registration was make gun ownership hard by making it expensive and time consuming to register your guns - which is why Chicago saw an abysmally low rate of compliance.

There seems to be this notion that registration is a golden bullet that will make everything better. The more likely scenario is that there will be massive civil disobedience and people will ignore registration laws - that is what is happening right now in CT and NY.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
61. First, thank you for the ACLU stuff
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:10 PM
Jul 2014

And if registration won't harm anyone, then why not have it. It would mean that tracking down guns used in crimes would be much easier. But gun nuts really don't give a damn about solving crimes. They just want their guns.

Personally, I like the way the Swiss do things. Unless you can prove you need a handgun, you can't have one. And if you have one, it's a longish term in gaol. The Swiss believe that the common weal is more important than gun nuttery.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
63. So you don't consider loss of privacy a harm?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:22 PM
Jul 2014

you must have no problems with the NSA scandal then. Sorry - I stand with the ACLU on this one.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
64. A permit to buy with government sponsored firearms training for teenagers?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:27 PM
Jul 2014

I could go a long with that. It would also let me keep my AR-15s.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
3. "... arguing that not all stalkers are violent..."
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:21 PM
Jun 2014

From the article:

The bill, introduced by Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar, would shore up some loopholes in existing federal law, which already bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against “intimate partners” to include those who harm “dating partners” and adds convicted stalkers to the grouping.


So now "we" need to protect "bad guys" with guns. I have no doubt, "we" (DU members) will have our own supporters of this here.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
11. It sounds a lot like the bill
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jun 2014

Minnesota passed recently at the state level, with NRA backing.

I wonder if it being a national level bill bringing out the extremist opposition

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
47. I think the Minnesota bill was about domestic viiolence, not stalking.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:09 AM
Jul 2014

I don't have a problem with this bill, as long as it does not mean a lifetime ban. Once the person convicted of stalking serves their sentence, then they should get their rights and their guns back.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
49. No, they should NEVER get their guns back
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:39 AM
Jul 2014

Because the person they stalked is probably still out there.

Or do you believe that once a person is convicted of stalking and serves a sentence, he or she will stalk no longer?

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
51. I believe in rehabilitation.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:44 AM
Jul 2014

I also think the rights would need to be restored by a judge who has details of the crime(s).

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
54. I spent nearly two decades as a volunteer at an agency for victims of domestic violence.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:53 AM
Jul 2014

I have known more than one victim of stalking. Based on that experience, I believe that recidivism is more common than rehabilitation for stalkers. Those convicted of stalking should be denied guns in perpetuity.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
60. Enough of them are that there should be a blanket rule
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:04 PM
Jul 2014

That convicted stalkers are denied access to firearms in perpetuity. These people are dangerous.

And is it really that much of a burden on them? Personally, I believe that the safety of others outweighs the desire of gun nuts to make firearms more available to people who have been shown to be dangerous. I know, giving a damn about others means nothing to the true gun nut, who believes that the answer to gun violence is more guns.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
81. EVER BEEN STALKED, Jenoch? I have...FOR 21 YEARS!! If you walked in my shoes, I DOUBT
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 10:17 PM
Jul 2014

you would EVER talk about REHABILITATION for psychopathic stalkers. The ONLY reason my stalker lost track of me is because when I got married, he didn't know my husband's name and we got a confidential marriage licence and I didn't get my mail forwarded. I would either have it brought to me or I would go get it in the DEAD of night, in a rented car,somewhere other than the place I lived. We also got married in another state. To this day, I don't put my face OR name on the net in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FORM. I also KNOW you've NEVER experienced stalking because you have NEVER made that comment about "serving their time and rehabilitation".

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)
6. Allowing stalkers to buy guns is a bad idea. The stalkers would at least be temppted
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:28 PM
Jun 2014

to shoot the stalkees.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
7. The NRA is evil. To belong to the NRA and DU is dichotomy that should not exist.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 04:37 PM
Jun 2014

Arming good guys, bad guys, indifferent guys, and also all gals, it is the goal of the NRA, and their currency is fear, it's propaganda is otherwise just plain stupid gobble goop with a dab of flowery language.

If you do not hate Fox News and the NRA with a burning passion you do not belong on this site.

TheCowsCameHome

(40,163 posts)
20. The NRA has perfected both to an art form.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:41 PM
Jun 2014

They are enemies of mankind. AlQaeda and the Taliban cannot hold a candle to them.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
22. and I can say the same
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 06:15 PM
Jun 2014

for Bloomberg and all of his paid grassroots organizations. Nice to have billions of dollars.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
41. I don't think "both sides" are attempting to deny the CDC from studying valid health issues...
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:55 PM
Jun 2014

I don't think "both sides" are attempting to deny the CDC from studying valid health issues...

However, I do understand then sentiment to make both appear equitable to better rationalize one's support for a trade organization/political action committee, as it sounds much more palatable should we follow your narrative.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
74. Whether you take me serious or not...
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jul 2014

is of no consequence to me. All I do know is that you will always be there to defend the fact that we will do absolutely nothing about the gun problem we have in this country.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
75. As you well know
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:59 PM
Jul 2014

I would like to get things done that actually work to lower gun violence and not just some bullshit feel good legislation that does absolutely nothing except get the other side all enraged so we lose seats.

No, I do not take anyone seriously that posts a masturbation comment to another DU member on this forum. Please grow up and be a little more polite and maybe I will take you seriously in the future.

Like I said before, as I try and be polite and treat others as I would expect to be treated, Have a great day and a happy 4th of July.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
66. I will vote to hide any post in support of the NRA
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 03:01 PM
Jul 2014

The NRA supports republicans (the rare Democratic candidate they support does not disprove this) and is opposed to any and all gun legislation ... supporting and promoting the NRA is the equivalent of supporting and promoting the Citizens United Political Victory Fund.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
68. Well, have fun. I have this theory: Things have gone
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 07:29 PM
Jul 2014

so crappy for us progressives; the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision, the end of anti-abortion demo set-backs, Hillary piping on about her poverty, sagging Democratic poll #s for Obama, congressional candates and governors, etc., that some DUers want to declare an official "enemy among us," and take frustrations out on pro-2A DUers. Why don't you run your idea about "hiding any post in support of the NRA past Skinner. Perhaps you can detail specifically what constitutes "support of the NRA."

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
69. In the wake of all you cite ...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:14 PM
Jul 2014

... you really believe support of an extremely right wing lobbying group is appropriate? Good luck with that. Any support for the NRA helps make all you mentioned possible.

Skinner has ceded power to the juries ... I don't need to run it by him ... I am to vote my conscience and vote in good faith and will; my conscience decidedly believes support of right wing lobbying groups is not acceptable. Perhaps you would care to illicit his opinion of the NRA and their support of Republicans and attempts to defeat Democrats ...?


NRA campaign contributions and support:
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1854&y=0&incs=0&ince=0&incf=0&incy=0&so2=a&p2=1





 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
70. Still didn't get what you mean by support. Anyhoo,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:23 PM
Jul 2014

I think DU will change hands in the not too distant; who wants to do a remodel just before?
Some of the folks at another certain group might share your outlook on speech restrictions as well.

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
71. Whatever
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:37 PM
Jul 2014

I also want to censor posts (will happily vote to hide if called to a jury) supporting stormfront, from anti-choice loons ... if one wants to promote decidedly unprogressive groups and positions why do it at a site designed to be "protected" and for Democrats and progressives

I also believe racists, homophobic, sexist/misogynistic and any other hate speech has no place here and will HAPPILY vote to hide (CENSOR) it.

DU is kinda like a home ... we as residents get to decide what goes on in our home

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
28. I don't "hate" Fox or the NRA and you think I shouldn't be here?
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jun 2014

Here's some news for you, I don't hate anyone or anything. It wastes too much energy. Hate is a word not normally thrown around by Democrats and liberals, are you sure you are on the right site?

I do agree with you that the NRA may be evil and that even Fox may be evil but I don't think it's personally against me because neither probably know I exist. I think 90% of their evil is driven by dollar signs and maybe the remaining 10% by ideology.

But hate? Stop wasting your time life is too short. And most certainly don't waste any time telling me who I have to hate.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
33. I try not to hate anyone
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 07:33 PM
Jun 2014

I may disagree strongly with them but I do not and will not hate them. Just is not healthy.

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
40. I joined the NRA briefly, thinking as a member I might get some say in the organization's positions.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

But no, the leaders of the group aren't interested in what the rank and file members want. Wayne LaPierre dictates policy, based on what gun sellers want.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
14. Generally, yes.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:03 PM
Jun 2014

In most states you can't be issued a permit to carry if you are prohibited from gun ownership based on federal law.

Prohibited person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Prohibited_persons
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
13. The NRA shouldn't fight this.
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:02 PM
Jun 2014


The issue is the line for dangerous crime. The convention has been to use felony crime or crimes punishable by 1 year or more as the marker. Some of the domestic crimes are below the line. If the person is dangerous then I don't see why they shouldn't be in jail/prison for more than 1 year.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
16. The only people that shouldn't have guns
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 05:12 PM
Jun 2014

are the people that already have too many to provide ammo for! Those folks should get another job so that they can feed their babies with ammo!

I'd add a sarcasm tag, but meh, if this post needs one, you are part of the problem.

 

jamzrockz

(1,333 posts)
42. Its already illegal for anyone convicted
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 04:43 PM
Jun 2014

with a felony type stalking or domestic violence to own a gun. I think the debate is on people convicted on lesser charges like say a man grabbing the arms of his wife as opposed to one that punched her lights out

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
27. IMO, the NRA is a terrorist organization!
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 06:56 PM
Jun 2014

NRA leadership is 100 percent "home grown' terrorists.

74% of NRA members support universal background checks; but NRA leadership opposes universal background checks.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/

Utopian Leftist

(534 posts)
29. As the President said, "it happens every week now."
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 07:04 PM
Jun 2014

Please, the madness has to stop!

If we can't be called upon to love one another, then can we at the very least expect that the people be forced to listen to the voice of reason: that the Constitution is an OLD document, which could not have foreseen the situation we find ourselves in, today.

We already have a well-regulated militia. IT IS CALLED THE FUCKING US MILITARY! We don't need a citizen militia on top of that! It is not only useless to a democracy to have two separate militaries, it is counter-productive. It makes civil war all but inevitable.

And what is most scary is that we can't even allow this to become a red-state/blue-state issue. Can't sit back and tell them, okay, shoot your own self in the ass, if you want." Because when the "red" states are the only ones with a second military, what then?

librarylu

(503 posts)
77. The 2nd Amendment....
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:31 PM
Jul 2014

....guaranteed Virginia's right to raise a militia to quell slave uprisings. They needed Virginia's vote.

The idea that EVERYBODY has a right to bear arms comes from a Supreme Court decision..... you know, a conservative court sort of like in Dredd Scott and Hobby Lobby.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
39. The right wing gun lobby
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 03:26 PM
Jun 2014

and its marketing arm, the NRA, are a blight on this nation, and are mainly responsible for the gun violence epidemic that infests our streets. Of course they want as many people as possible to have guns, including dangerous people, because it increases their bottom line.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
59. This is fucking stupid
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 11:34 AM
Jul 2014

domestic violence is one area where all discretion should be given to the potential victim until it is certain she is safe.

Ecumenist

(6,086 posts)
82. "domestic violence is one area where all discretion should be given to the potential victim until it
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 10:23 PM
Jul 2014

is CERTAIN that she OR HE is safe"!

rock

(13,218 posts)
62. I've never understood why the NRA doesn't fight for guns in prisons
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 12:22 PM
Jul 2014

Isn't the convicted criminal a citizen. Doesn't he have 2nd Amendment rights? How were they taken away? Of course these felons wouldn't use their weapons against the guards as that would be illegal. (all sarcasm)

SummerSnow

(12,608 posts)
78. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:35 PM
Jul 2014

They're are a bunch of bloodthirsty leeches. They love murder.

SummerSnow

(12,608 posts)
79. Majority of domestic violence victims and victims of stalking
Fri Jul 4, 2014, 09:38 PM
Jul 2014

are women. And we all know the majority of these gun nuts are right wing extremist and they hate women.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NRA: Stalkers deserve gun...