General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNRA: 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 shouldnt be prohibited from buying guns.
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/nra-stalkers-deserve-guns-too
shenmue
(38,501 posts)There's no other explanation for it.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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)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)They changed the post Sandy Hook gun control legislation to address ACLU concerns over registration.
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 didnt 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 didnt 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)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)you must have no problems with the NSA scandal then. Sorry - I stand with the ACLU on this one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I could go a long with that. It would also let me keep my AR-15s.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)still did not reach down far enough to find the heart of Republicanism.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)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)Minnesota passed recently at the state level, with NRA backing.
I wonder if it being a national level bill bringing out the extremist opposition
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)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)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)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)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.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)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)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".
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)to shoot the stalkees.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)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.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)fear and propaganda
TheCowsCameHome
(40,163 posts)They are enemies of mankind. AlQaeda and the Taliban cannot hold a candle to them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)for Bloomberg and all of his paid grassroots organizations. Nice to have billions of dollars.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)in many others no
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)from masturbating over your gun to post here.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I hope you have a good day also. And some wonder why they are not taken serious.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)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)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.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I am leaving work now to throw some ribeyes on the grill.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)To SUPPORT the NRA and DU is dichotomy that should not exist
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)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)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)... 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)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)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)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)I may disagree strongly with them but I do not and will not hate them. Just is not healthy.
tclambert
(11,080 posts)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.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Does ever having an order of protection against you preclude a gun permit?
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)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)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.
malaise
(267,820 posts)demented - bat shit crazy.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)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.
Baitball Blogger
(46,575 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)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)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)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)....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.
valerief
(53,235 posts)toddwv
(2,830 posts)all symptoms of a deranged mind.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)would support this if he or his family were being stalked.
billh58
(6,635 posts)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.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Really
Accountable
spanone
(135,635 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)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)is CERTAIN that she OR HE is safe"!
hack89
(39,171 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)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)
rickford66
(5,498 posts)Am I correct? If so, why not?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)What a sick, twisted group of demented excuses for human beings.
billh58
(6,635 posts)their apologists rode in on!
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)They're are a bunch of bloodthirsty leeches. They love murder.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)are women. And we all know the majority of these gun nuts are right wing extremist and they hate women.