The Supreme Court today affirmed the use of a federal law barring people convicted of domestic violence crimes from owning guns, the first firearms case at the high court since last year’s decision in support of gun rights. [More]I got wrapped around the axle on other stuff in the queue, and this is the first chance I've had to comment. I don't know anyone who expected any different outcome.
Clarence Thomas sure has been a disappointment.
I can't imagine anyone obeying this. Well, I can, actually. I guess I should have said I can't identify with anyone who would obey it.
[Via Ron Bokleman]
6 comments:
If the victim still lives with the "abuser" (an accusation, indictment and conviction don't necessarily mean they did it) for whatever unknown inexplicable reason -- finances, a promise to "do better" -- the victim cannot have a gun either. Let the body count begin.
So much for the court presuming innocence, or the ability to rehabilitate, for that matter. Which came first, our "superiors" treating us like animals, or us acting like animals?
The mere ACCUSATION of domestic violence, out of spite or revenge or sadism, though still a misdemeanor, can lose a person their "gun rights" for life where it used to require a full felony conviction. If you pay attention to laws like that.
Domestic violence does not mix well with ANYTHING, Ginsburg. Not cars, lamps, coatracks, vacuum cleaner hoses.
Disappointment doesn't begin to cover it. I would've thought Scalia would bail before Thomas.
how many police officers that plead to general battery/assault charges in order to avoid the DV charge so they could remain cops, will this affect?
BUt...what about the people who have been wrongly/falsely charged with DV and end up with say....Disturbing the Peace? They should still have their rights, right?
Now, I know this sounds far-fetched and radical, but before you all dismiss it out of hand, here is my proposal.
Lobby every level of government form the local schoolboard to the federal, withhold votes for incumbents, donate to challengers, write letters, during interviews put this idea out there, in editorials and opinion pieces float this idea. Keep up the pressure. Offer the Brady's and VPC et.al. an olive branch and try to get them to sign on. If they do not scream their hypocrisy at every opportunity, everywhere. Make your neighbors hate you because you won't shut up about it.
Hey, those tactics have worked for the other side for a long time. It is time we went on the offensive. It is time we quit defending and started attacking.
Now, here is the idea. Outlaw all personal security agencies. ALL of them. No for hire bodyguards, no bank guards, no Secret Service, no Witness Protection services, no school guards, no Capitol Police, nothing of any sort that provides services for the protection of others than themselves. Remove all security in our courtrooms, legislatures, executive branches, town meetings, county supervior meetings, everywhere.
Now, look. I know that is never going to become law. But we should hammer and hammer and hammer for it. We should clamor, bitch, scream beat an incessant drum for it. We should never allow any politician or school board member avoid answering the question. We should follow them to every venue where they speak or accessible by the public and raise a fuss until they answer, leave, or have us removed. We should record every instance of the confrontations.
As I have said the cowards who disarm us will never pass any such law, but their response, dodges, and iron fisted responses will get Americans who haven't been perspicacious enough to notice the different value these people put on the sanctity of their own lives
while devaluing the lives of every citizen to that of not even deserving defense, to notice that these very people are validating our position on this issue by their hysterical refusal to live under the rules they foist on us.
It is time to attack. It is time to put them on defense. Our goal doesn't necessarily need to be the one stated to be effective. Just look how well that worked for the civil rights violators, so far. Time to push it right back on them.
I like straightarrow's suggestion. If Ted Kennedy did not have his heavily armed bodyguards, how wwould he vote on the RKBA?
Post a Comment