First, define "abuse."A man abuses and threatens his ex‑wife. She tells a judge that she is frightened and that he is armed. The court orders him to stay away from her. Should it also order him to give up his guns?Of course it should. If a protective order is to mean anything, the court must do all that it reasonably can do to keep a vulnerable person from becoming a homicide statistic. [More]
If she's telling the truth, arrest him, charge him with appropriate felonies, set appropriate bail to let him know this is serious and slap a monitor on him, and don't forget to make sure she knows about her options for self-defense.
Oh wait, this is New York, and these are the "feminist" supporters who tell the poor dears a gun would only be taken away from them and used against them.
And I hate to bring up this unpleasant potential, but what if she's just a lying bipolar headcase b!tch from hell who just wants to destroy the poor guy she's been serial-abusing with everything she can throw at him?
4 comments:
"what if she's just a lying bipolar headcase b!tch from hell who just wants to destroy the poor guy she's been serial-abusing with everything she can throw at him?"
Been there, done that. Escaped with my guns, but lost just about everything else I had ever worked for in life. Still have the paperwork where she took everything she had ever done to me and attributed it to me, instead.
...innocent until proven guilty...proof beyond a reasonable doubt... in an unbiased court of law.
Something like that.
Nice idea, but it probably hasn't happened often in the history of the whole world.
But yes indeed, both men and women should be suitably armed - and an awful lot of the kids as well. Bet there'd be a hell of a lot less abuse going on.
I had a woman use a domestic violence injunction in an attempt to extort money from me. Cost me a bit in legal fees. Almost lost my car, my guns, and my career.
Read about it here:
http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2011/03/cops-and-courts-are-corrupt.html
Current "feminist" viewpoint:
"I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman. But I shouldn't own a gun for self-defense because the man is stronger, invincible-er, and will take it away and use it on me. Instead, I should display my strength and invincibility by vomiting and sh!tting on myself, to appear as an undesirable target. But not a dangerous one; only men are allowed to show that kind of strength."
They're only willing to show strength until it means NOT being a victim. Then, when they need to show strength most, they're expected to wither and weaken and (literally) lose their sh!t.
Then again, they'll get to claim the revered status of "victim" - the liberal's ultimate moral authority, which (to them) trumps all others, including logic and fact.
Post a Comment