|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Konovan on 11:33 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
...2nd Amendment supporters don't like this restraining order rule. A person loses their right to own weapons because someone merely accuses them of being violent? That goes right along with the plan to ban guns that "look scary."
It's easy enough to buy a gun on the black market that this rule has little effect. It would make more sense to have the person-under-alleged-threat buy a gun to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ragtime on 12:58 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"If we expected self-reliance of family groups, if we expected hardiness and resilience and initiative on the part of individuals, and if we rewarded initiative instead of dependence on government, we would not only ameliorate many of the family-related social problems we see at present, but we would also reduce our vulnerability to terrorism. People who are hardy, resilient, and self reliant are a lot harder to terrorize."
- Bernard H. Levin, FBI National Academy Associate, November/December
2004, Volume 6, Number 6, Page 25.
Unfortunately, we're not likely to see ANY government reward initiative instead of dependence. Dependance on government increases government's depth, breadth, scope, and intrusion. While these things are very bad for citizens, they are good for the State (and politicians) so that's what happens.
Current feminist/socialist/nanny state dogma plays directly into the State's goal of increased control.
Certainly feminism has its "useful idiots" -- 'true believers' who help promote the hateful creed. In the same way, all of feminism can be considered a 'useful idiot' for the State; helping to grow the State's power, intrusion into all aspects of private life, and ever more totalitarian control of a previously free populace.
Gun Control advocates fall into the same category. Many truly seem to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that disarming the good-guys (responsible, law-abiding citizens) will somehow make society a 'safer' place.
It doesn't, of course, but those groups play into the State's agenda of a disarmed and defenceless populace. The totalitarian nanny government must be in control of it subjects (for their 'protection' of course). An armed populace is a threat to that.
It's so blatant in Canada that the government actually gives massive 'grants' to the largest gun control lobby (hundreds of thousands of dollars a year). Government pay the lobby group to lobby itself, and thereby give the appearance of much larger public support for disarming the law-abiding.
Not only does Canada's onerous "Firearms Act' blatantly violate no less than twelve articles of the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights, but the multi-billion dollar 'gun registry' is a full-on government boondoggle with increasing evidence of tax monies being funnelled directly and indirectly to corrupt politicians and into Liberal party coffers.
Raftime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn has unintentionally given us directions on how we can legally attack police officers via the new VAWA.
Finally, we'll be able to have those officers who enforce the VAWA, which is an oppressive, family destruction, and anti-male hate law, feel the effects of their own medicine.
All that is necessary is to 911 them when they so much as call their wife a bitch. We can even do this to our politicians.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 01:46 PM July 24th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of that case where people are taking the Supreme Court decision to allow towns to take your property and sell it to businesses and throwing it right back at the justices. Supposedly a group of citizens are going to build a hotel right on Justice Souter's land. This is the way to go -- take their nefarious laws, use them against them, and then see how willing they are to oppress people when "people" includes the lawmakers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TheMadNucleus on 12:45 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey folks, I tried calling the number posted on one of the VAWA threads and providing the info supplied but I merely received a receptionist who was way less then helpful. They recommended sending a letter.
Can phone calls really be effective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Phone calls are not as effective as Faxes, which are best, or letters which take a really long time and often get there too late.
Yes, phone calls are effective, because it lets the lawmakers know there are people concerned about the issues. Be sure to state your opinion for a gender inclusive VAWA, then state a letter will follow.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous user writes "Men's and fathers' issues columnist Glenn Sacks criticizes VAWA-related restraining order policies in his new column