The NRA Is Trying to Block the Violence Against Women Act

[SaysWho?]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-violence-against-women-act-814295/

 

Quote

The National Rifle Association is preparing to punish lawmakers for voting to protect women from their stalkers and domestic abusers. The gun lobby announced this week that it will dock its grades for politicians who vote to renew the Violence Against Women Act. The legislation, first passed in 1994, is up for reauthorization this session — augmented by a provision that could give law enforcement officials the power to confiscate guns from men who hurt or menace women.

 

Quote

The case for stripping domestic abusers of their guns is powerful. An abused woman is five times more likely to be killed if the abuser is a gun-owner. When a domestic violence assault involves a firearm, it is 12 times more likely to end in the death of the victim. Laws like the red-flag provision proposed for VAWA save lives: In states adopting laws permitting confiscation of firearms from domestic abusers, intimate partner homicides have dropped by 7 percent.

 

 

 

[Jason]

I mean, they know their demographic.

[Slug]

This is kind of disingenuous.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Fuck the NRA. 

[Amazatron]

I'm still not sure who she is, but Denise McAllister approves.

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, Slug said:

This is kind of disingenuous.

 

You're right, acting like the abominations at the NRA are actually human beings is incredibly disingenuous.

[Slug]

5 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

You're right, acting like the abominations at the NRA are actually human beings is incredibly disingenuous.

They are pretty bad.  But there's no need to spin things to make them seem even worse; they do well enough on their own.  The implication of the article and Spk. Pelosi's tweet aren't exactly fair-minded.  

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Slug said:

They are pretty bad.  But there's no need to spin things to make them seem even worse; they do well enough on their own.  The implication of the article and Spk. Pelosi's tweet aren't exactly fair-minded.  

 

They are fair-minded as there is a case to be made for this as well as states who have adopted this. At a certain point, opposition to everything isn't fair-minded, and we reached that point years ago.

[Slug]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

They are fair-minded as there is a case to be made for this as well as states who have adopted this. At a certain point, opposition to everything isn't fair-minded, and we reached that point years ago.

The implication is that the NRA is against VAWA when they're only against the provision that is being added to it with this re-authorization.  They've never been against it with any other re-authorization or enactment.  To say they want to allow "convicted stalkers and abusers" to have guns is incorrect.  The NRA-ILA is bad, but we need to at least be honest about what they're bad about.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Slug said:

The implication is that the NRA is against VAWA when they're only against the provision that is being added to it with this re-authorization.  To say they want to allow "convicted stalkers and abusers" to have guns is incorrect.  The NRA-ILA is bad, but we need to at least be honest about what they're bad about.

 

Yes, I highlighted that in the OP. Their opposition to the bill is the clause allowing law enforcement to confiscate the guns of criminals. That's not laudable. Adding guns isn't the solution to anybody but the NRA.

[Slug]

"Their opposition to the bill is the clause allowing law enforcement to confiscate the guns of criminals" - Still not true. I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.  I'll step out. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Slug said:

"Their opposition to the bill is the clause allowing law enforcement to confiscate the guns of criminals" - Still not true. I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.  I'll step out. 

 

"The NRA's opposition reportedly stems from so-called "red-flag" provisions that seek to prevent people who have committed domestic abuse from obtaining firearms."

 

Is this really the hill you wanted to die on? 

[Slug]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

"The NRA's opposition reportedly stems from so-called "red-flag" provisions that seek to prevent people who have committed domestic abuse from obtaining firearms."

 

Is this really the hill you wanted to die on? 

I'm not sure what you mean by hills and dying.  Their opposition isn't about allowing convicted or committed abusers to have guns.  It just isn't.  They're shitty, but we don't have to make up reasons that they're shitty.

 

I'm punching out.

[SaysWho?]

15 minutes ago, Slug said:

I'm not sure what you mean by hills and dying.  Their opposition isn't about allowing convicted or committed abusers to have guns.  It just isn't.  They're shitty, but we don't have to make up reasons that they're shitty.

 

I'm punching out.

 

Yes it is. It is because of "freedom." If this is what causes them to oppose the bill, then they're shitty. Opposing it on those grounds is a legitimate reason to think they're shitty.

[Jason]

53 minutes ago, Slug said:

I'm not sure what you mean by hills and dying.

 

E.g. an angry husband shooting his wife.

[Anathema-]

We should take guns away from domestic abusers. This is a good thing and I don't see a compelling reason not to.

[CitizenVectron]

6 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

We should take guns away from domestic abusers. This is a good thing and I don't see a compelling reason not to.

 

Because it's all a giant slippery slope, apparently. The government cannot physically stop itself from taking everyone's guns if they take them from a single maniac. It's similar to how if you eat a single pringles chip, you can't stop yourself from murdering your children and eating their bodies.

[SimpleG]

I think most everyone knows how I feel about guns and gun control. I dont see an issue with this.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Because it's all a giant slippery slope, apparently. The government cannot physically stop itself from taking everyone's guns if they take them from a single maniac. It's similar to how if you eat a single pringles chip, you can't stop yourself from murdering your children and eating their bodies.

Once you pop (a cap) you can't stop

[Littleronin]

Guys, Dana Loesch will be posting soon a video of why she needs to be beaten.

I hate myself for typing that, but at the same time that is how she would defend the NRA line. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Because it's all a giant slippery slope, apparently. The government cannot physically stop itself from taking everyone's guns if they take them from a single maniac. It's similar to how if you eat a single pringles chip, you can't stop yourself from murdering your children and eating their bodies.

 

The slippery slope argument is the only disingenuous thing in this thread. It drives me nuts that gun owners think there's some slippery slope. There isn't. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

The slippery slope argument is the only disingenuous thing in this thread. It drives me nuts that gun owners think there's some slippery slope. There isn't. 

 

If there's a valid slippery slope angle here, it would be that the list of red flags is broad enough to potentially open it up to abusively putting people on red flag lists. Like with the proposal to use the no-fly list to ban gun ownership, just not blatantly abusive right out the gate.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

If there's a valid slippery slope angle here, it would be that the list of red flags is broad enough to potentially open it up to abusively putting people on red flag lists. Like with the proposal to use the no-fly list to ban gun ownership, just not blatantly abusive right out the gate.

 

Theoretically, anything could be a slippery slope though. I think we all know the Overton window has been moved so much towards the NRA's side of the argument that any overcorrection would simply bring us back to normalcy, not go down any sort of slippery slope. 

 

As soon as we cross a red line in terms of gun ownership restrictions, then we can worry about slippery slopes. Right now, we're not even within spitting distance of that problem. 

[mclumber1]

6 hours ago, Anathema- said:

We should take guns away from domestic abusers. This is a good thing and I don't see a compelling reason not to.

 

I agree as long as due process is followed.  Give the person a day in court to argue their side.  If they lose, they lose.  Take their guns then. 

[osxmatt]

I’m sure this is what the slave owning white men had in mind when they dawned their powder wigs and rode their horse and carriage down to the Penn state house to put quill to parchment.

[SilentWorld]

34 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

I agree as long as due process is followed.  Give the person a day in court to argue their side.  If they lose, they lose.  Take their guns then. 

Take the guns first, go through due process second. 

[mclumber1]

16 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I’m sure this is what the slave owning white men had in mind when they dawned their powder wigs and rode their horse and carriage down to the Penn state house to put quill to parchment.

 

Right after they got done with their morning pornhub session. 

[Man_of_X]

If America has cancer, it's definitely the NRA. 

[Xbob42]

Can we just skip the eggshell tiptoeing bullshit and just take all the guns from all the people? You fucktards can get them back when you can prove you can own one without leaving it loaded under your pillow for your toddler to kill themselves (or you) with. Bunch of irresponsible, selfish cunts. As the forefathers intended.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

Take the guns first, go through due process second. 

Iirc this is what Massachusetts does 

 

 

[Guest]

“They are opposing it for THIS odious reason, not THAT odious reason.”

[Reputator]

Even the slightest, most reasonable incursion into these people's weekend fucking hobby is a step too far for them.

[TheGreatGamble]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

“They are opposing it for THIS odious reason, not THAT odious reason.”

We shouldn't be taking rights away from anyone who isn't convicted in a court of law. After conviction, take every gun they own, fine, but not before. 

[Greatoneshere]

11 minutes ago, Reputator said:

Even the slightest, most reasonable incursion into these people's weekend fucking hobby is a step too far for them.

 

If I was a gun owner I'd hate the NRA more, not less, than people who are super pro-gun control. Why? All these weekend warrior and NRA dipshits are giving people like me and @mclumber1, etc. a bad name because I take my gun ownership seriously. In fact, as a gun owner I'd want severe and strict measures on guns because I know as a responsible gun owner I'd make sure to follow all the laws appropriately to do what it is I want to do (simply own the gun, go to a shooting range, go hunting, all things I've done and enjoy doing) and I know it'd stop all the aforementioned dipshits (or curb their ability greatly).

 

So other than the NRA and weekend warrior idiots, why is anyone arguing against more and better gun control? Seriously, it only helps everyone that matters about owning guns. Polling on universal background checks is now 70-80% of Americans, this should at least be the lowest fucking bar. We're nowhere close to taking Americans' guns away, so anyone worried about that can breathe easy (and I don't want them taken away completely - no way do I trust only the government being armed in any country, so we need some ability to get our own guns). So can we all get on the same page about this at least?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

We shouldn't be taking rights away from anyone who isn't convicted in a court of law. After conviction, take every gun they own, fine, but not before. 

 

Let’s do nothing to prevent the violence in the first place.

 

Gun people make me actively hope for the confiscation bogeyman to be true.