Go back
GOP Votes on Violence Against Women

GOP Votes on Violence Against Women

Debates

1 edit

@shavixmir said
However, abuse of one's spouse isn't a distance thing. It's close up power-abuse.
And guns don't fit the scheme (as far as I can tell).
In America, sadly, women being gunned-down by their husbands or boyfriends (or ex) is not uncommon.


@vivify said
In America, sadly, women being gunned-down by their husbands or boyfriends (or ex) is not uncommon.
Seriously???

Bonkers.


@shavixmir said
Seriously???

Bonkers.
Yes. And if a woman lives with an abusive boyfriend, he will get access to her gun. That's a given. This is why that provision in the Violence Against Women Act exists.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@shavixmir said
Yes. I understand that about guns.
However, abuse of one's spouse isn't a distance thing. It's close up power-abuse.
And guns don't fit the scheme (as far as I can tell).

Anyways, that (ex-)cons can't vote is extremely malicious. They may well have been convicted of something that is no longer illegal or even something they, themselves, think should be legal, and they can't do anything about it.
Well, I was speaking of crime in general, but yes, domestic abuse usually IS "up close and personal". But Americans have been taught through various media that if you're gonna threaten someone, the easiest and scariest is a gun.

Guns are also a weapon of opportunity, since they're in nearly every American home.


@vivify

Well, vivify, there is a damm good reason why all conscionable people should be against this sexist legislation,
it goes SMACK into the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution, same as what so-called hate crimes do.

Democrats love the game. Protect their special constituents more than others.



@earl-of-trumps said
@vivify

Well, vivify, there is a damm good reason why all conscionable people should be against this sexist legislation,
it goes SMACK into the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution, same as what so-called hate crimes do.
The equal protection clause protects against discrimination. Adding protections for people who are the overwhelming majority of domestic violence and rape victims, doesn't violate that clause.

1 edit

@Duchess64
So we have what, 200+ MILLION guns in the US. A bit late to stop gun ownership.
Don't take that as me condoning the NRA and the like in their rabid gun ownership push. I HATE guns. My father was killed by a gun toting robber and step father also gunned down and mom got a glancing bullet on her head, she survived though.
I will NEVER own a gun unless there is a national uprising like the Civil War Part 2.

Vote Up
Vote Down


The post that was quoted here has been removed
What anti-Muslim hate threads?

Where's the flying while Muslim threads?


@suzianne said
Shav, in America, an ex-con can't even vote, but Republicans are so worried about the "slippery slope" of removing ANYone's right to get a gun.

And, also in America, guns are the weapon of choice, mainly because most Americans barely have the muscle strength to pull a trigger. You're not gonna see them wielding bats or ropes. Guns allow them to remain distanced from the ...[text shortened]... elerate any conflict into life or death, so many get shot even when that wasn't the original intent.
This is actually untrue.

Pres. Trump actually supported the efforts to let ex-felons vote in Florida.

The non-voting thing also goes back to old US ideas about banning people in ill repute from voting.

... and, just now, there's interest in protecting greater access to guns.

One could even say that a woman who is in a relationship with a previously abusive man may need a gun more than most other people.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
Yes. And if a woman lives with an abusive boyfriend, he will get access to her gun. That's a given. This is why that provision in the Violence Against Women Act exists.
I know a little about the access-to-guns issue in America. My brother once pleaded nolo contendere to a felony charge (which had nothing to do with weapons or violence) and was thereafter forbidden not only to own a gun himself, but even to be within a certain distance of a gun not his own, for the rest of his life. He happens to be an auto mechanic. One of his clients left a vehicle at his workshop for repairs; the client had left a firearm in the car. My brother, cognizant of the legal risk to himself, removed the weapon from the car and put it in the locked office of the workshop. Somehow a policeman found out about the weapon and literally took a tape measure to see how far away the weapon was from the workshop. (End of story: my brother left the state.)

Vote Up
Vote Down

@moonbus said
I know a little about the access-to-guns issue in America. My brother once pleaded nolo contendere to a felony charge (which had nothing to do with weapons or violence) and was thereafter forbidden not only to own a gun himself, but even to be within a certain distance of a gun not his own, for the rest of his life. He happens to be an auto mechanic. One of his clients ...[text shortened]... ure to see how far away the weapon was from the workshop. (End of story: my brother left the state.)
That's a bit extreme.

1 edit

@philokalia said
This is actually untrue.

Pres. Trump actually supported the efforts to let ex-felons vote in Florida.
Trump also claimed he wanted to give every American $2,000 in stimulus checks; the GOP, of course, didn't go for this.

Likewise, regardless of what Trump claimed he wanted for ex-cons (most likely a lie, given his over 30,000 recorded falsehoods while in office) the GOP actively created measures to stop ex-cons from voting.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify -The equal protection clause protects against discrimination.
---------------
EoT: Right, and this is discrimination by gender.

@vivify - Adding protections for people who are the overwhelming majority of domestic violence and rape victims, doesn't violate that clause.
--------------------------
EoT: And how wrong is this, Viv?? Firstly, you are flat out wrong about rape. More victims of rape in America are men than women. Fact.
But your logic is faulty, too, when you specify "domestic violence". So all the people that are shot/mugged in the streets of Chicago and elsewhere are not really victims of violence because these were not "domestic" crimes??
I also have my doubts as to women being the overwhelming victims of domestic violence, too. I would check it.

In the meantime, your prejudice and bias are quite odious.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.