2nd Amendment doesn;t trump spousal abuse

Forgot link..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-upholds-reach-us-gun-ban-domestic-violence-140451302--politics.html?nhp=1

So your angry soon-to-be-ex can have your guns taken away from you with trumped up bullshit accusations.

As women are overwhelmingly the ones who get blown away during domestic squabbles, they should be doing exactly that. Tell the lout to get rid of his guns or you'll bring a complaint and have the courts do it for him.

Women of the world, unite! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As women are overwhelmingly the ones who get blown
> away during domestic squabbles, they should be
> doing exactly that. Tell the lout to get rid of
> his guns or you'll bring a complaint and have the
> courts do it for him.


The moment the stupid bitch makes a threat like that, bury her in the back yard.

It's not just a male issue. While lot's of stalking and violence is directed at women by male spouses, there are many cases of women shooting, and solicitation to shoot male spouse's. Unfortunately bad behavior crosses into all demographics. In fact, singling out men is in itself sexest. So before you start throwing out inflammatory comments singling out one group or another, try to focus on the problem. Not the narrow view of someone with an agenda. And now that gay marriage is in the mix, we'll have to wait and see how these type crimes will manifest into these new social unions. Now back to your corners and wait for the bell.

I am pro-gun control. I believe we should be allowed to have guns with low capacity mags for whatever. You can take all the assault style weapons and melt them for all I care. 10 clip mag will do for most anything you need.

I have to admit though I am troubled by a lifetime ban on owning firearms for either domestic abuse or the more broadly defined non-violent misdemeanors covered under the law. People change. Some pig that hits his wife at age 20 is likely a different person at age 60. Why a lifetime ban? Thomas used the example of a mom hitting her 18 year old son for sassing him - why should that be a lifetime ban from owning a firearm. You know people do use these to hunt for food lots of places in the US.

You can get 7 DUI's and kill someone and if you go to jail you can usually drive again eventually. What is up with the forever ban?

Women of the world, unite! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As women are overwhelmingly the ones who get blown
> away during domestic squabbles, they should be
> doing exactly that. Tell the lout to get rid of
> his guns or you'll bring a complaint and have the
> courts do it for him.


Actually, if you bother to do any research, women abuse men more than the other way around. The reason you "think" women are abused more is due to MSM and the constant "victimhood" women portray themselves in, even though the facts do not support their claims.

Also, add the fact many males do not report the abuse because of some sort of pride and the numbers go even further to support women perpetrate domestic violence at much higher rates than men.

Not quite:

Female-initiated domestic abuse

Women are three times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by their male counterpart than vice versa. Though those numbers suggest a more dire need, they do not connote that women are completely innocent when it comes to domestic violence.

More than 830,000 men fall victim to domestic violence every year. A man is the victim of domestic abuse every 37.8 seconds in America. These numbers are not inconsequential and the frequency is far from insignificant.

Jan Brown, executive director and founder of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men, stated that “domestic violence is not about size, gender, or strength. It’s about abuse, control, and power, and getting out of dangerous situations and getting help, whether you are a woman being abused, or a man.”

In 2001, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health collected data about the health of a nationally representative sample of 14,322 individuals between the ages of 18 and 28. The study also asked subjects to answer questions about romantic or sexual relationships in which they had engaged during the previous five years and whether those relationships had involved violence.

From this information researchers found that of the 18,761 relationships, 76 percent were non-violent and 24 percent were violent. Of the 24 percent that were violent, half had been reciprocal and half had not — reciprocal meaning there was violence inflicted by both partners. Although more men than women (53 percent versus 49 percent) had experienced nonreciprocal violent relationships, more women than men (52 percent versus 47 percent) had taken part in ones involving reciprocal violence.

This statistic was undoubtedly the most striking: in committing acts of domestic violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, in the 71 percent of nonreciprocal partner violence instances, the instigator was the woman. This flies in the face of the long-held belief that female aggression in a relationship is most often predicated on self-defense.

Further, while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships that featured reciprocal violence men were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than women (20 percent of the time).

Great Britain’s Office of National Statistics also showed that while 1.2 million women experienced domestic violence, 800,000 men did as well — in the U.K., men comprise 40 percent of those who suffer from domestic violence.

The Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, compiled a bibliography that examined 286 scholarly investigations, 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses demonstrating that which we are reluctant to discuss — the uncomfortable reality that women are as physically aggressive, or even more so, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

Let’s put this into perspective: a significant amount of the findings regarding male-as-victim intimate partner violence came about as the result of studies and surveys that were aimed at understanding domestic violence against women. These are not studies conducted by rabid anti-women men’s groups or right-wing think tanks. They were conducted by organizations like the Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, the American Sociological Association, Psychology of Women Quarterly and the American Journal of Public Health, to name a few.

And yet, these numbers prompt a resounding backlash. Accusations such as “You’re saying abused women are asking for it,” or “You’re blaming the victim,” get hurled. No person — female or male — is asking for it, and no victim — female or male — should be blamed for what is done to them. I’m merely broadening the definitions of abuser and victim.

If we are serious about addressing domestic violence, then we must deal with all of the incarnations of the realities of domestic violence.

Female on male domestic violence is roughly as common as male on female domestic violence. Neither is fully reported which makes it difficult to know which actually occurs more frequently.

You cannot pin the blame on the MSM for giving a misleading picture about domestic violence. Female on male domestic violence is far less likely to be reported by the male victim. There are a number of reasons for this, including that men feel there is a stigma attached to reporting they were assaulted by their female partner.

Good take away all their guns! Wife beaters don't deserve shit!

Wife Beaters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good take away all their guns! Wife beaters don't
> deserve shit!
Attachments:

Women also are the fastest growing group of gun owners. Getting closer to equal with men if you don't count sporting gun purchases. They're more likely to buy a gun for personal protection and more likely to carry the gun that they buy.

i didn't read the ruling but denied gun permit for how long?

and does it apply to guns already owned

go on www.thomas.gov and lookit up for me

------------------------------

The Supreme Court of the United States had better not attempt to make the ruling retro-active (meaning applying to persons charged in the past, likely charged with about ZERO HILLARY evidence, who's gravity did not include removing that freedom, but for VA does remove the freedom to eat if poor, INFACt. Infact the liberals in USSC ruled if your charged with VAWA that you can starve and die or be shot or imprisoned trying to eat in VA because your denied the right to charity ... food stamps that some of the worst liberal criminals and worthless scum get).

If they did I might call the USC court marshall and chew his ass out.

going forward in the future, loosing such a privelage will be an argument

while the death penalty or re-conviction by poverty, by VAWA alone, in VA should have been known to the USSC but perhaps was over-looked

infact the more human rights they remove attached with a VAWA charge the easier it will be for a defendant lawyer to claim that the accusation has not risen to the weight of the charge