Reply to Indiana Mall Shooting

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indiana Mall Shooting"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s sad how hard the pro-gun people are working to gloss over the facts that two people died needlessly because of their gun lust. [/quote]
If the shooter didn't have a gun, then this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

I just came back from the UK. Not once did I worry about a shooting, and we went all over the country, to many touristy places.

In the US, I think about a shooting at church, movie theater, mall, school, any business, driving, and now parades, apparently.   The US is not a safe place anymore.

And yes, we are going to move to the UK just as soon as the kids are done with their schooling.  Spouse is from there.[/quote]

And there you can worry about being stabbed or deliberately run over with a vehicle.  Enjoy.[/quote]

Geeeee ........do I want to be up against an assault rifle or a knife?   What a tough choice.[/quote]

Agreed. If I was a battered spouse and my ex was coming at me with a knife, an assault rifle would stop him before he got too close. 
[/quote]
oh honey, your abusive spouse would have a gun, not a knife.  In red states, abusers can buy guns.  Enjoy![/quote]

Seriously? Is that true?

Wow.

How come that’s not a federal law? That seems like a no-brainer. [/quote]

Of course it’s NOT true. It’s just another lie posted here by the anti-gun zealots. Because they assume you’re gullible and won’t know any better.

Domestic abusers and people with protective orders against them, or anyone with a conviction (even misdemeanor) for any type of domestic violence, have been federally prohibited from buying, owning or possessing any kind of firearm since 1994. 22 years ago. It’s called the Lautenberg Amendment (it was attached the crime bill in 1993). It’s been federal law on the books for a generation now.

Why do they lie about stuff like this?

[/quote]
DP:  YOU're the liar.  There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole."  Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession.  Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.[/quote]

Sorry, but you’re flat out wrong (or lying?). Anyone with a DV conviction, regardless of who it was against, is prohibited by the Lautenberg law. Period.

And if a protective order was sought out in retaliation or in bad faith as part of a divorce strategy, that person should have their rights restored. Many divorce attorneys will seek protective orders as a matter of routine, just to set up a scenario where the opposing party can be charged with violating it, simply because it helps with the case/child custody. It’s an abuse of law, and it happens regularly. I’ve seen it dozens of times. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics