- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In a major victory for domestic violence advocacy groups, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.
In a 6-2 decision, the high court ruled that reckless domestic assaults can be considered misdemeanor crimes to restrict gun ownership.
If they served their time exactly where does the state get off not giving their rights back in full?I swear the supreme court is retarded.
How did anyone who was retarded get on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Explain that to us if you can.
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.
Article is here.
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.
There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.
I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.
-edit-
I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.
There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.
I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.
-edit-
I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".
If they served their time exactly where does the state get off not giving their rights back in full? I swear the supreme court is retarded.
How did anyone who was retarded get on the U.S. Supreme Court?
Explain that to us if you can.
I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.
There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.
I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.
-edit-
I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".
Going to jail for something and ending up convicted are 2 different animals. Looks to me like you are attempting to muddy the waters here, because if that's all that happened to your buddies, then there is no way they were convicted.
to the class why someone should not have full access to their rights after they have served their time.How about you explain
How can someone like Sotomayor that thinks Hobby Lobby wasn't forced into anything because they could decide to break the law get on the bench?
Her idiotic question:
“But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the
tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than -- than the
cost of health insurance at all?"
As well intentioned as it may be - I don't agree with this.I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.
Article is here.
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.
retarded can mean foolish or stupid in an informal way.
buti would have used the word"reprobate" to the USSC
No nominee who was a 'reprobate' would ever make it past a Senate hearing.
:lol:
While I do generally agree with the sentiment of this law you do have to be careful with that line of thinking. Rights generally do not come with responsibilities. That's why they are called rights. Could you lose your freedom of speech or freedom of religion if you broke the law? Furthermore just because something is a law does not necessarily mean it makes sense. Furthermore domestic violence is a difficult thing to deal with.
Exactly! :cheers:While I do generally agree with the sentiment of this law you do have to be careful with that line of thinking. Rights generally do not come with responsibilities. That's why they are called rights. Could you lose your freedom of speech or freedom of religion if you broke the law? Furthermore just because something is a law does not necessarily mean it makes sense. Furthermore domestic violence is a difficult thing to deal with.
No nominee who was a 'reprobate' would ever make it past a Senate hearing.
:lol:
You would not loose your right to free speech in general just because you yelled fire one time. You might go to jail if people got hurt, but you'd always retain your right to speak in public.I strongly disagree with you. Rights DO come with responsibilities. The most famous example of this is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Yes, but in the above you still have your 1A right and it hasn't been removed; you used it in a detrimental fashion, and pay the consequence for that specific action.I strongly disagree with you. Rights DO come with responsibilities. The most famous example of this is not shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. But there is one class of people who are given a pass on responsibility...... That is babies. Why? Because they don't know any better. But, when they grow up, they need to start acting like adults. Seems that some adults need to start acting like adults too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, but that's not going to happen. They can either act like babies and throw tantrums, or be adults and suck it up.
I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.
Article is here.
How about you explain to the class why someone should not have full access to their rights after they have served their time.
How can someone like Sotomayor that thinks Hobby Lobby wasn't forced into anything because they could decide to break the law get on the bench?
Her idiotic question:
“But isn't there another choice nobody talks about, which is paying the
tax, which is a lot less than a penalty and a lot less than -- than the
cost of health insurance at all?"
there is more then 1 meaning, it can mean someone who sees right as wrong, and wrong as right.
and we have that already
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?