Author Topic: N.C. law encourages guns for battered spouses (Read 647 times)

FWiedner · « **on:** August 19, 2005, 03:59:27 AM »

N.C. law encourages guns for battered spouses

Critics say new law would bring weapons into already volatile relationships

North Carolina lawmakers have approved a measure that would require courts to give battered spouses something extra when they seek a restraining order information on how to apply for a concealed weapon.

However, victims advocates who support efforts to curb domestic violence said the measure could end up causing more problems by bringing guns into already volatile relationships.

Read the article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8992647/

.

Shorty · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2005, 10:06:46 AM »

"Victims's advocates"?! How can anyone be an advocate for victims without allowing the victims something more meaningful than a piece of paper? :roll:
How many women have been murdered by a man while he is under a restaining order? A charge of breaking a restraining order added to a murder charge doesn't do the victim much good. :roll:

Greysky · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2005, 12:32:21 PM »

Why should anyone need to be encouraged to, or discouraged from owning firearms. If someone fears for their safety, they should be able to use their own good judgment in this matter.

Leverdude · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2005, 04:30:32 PM »

Quote from: Greysky

Why should anyone need to be encouraged to, or discouraged from owning firearms. If someone fears for their safety, they should be able to use their own good judgment in this matter.

Yup. I dont think informing them of a viable way to protect themselves is out of line tho. Heck, I think our public officials should inform their constituants of the same thing.
Tieing things up with restraining orders tho makes me nervous tho as theres alot of guys get screwed firearms wise because of restraining orders that are given out as routine. Domestic violence is one of the things where your guilty untill proven innocent these days.

Greysky · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2005, 01:45:28 AM »

Thanks to Slick Willy, and his retroactive domestic abuse law that brings misdemeanor offenses in-line with felonies, the husband who slapped his wife forty years is no longer able to legally own firearms even though the couple have reconciled their differences, and are probably going to die of old age together.

Leave it to Big Brother to keep everyone walking on egg shells throughout their State controlled lives.

darrell8937 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 10, 2005, 02:48:26 PM »

This hits very close to home> A coworker of mine killed his wife with a hunting rifle. She had a protection order and police were even present at the home at the time. She had returned to get her things. She brought her new boyfriend. What the hell are the police thinking. The boy friend should not have been allowed to come. He was wounded by the same bullet that killed her. She had even told the police he had no weapons. When he had many. He was out of work prior to this and all managment would say was. "He was out for personal reasons. " In this case there were many common sence things that went wrong.
1. Don't bring your new boy friend!
2.Tell the cops he is a gun nut!
3.Be escorted by the police! Hey LEO'S... Down stairs talking with the mother is not a escorting her!
4. Secure the husband during this. "Having him go in the bedroom and close the door is not secure..
5. His rifle was in there. He simply opened the window and shot.
6. I see things like this in the press all the time and I wonder what the standards are for being a cop these days. Look at New Orleans. Cops quiting.. looting.. leaving citizens defencesless. Govt can't and won't defend you or your family periord.

Savage .250 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 11, 2005, 04:28:15 AM »

The dreaded.................RESTRAINING ORDER! One of the biggest crocks (for protection) ever devised. In theory is it`s a life saver but
as an instrument of protection a colossal failure. IMO.

" The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

FWiedner · « **Reply #7 on:** September 11, 2005, 05:59:55 AM »

Where is the justice? Where is the equal protection under the law in treating a man who has broken no law like a common criminal. using no more evidence than the word of an openly hostile woman?

The law has no interest in protecting anyone, whether they use paper or they send armed jack-boots to the door.

They just want another avenue to disarm an honest man.

...and it looks to me like plenty of people buy right into their BS.

:x

Savage .250 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 11, 2005, 11:08:13 AM »

"They just want another avenue to disarm an honest man. " I don`t see it that way. some women get beat up on a regular basis If you don`t want
to take their word for it then the visual evidence (blackeyes,black and blue marks, broken bones,etc.) should be all the evidence needed for the dreaded RESTRAINING order to be issued.
If the courts allow battered women to "carry" you can bet the RO all of a sudden means something. Nothing like a even playing field. Any A-H that beats a women needs to know he to can be battered, permanently. IMO.

" The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

FWiedner · « **Reply #9 on:** September 11, 2005, 06:51:37 PM »

Too many women take their petty frustrations out on good men who have never harmed them or anyone else. Why should a man be treated like a criminal just because he doesn't get along with some silly B?

I once read a news piece about a man who killed his wife with a bench grinder.

Seems they were having a spat, and he decided to vacate to the garage to let things cool down. She was too damn mean to let it be, and she followed him out there and started in on him again.

He grabbed what was within reach and helped her to understand his point of view.

I'm not saying that I'll tolerate a man beating a woman, because I most certainly will not, but I symapthize with the guy. If I had been on that jury, you'd see a man walking free as a bird and enjoying the sunshine.

I seriously doubt that you'll ever say a word that will make me feel sorry for a woman, and I'm no longer buying the "woman-as-victim" nonsense.

I'm saying that it takes two to tango, and just because one gets tired of dancing doesn't mean that the other should be forced by the state to stop wearing their shoes.

:wink:

Savage .250 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 12, 2005, 04:20:36 AM »

FWiedner: Some of your points are well taken but as i disagree with you
in general, lets just say we can agree to disagee. Nothing mean or
disrespectful there. Civil conversation engages the mind and i find your stuff engaging. Look forward to sparing with you down the road.

" The best part of the hunt is not the harvest but in the experience."

Greysky · « **Reply #11 on:** September 12, 2005, 07:39:37 AM »

Thanks to radical feminism, along with legislation that gives women preferential legal treatment, masculine men have become a hated target in recent years.

Smugly armed with the illusion that they can now safely stand toe-to-toe with a man in an argument as if they were another man, these man-haters feel free to push as many buttons as they want to with absolute impunity.

Well, I don't sympathize with women in every case when they get their arrogant little faces smashed. Neither does my older sister, or my wife.

Read the article about the Violence Against Women Act by avowed anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly: Legalized Male Bashing