|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4..15~16~17 [Next] | ||||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 23:45, RobertSmith wrote: Or now knowing that she's packing heat, perhaps it is far more likely that he will stay away?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 23:45, RobertSmith wrote: Actually, do you know this for a fact or is it hypothesizing on your part? Because we know for a fact that another county refused to release the data. So it is at least possible that the county in question did not release names and addresses of everyone with firearms. It might have released the data on a selective basis. Perhaps it did not release information on people who had restraining orders out on ex spouses etc.?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
RobertSmith Veteran user 330 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-06 00:01, balducci wrote: While I have no factual basis to support it happening in this instance, it would not be the first time an abusive ex tracked down and stalked or killed his ex. And yes, I do have facts on the police officers being threatened now. That is happening as a direct result of this newspapers distorted belief that, "people have the right to know if their neighbors have guns." They released everything except for make and number of firearms owned. There's no exception under NY law for people with TROs etc. Putnam County flat out refused, in violation of the FOIA. They're going to be sued now. |
|||||||||
RobertSmith Veteran user 330 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 23:54, balducci wrote: Possibly but, in my personal opinion only, unlikely. All an abuser would have to do is wait for her to leave the house. In NY concealed carry is almost non existent as it is a may issue state. Bottom line - what the newspaper did was wrong. It's not about whether or not an abuse victim is attacked again. Simply having their information disclosed in such a fashion in more than enough to cause significant fear and disruption in their lives. In other words, the newspaper, in their arrogance, no doubt victimized some all over again, and put others in a position to be victimized a first time. Whoever honestly believes they have a right to know if their neighbor owns guns needs to have their head examined. |
|||||||||
w_s_anderson Inner circle The United States 1226 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 14:01, mastermindreader wrote: Come on Bob, look at your source. I am sure the act was never read, and the comment was made based solely on the title of act. That's one big problem with people in this country. People can't seem to think for themselves, or make it through the first few sentences before issuing their judgement. It reminds me of a very funny Jimmy Kimmel episode where he was getting women to sign a petition to "End Women's Sufferage." If those women knew what they were signing there is no way they would have done it....but if it sounds like it may be bad, then it must be......lol We live in a country of ill informed idiots. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
If there's nothing particular to women, it does kind of make you wonder why it's not the "Violence Against People Act."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-06 00:58, LobowolfXXX wrote: Actually, when the act was first introduced it just applied to women. It was later amended to include all victims of domestic violence, but they never bothered to change the original title of the bill. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 23:54, balducci wrote: Let me connect the dots for you, Mr. Smith... I am OPPOSED to the publication of gun owners names and addresses. As are many Democrats. I'm also opposed to people like yourself who paint ALL people who belong to a particular party with the same broad stereotypical brush. Kind of reminds me of O'Reilly categorizing ALL ASIANS the other day. |
|||||||||
FatHatter Regular user I'm here you're there and that's that. 137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-05 14:01, mastermindreader wrote: I would argue that the name of the Act is factually actually and smacktually spurious. And I'd repeat that: Laws don't protect people. Laws don't provide a way out from a life of abuse. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I'd argue that there are literally thousands of laws that protect people. Start with food and drug safety, move on to speed limits, automobile safety regulations, et al ad nauseum.
Are you seriously saying that since laws don't protect people, there is no need for laws? Or are you just saying there's no need to make spousal abuse illegal? And, yes, as I've noted, the title of the act is misleading, but it was accurate prior to its being amended to include all forms of domestic violence. |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote: There are a ton of ways to find out where someone lives, especially if you know their name.
On 2013-01-06 00:13, RobertSmith wrote: Though the newspaper probably shouldn't have published the list.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
FatHatter Regular user I'm here you're there and that's that. 137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-07 12:41, mastermindreader wrote: I'd argue that food is less nutritious and therefore not as safe as it was when it was real food regardless of any regulations. Don't get me started on drug safety, seriously, don't start. Speed limits? Really? Do you drive much? It's not a limit on speed. Vehicles go way fast on the urge of the operator. The signs don't govern the speed of the vehicles. Vehicles are as safe or unsafe as the operators. Regulations/Laws don't make safe. People make safe. YOU mentioned there is no need for laws. Don't put those words in my mouth. Also I didn't say anything shouldn't be illegal. What I said is: Laws don't protect people. Laws don't provide a way out from a life of abuse. What Laws do is set up punishment for those that do not obey them. That is what Laws do. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
And do you think those punishments and penalties have any effect at all on reducing the number of offenses or activities that endanger people? If your answer is no, what is the point of having the laws? The logical conclusion would be that laws are, therefore, unnecessary. Not putting words into your mouth at all, just following the unavoidable conclusion of your premise.
Just wondered- do you think that traffic lights, stop signs and crosswalks provide some safety to motorists and pedestrians, or should we do away with them? |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It is amazing to me that indian women are not covered by the same laws but I am not sure I understand the law on this.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-07 13:15, mastermindreader wrote: Depends on where you're driving. Seattle? Probably. Boston? Perhaps not. |
|||||||||
FatHatter Regular user I'm here you're there and that's that. 137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-07 13:15, mastermindreader wrote: No I don't think punishments and penalties have any effect at all on reducing the number of offenses or activities that endanger people. What I said is, and it's getting fun to repeat myself, "What Laws do is set up punishment for those that do not obey them. That is what Laws do." I wonder if you are reading what I post. Your logical conclusions are not, what's that word, logical and they are avoidable. Do we want people running around killing others? No. We pass a law saying killing people is no good. Guy kills another. We prosecute, convict, and punish. That won't stop another from killing, fact. Won't even stop that guy from killing again. (killing the guy will stop him from killing again) It helps make society feel better about the whole deal knowing guy is locked away or hung/shot/injected/etc. To the traffic lights, signs, etc. Where I live people don't even stop at lights or signs. If you are in the crosswalk you better have some moves. To direct flow of traffic they have some value but safety isn't one of them. The D.P.S. is a joke. Do you think if all laws regarding harming others were lifted 5 minutes from now there would be mass murder in the streets and skull bashing everywhere you look? I say no. People are gonna do what people are gonna do. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Wow! No point in further discussion, then. Let's just cut the waste and get rid of useless laws like building codes, the civil rights act, child labor laws, sweatshop laws, fire codes and let everyone fend for themselves.
Too bad about hose silly Founding Fathers who believed that "We are a nation of laws, not men." |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-07 14:04, mastermindreader wrote: Stupid idea: what do you plan to do with all of the people (e.g., police officers, building inspectors, and so on) who suddenly find themselves unemployed. You really haven't thought this one through, Bob. That's not like you. New prescription? |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Well without the unemployment benefits provided by law, I guess they'd be SOL.
(No new prescription- same old Panama Red. ) |
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-01-07 14:19, mastermindreader wrote: That was Archie Bunker's solution to the problem of plane hijackings: give every passenger a handgun when they board the plane, and collect them when they disembark; nobody's going to hijack a plane when every passenger is packing. (Note that I just quoted a post that it appears you never wrote.) |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Violence Against Women Act (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4..15~16~17 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |