Didn’t move goal posts…And yes what’s wrong with extra protection for someone with violent tendencies?
Yes, you did. And you know it.
You mean “against”? Dating isn’t a legal status.
Which included a bunch of BS that didn’t have anything to do with violence against women and greatly expanded the original act way beyond it’s intent.
Which is not “dating”. They are living as a household, common law marriage.
Such as?..unless less there is more to the bill than what I posted isnt the total bill, I see no added bs.
Right…which is the point I was making with SF.
No, that seems to be the point you are avoiding.
The VAWA was supposedly passed to protect women in “domestic partnerships”.
Dating is not a domestic partnership, it’s a social activity.
Sure it is…partnership is what you make of it.
Everything is a relationship regardless of context.
Yet you said dating.
Cite the law defining dating as a partnership.
I didnt say dating…the bill I copied/ pasted did. I said living together, shared bills/mortgage…etc.
My post you are referencing …
“And??..And if someone lives with someone for years, all the bills/ mortgage etc are both names but they are not married, what’s the difference”
Ah, so the bill is ■■■■■ Yeah, I said that already.
Triggered.
Not at all…Why should anyone with violent past be allowed to own a gun?
Because it is an offense to the very nature of our constitution to deprive anyone of their most basic rights without a felony conviction.
1 Like
You know this discussion just triggered a thought.
How long before we have an equal protection suit challenging the VAWA on the basis that it won’t protect gay males or lesbian partners in the same way it protects straight women?
A spouse is a spouse regardless of orientation. So yea I’d have no problem with that.
Our system has worked well for many years. The ballot box is the ultimate arbitrator.
Because it’s in the past. Prison is about rehabilitation.
I have a violent past, I was a soldier.
Not the Constitution? Them “our system” isn’t working worth a damn.
