NRA Member Who Lost Sister To Gun Violence Tearfully Asks Senate To Protect Women

[hadit]

I don't own a gun and don't want to. I also don't want a potential assailant to know that.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, speed limits and state cops don't stop ALL speeders - but they sure help keep the highways safer than they would be without them.

 

[Samson]

I don't own a gun and don't want to. I also don't want a potential assailant to know that.

[MENTION=44342]hadit[/MENTION]

Well, someone's going to ask, may as well be me, old buddy:





Then what's that in your pocket?

 

[asaratis]

Liberals seem never to relent in promoting the illogical argument that new passing laws to make guns harder to obtain legally will solve the problem of senseless deaths by ILLEGAL use of guns. The one fact that liberals seem never to understand is that ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS will observe the new laws.

The shooter in this case was NOT a law abiding citizen. Whether the gun he used was obtained legally or not would have made little or no difference in his determination to kill his estranged wife. His action might have been delayed...but not prevented by such laws as proposed in the OP.

Criminals do not obey laws! DUH!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WASHINGTON -- Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois. He became an unlikely witness for the Democrats on Wednesday at the first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence against women.

Daniel choked back tears at the hearing as he recounted the story of his sister, Zina, who was shot and killed by her estranged ex-husband in 2012. After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

Zina's husband then murdered her and injured four other people before shooting himself.

"Now I'm helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her," Daniel told the committee. "I'm here today for Zina and for the stories like Zina's that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women's lives in danger."

American women account for 84 percent of all female gun victims in the developed world, and more than a quarter of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by an intimate partner.

The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar's bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal's bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence.

"If we can save just one life, that would be worth everything we're going through," he said. "And I know we can save more than one life."

More: NRA Member Who Lost Sister To Gun Violence Tearfully Asks Senate To Protect Women

More proof that universal background checks can save lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

Tow of the three points you made are lies.

Identify which ones, and prove that they are incorrect.

One and three.

The same regulations that apply to offline gun sales apply to online gun sales, and all sorts of regulations and laws are in place that allegedly prevent criminals from buying guns.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois.

I wish more "constitutional conservatives" would wake up - and stand up to the NRA.

I wish you gun control folks would wake up and let women stand up for themselves. Oh, restraining orders do a lot of good when a woman is lying there dead in a pool of blood.

 

[Wildman]

Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois.

I wish more "constitutional conservatives" would wake up - and stand up to the NRA.

I wish more "constitutional conservatives" would wake up - and stand up with the NRA.

i am reasonably certain this is what you meant to say....., right ?

 

[westwall]

Well, speed limits and state cops don't stop ALL speeders - but they sure help keep the highways safer than they would be without them.

Really? Turns out that when you don't have to keep looking out for cops wanting to pad their quota's you drive safer. Who woulda thunk it?




"When California revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted highway carnage as drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.

It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple the number of vehicles on the road."


Higher Speed Limits, Lower Death Rates / Statistics surprise many observers of state's highways - SFGate

 

[MaxGrit]

Okay, pass this silly law...how does anything they propose change the outcome...this guy apparently didn't go to a gun store...right...which means if they pass a law that prohibits someone from getting a gun if they are under a restraining order, they can still very easily get a gun online from a criminal...right...that is what happened here...right...the guy selling the gun didn't care about the nature of the request for the gun...so another law won't stop the next guy...but ending the killing of innocent people isn't really the goal is it...

the real purpose is not real victims of these crimes because this new silly law won't stop the ex from beating her to death with a baseball bat, stabbing her with a knife or strangling her with his bare hands...or setting her on fire which has also been a method used by these types...all that takes is a gallon of gas and a lighter...

What this is about is disarming more regular people...because the anti gunners know that most times,a restraining order is also a tool of divorce,for custody hearings...it happens all the time...so, it becomes automatic that with a restraining order, wether real or not, or necessary or just a tool in a divorce case...the cops,take the guns...right...and the victim is still killed...just not with a gun...and the anti gunners can feel all happy inside.

How about expediting training and permitting carry licenses for the women...but of course..it isn't about them is it...it is still all about the guns...

Hahaha yeah

 

[zeke]

The real question becomes, which is better, to assume women are weak, helpless, and need paternalistic protection, or that they are strong, and fully capable of defending themselves if we give them the necessary tools?

So in your pea brain, people that don't want to carry a gun don't deserve protection.

That sound about gun nutter enough for you?

 

[LiberalMedia]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

1- there are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
2- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
3- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.

Then apply these regulations to criminals. It really is that simple.

You can't regulate criminals more heavily. If you could that would make them not be criminals. All you can do is regulate those that obey the laws more heavily.

So then cure the criminals of their criminality by regulating them, and the problem is solved.

Restraining orders don't stop bullets.

Not when they don't restrain shooters from buying illegal weapons from unlicensed dealers. The order simply wasn't restrictive enough.

 

[westwall]

The real question becomes, which is better, to assume women are weak, helpless, and need paternalistic protection, or that they are strong, and fully capable of defending themselves if we give them the necessary tools?

So in your pea brain, people that don't want to carry a gun don't deserve protection.

That sound about gun nutter enough for you?

No, we ASSUME that women are competent, smart, and fully capable of defending THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES if allowed the tools to do so.

It is you misogynists who think that woman are idiots and too stupid to be able to defend themselves thus are mere chattel to be used and abused as you see fit.

 

[westwall]

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

1- there are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
2- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
3- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.

Then apply these regulations to criminals. It really is that simple.

You can't regulate criminals more heavily. If you could that would make them not be criminals. All you can do is regulate those that obey the laws more heavily.

So then cure the criminals of their criminality by regulating them, and the problem is solved.

Restraining orders don't stop bullets.

Not when they don't restrain shooters from buying illegal weapons from unlicensed dealers. The order simply wasn't restrictive enough.

Sounds great. We KNOW that 80% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by 8% of the criminal population. Let's lock them up forever. Deal?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I love guns. I love wildlife. I love hunting. I hate the NRA.

sure you do.....your posts back that up....

 

[The Rabbi]

WASHINGTON -- Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois. He became an unlikely witness for the Democrats on Wednesday at the first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence against women.

Daniel choked back tears at the hearing as he recounted the story of his sister, Zina, who was shot and killed by her estranged ex-husband in 2012. After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

Zina's husband then murdered her and injured four other people before shooting himself.

"Now I'm helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her," Daniel told the committee. "I'm here today for Zina and for the stories like Zina's that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women's lives in danger."

American women account for 84 percent of all female gun victims in the developed world, and more than a quarter of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by an intimate partner.

The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar's bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal's bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence.

"If we can save just one life, that would be worth everything we're going through," he said. "And I know we can save more than one life."

More: NRA Member Who Lost Sister To Gun Violence Tearfully Asks Senate To Protect Women

More proof that universal background checks can save lives.

I call bullshit on the whole thing.
The guy was never an NRA member. He never had a sister. She was not killed by her ex husband.
The whole thing is a show put on by Klobuchar and Blumenthal, who have been pimping for more gun control forever.

 

[The Rabbi]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong

4. You cannot regulate criminals, by definition. If you really cared about "wymyn" you would support fewer restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms. Guns save lives.

 

[PredFan]

The liberals want women disarmed. Laws won't protect them, making guns harder for innocent people to buy won't protect them, only allowing them to protect themselves will.

Why do liberal hate women so?

 

[Erand7899]

The NRA has had a program designed specifically for female armed self defense for decades. The NRA used to be affiliated with the federal government but right now there is absolutely no government agency that trains civilian women how to defend themselves with firearms. The NRA supports safe use of firearms, enforcement of existing laws that prevent crazy people and felons from obtaining firearms and encourages women to learn about firearms and gun safety. If anyone has failed society it is the federal government.

It isn't about arming more people, you dumb fucking idiot. It's about disarming those who shouldn't be armed in the first place.

No, asshole, it is about determining who is, or who is not, legally entitled to a constitutional right. Tens of thousands of temporary restraining orders are issued every month, and most of them never get beyond that point. You, in your devine idiocy, want to confiscate the weapons of everyone who winds up the subject of one of those temporary restraining orders.

Just another back door attempt to get around the constitution by continually chipping away at those who are legally entitled to avail themselves of that constitutional right.