Friday, March 22, 2013

Democrats want men to give up guns

The NY Times has a long piece of feminist gun control propaganda that starts:
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection. ...

In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.”
In some states, that is all it takes for a man to lose his gun rights.

Minority Report was just a stupid movie. We do not have precogs who have the psychic ability to predict future crimes. I am all in favor of taking guns from convicted felons, but citizens are innocent until proven guilty in America. They are supposed to be, anyway.

The anti-man liberal Democrats want want judges to be precogs. The NY Times editorial says:
A man abuses and threatens his ex-wife. She tells a judge that she is frightened and that he is armed. The court orders him to stay away from her. Should it also order him to give up his guns?

Of course it should. If a protective order is to mean anything, the court must do all that it reasonably can do to keep a vulnerable person from becoming a homicide statistic. ...

Representative Lois Capps, a California Democrat, recently introduced a bill to toughen the federal law to cover temporary protective orders and current or former “dating partners,” not just spouses. Congress should pass it, and states should reinforce it with their own laws, requiring judges to act when a person’s safety is at obvious risk from an ex-partner with a gun.
If the man is really committing crimes, he can be charged for those. But most restraining orders are not justified, and a ex-wife is harassing her ex-husband by trying to deprive him of his rights. The newspapers claims that there are studies showing that the order can prevent violence, but they do not consider all the harm that the orders do.


Jacob Ian Stalk said...

The "precogs" in the movie Minority Report are a euphemism for the predictive qualities of population dynamics, advanced surveillance techniques and computerised pattern recognition. Several government agencies use some variation of these elements already. A time is coming when it will be de rigeur for the state to be able to predict most, if not all, pre-meditated crimes. It may not be able to identify the exact place, time and culprit, but it will be able to do so sufficiently to deploy human field agents to fill in the blanks.

Spielberg's movie was nothing more than the Jewish understanding of God, which is what the Jew-controlled film industry has always been about. It is money-making from teaching about God. The missing element, as it has been with the Israelites throughout history, is Grace.

Given the influence the Jews have had on growing statism, the presumption of innocence (Grace) will soon be a redundant concept. Everyone will soon be deemed guilty of a crime, just as everyone is deemed a sinner in Jewish teaching. It's just a matter of definition (moving goalposts controlled by the Pharisaic state)...and time.

To sit idly by and allow this to happen is to ignore the most important lesson in mankind's history - that for peace to reign we must all CHOOSE to follow God's commands, and not be forced to by the overlords.

Anonymous said...

Don't you think it was Gentiles that forced Jews into the entetainment industry by shutting Jews out of mainstream industries over the years ? Jews provide entertainment that people want and enjoy. Why can't Gentiles just do the same if they want to gain control away from the Jews ?