• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence

Nice to see a dose of common sense to gun laws. May I have another sir?
 
I'm against this legislation but let's not play the 'male victim' card here.

It's not the male victim card that I'm playing here. My impression of how domestic violence plays out is that when men strike their wives they're usually into felony territory. When women strike their husbands, it's more of the grabbing him as he's walking away, beating their fists into his chest, slapping his face and so the misdemeanor charge, to me, seems to cover their behavior more accurately. I don't know if this is true or not, this is just my impression. A man loses control and strikes his wife, once that control is lost, then his greater physical strength pushes the assault into felony territory.

And what does the "advocate" say, that this is to "protect women and children" as though women never cross the line and grab their husband, slap their husbands, etc. If this advocate was talking about felonious actions, then I'd agree - men are disproportionately represented as committing that serious level of physical domestic assault. Just watching couples in arguments in public, I see way more physical minor "assault" from women, which as Sotomayor noted, most of us wouldn't consider it to be criminal.
 
Back
Top Bottom