Okla.---Talking Gun Confiscation

[Fyrtwuck]

This effort needs to be stopped as soon as possible. I've seen too many times the lies that can told to have someone arrested just to get them out of the house. Once any guns are confiscated for ANY reason, it can be difficult and expensive to get them back.....if ever.

 

[mugsy]

This law makes little sense, if the goal is to protect a spouse and there is reasonable cause to believe that he/she is oriented toward physical violence, the law should probably have the person incarcerated otherwise all we are doing is saying find some other way to kil/hurt your spouse

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't believe it is "feel good" legislation. I believe it is incrementalism, the favorite tool of the left. The left can't win in a straight up fight, so they disingenuously claim it is "common sense", or "for the children" or some such. Common sense says it is better to be armed in defense of abuse and/or to protect children from abuse. Being armed might deter some, but having the tools at hand can stop all.

Woody

 

[Wheel Gun]

Well, that should make potential wife beaters straighten up and act right.

 

[mugsy]

She's what you get when all the schoolmarms band together and vote as a block ... and she doesn't care since she's on the way out anyway (term limited).

Hah, an unintended side effect of term limits. Isn't her son also a State rep?

 

[mugsy]

I don't believe it is "feel good" legislation. I believe it is incrementalism, the favorite tool of the left. The left can't win in a straight up fight, so they disingenuously claim it is "common sense", or "for the children" or some such. Common sense says it is better to be armed in defense of abuse and/or to protect children from abuse. Being armed might deter some, but having the tools at hand can stop all.

Woody

That is not a sensible conclusion in this case - Rep Ann Coody is not a leftist, or even Liberal at all, in fact she's fairly conservative. No, this is simply a bad piece of ill-thought out legislation by a person who wanted to "do something" to address a perceived problem.

 

[cw821]

A well intended, but bad idea. The kind of abuse she thinks she is trying to avoid usually involves fists, sometimes knives, but almost never guns. It would definitely be abused by ex'es trying to get back at them too.

 

[abajaj11]

So now, any time a couple is going through divorce, this is one more way that one spouse can piss on the other.
Awesome.

Previous posts are spot-on, IMHO: if someone wants to commit an act of domestic violence, there are plenty of tools available to do that.

Unless you have already committed violent illegal acts, there is no reason why ANY one should be able to deprive you of your weapons.

 

[Sanford]

Some good points here. While some may see this sort of thing as "prevention" in far too many cases all it really does is increase rage and the potential for other undesirable retaliatory actions.

 

[Dale00]

This law makes little sense, if the goal is to protect a spouse and there is reasonable cause to believe that he/she is oriented toward physical violence, the law should probably have the person incarcerated otherwise all we are doing is saying find some other way to kil/hurt your spouse

Some good points here. While some may see this sort of thing as "prevention" in far too many cases all it really does is increase rage and the potential for other undesirable retaliatory actions.

The above comments are succinct and to the point. I would add that some ridicule of the legislator's poor critical thinking skills is needed. I do not care if she is a "nice person". She is proposing something ineffective and harmful and should be shamed for it.