Child sex abuse much too prevalent in society

Pure.........you DO realize you're asking a liberal to "seek truth" right? It isn't going to happen. The left aren't interested in FACTS or TRUTH; it goes 'against' their immoral agenda!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ALL rapists and murderers should be "executed" and these things would cease happening. But until the liberal sympathizers of criminals rather than victims get voted out of office....it won't happen!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Articles from where, the Twilight Zone?

It amazes me the way you seek out misinformation to fit your world view and swallow it like a religious sacrament.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You can argue the fact all you like, but I have the articles containing the police reports and it is true. The assault weapon never left the car. Period.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

That just isn't true and the original sources for those erroneous reports have all acknowledge it.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The part you posted What is what they got wrong. Not a single person was show with an assault weapon or even a shotgun, all were shot with pistols. I suggest you read the article again or get one that is accurate. They found the Buchmaster in Lanza's car after it was all over. The rifle never entered the school.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Every victim at Sandy Hook was shot with a Bushmaster (a weapon that I would like to own). In the rush to report the tragedy some news outlets got it wrong. I'm inclined to believe the medical examiner. It would be a felony for him to lie.

Not that that has any bearing on whether or not you overstated what the Clinton law actually did.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You aren't very consistent. You don't seem to think that there is a problem with taking the gun rights from felons. That is just based on an assumption. Most felons never hurt anyone.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have already told you that I don't thing the retroactive taking of firearm rights is right much less constitutional. You haven't got a clue.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Stop trying to justifying taking a person's firearms away from them on the assumption they MIGHT hurt someone with them. Very few people who have an altercation with their spouse or live-in ever resort to shooting them. Why do you advocate punishing people for something that never happened? That's as bad as the lie the Democrats are using to pass new gun legislation. They're basing the whole move to make assault weapons illegal on something that never happened. Not a single person was killed at Sandy Hook with an assault weapon, yet the idiots in Washington are pushing for a ban of a weapon that was never used.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation that passes laws on the assumption that someone MIGHT do something. That's like passing a law that will take your driver's license away because I think you may cause an accident. People like you don't care about things like this until it affects you, and it will. Eventually, they'll get around to you.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

It isn't a catch-22. You just have to refrain from hurting the people that you are supposed to take care of. That is pretty simple unless not beating your loved ones is too liberal a concept for you.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You are a moron. Did I say they didn't lose their right to have a firearm retroactively? No. I said that they aren't felons retroactively. Get it through your head: you do not have to be a felon to lose your right to bear arms.

Of course you are talking about West Virginia law. Domestic violence is not a federal offense and your wife beating friends are in your county. Not that it would matter. Domestic violence is a misdemeanor in every state in the union.

Would you please look it up and quit being an idiot.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I'm not talking about WV law, I am talking about federal law. Ican name a half dozen people in this county that were caught in this catch 22 and lost their right to own guns years after their domestic case. Thanks to Clinton, they can't even hunt any more, and they can't stay in their own home if their wife has a gun. Their domestic conviction never affected their right to have a gun until AFTER Clinton pushed his domestic violence legislation through Congress. You keep saying it can't happen, but it did and maybe you should explain it to these guys, they'd love to hear your explanation of how it couldn't happen to them.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And you are still wrong that the Clinton Laws retroactively upped misdemeanors to felons. Still can't happen.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"No person may possess a firearm who has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic assault or domestic battery under West Virginia law."-Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

You also can't possess a firearm if you have a domestic violence protective order against you. This does not require a conviction for anything, just that there has been a hearing.

You do not have to be a felon to lose your gun rights. Some misdemeanor drug offenses will do it too along with some mental health issues.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

You are mistaken. Quit arguing and actually take the time to look it up. Criminal law is one of my hobbies and I can assure you that you don't know what you are talking about, both on gun law and domestic violence. If you want to be embarrassed we can go there but it would be a waste of time. Start by carefully reading the site that you directed me to. If you can understand it you will see that I'm, correct. You can also look up WV code 28.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

What, you don't seem to understand the law. When you are convicted of a domestic, you ARE a felon. If that wasn't the case, they couldn't take your firearms. You better read the law. Once convicted of a domestic, you lose your right to own firearms, and you will be listed as a felon. If you don't believe, go ask one of your local law enforcement officers. That's the way it is.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

" I mean how stupid is someone who even after being SHOWN facts...continues their ignorant argument like they never saw the FACTS at all??"

You tell me TS. You do that regularly.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

....along with people that have been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. You are accurate that the right to bear arms was retroactively revoked and I agree that it wasn't right but you are mistaken that they were declared to be felons. Sorry, but that is the truth.

TruthSqueaker, just because you don't know what you are talking about doesn't make me a liar. It doesn't make you one either. You are just obtuse to the point of debilitation.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

It goes without saying, that it did make them felons, otherwise they would still be able to carry a firearm. Only felons and those with a dishonroable discharge from the military or someone with a mental condition are prohibited from owning firearms.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"The law had a retroactive effect, it applied to crimes committed years ago. Thus, even though that behavior did not then cause a loss of gun ownership privileges, it has been made so by this crime law. Generally speaking, laws are not allowed to have RETROACTIVE effect."

You may have seen articles about this in local papers or on the news because it has caused some police departments to have to take guns away from certain officers who had prior convictions for domestic violence. Some of these convictions were several years old."

I don't know what you read, but it did make felons out of people who had already been sentenced and served or was serving their sentence. It's illegal, but sine when does liberals care anything about legalities?

It goes on to say, "

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pure....you cannot teach a ******* anything. Don't waste your breathe. Ignorance is bliss I guess. Seems to be their motto. I mean how stupid is someone who even after being SHOWN facts...continues their ignorant argument like they never saw the FACTS at all?? If they don't agree, facts or not, they just lie lie lie. Even they realize the lies don't work as most people are not as stupid.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I do agree that retroactively adding a penalty for any crime is wrong/unconstitutional and I doubt that that provision will be upheld (if it hasn't already been struck down).

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Did you even read that article? It doesn't say anything about retroactively raising a conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony. You are characterizing the Clinton law as badly as you are the law that is mentioned in the above article.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

There is a difference between being a felon and being ineligible to own firearms. For example being mentally ill isn't a felony but can render a person ineligible to legally have a firearm.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »