SC

Taylor: Lawmakers Must Stand Up For The Women Of SC

PUT LIVES AHEAD OF POLITICS ON CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REFORM … || By TAYLOR BROWN || What has been said, time and time again, is: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” S.C. Senator Larry Martin – the primary sponsor of new criminal domestic violence legislation in the Palmetto State –…

PUT LIVES AHEAD OF POLITICS ON CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REFORM …

Processed with VSCOcam with b5 preset|| By TAYLOR BROWN || What has been said, time and time again, is: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

S.C. Senator Larry Martin – the primary sponsor of new criminal domestic violence legislation in the Palmetto State – has called this assessment “an absolute farce.”  While I disagree with his sentiment, the fact remains that people – in this case, abusive partners – statistically use guns as a weapon of choice to kill people.  Between 2007-2011, women in South Carolina were twice as likely to be shot to death by their intimate partner as the average American woman, and this rate has been continuously rising.

Moreover, the presence of a gun in CDV situations increases the risk of homicide by FIVE-HUNDRED PERCENT, while during an average month 48 women are shot to death by their current or previous partner.

Why give someone the opportunity and means to end the life of their partner or spouse? Guns, in the hands of abusive people, who couldn’t even control their anger enough to not hit, kick, beat, rape, or abuse their supposed loved one, kill people. It is a simple measure – a common sense measure – to protect the (by and large) women (as well as men) in this State from being shot and killed. Other states that have restricted access to guns for those convicted of CDV have seen 25% fewer shooting deaths by their intimate partners.

Why continue to let tragedies like the one Christian Rainey experienced be a “norm” here in South Carolina? His mother and four siblings were slain by his mother’s partner – some while sleeping.

Take a look …

(Click to play)

(Vid: Via)

Why are tragedies like this so commonplace here in this amazing state?

If you don’t get teary-eyed after listening to his statement, that should make you question: Why not?  Why doesn’t this shake you to your core?  Why doesn’t this move you beyond belief?  These are real people.  Real people who will never be able to say goodbye to their loved ones.  Real people who made a difference in their community, who will never be able to wave to you as when you see them in the street or at the grocery store.

These are real people.

S.C. Rep. Peter McCoy served as a prosecutor in the South Carolina Lowcountry for six years – and did a tremendous job in that capacity.  He saw women who were abused by their husbands, and has first-hand knowledge of the effects of CDV on the community.

Both McCoy and I are staunch advocates for the Second Amendment (I have my concealed weapons permit).  Being a Second Amendment supporter seemed to make this issue fairly difficult for him to fully support all aspects of this bill.  But for those who argue against this bill on Second Amendment grounds, bear in mind that women are about ten times more likely to be shot or threatened with a gun than to use said gun in self-defense.

McCoy says the Senate version of the bill has a problem when it comes to the act of confiscating the weapons.  He claims this specific language would put third parties “who don’t need to be there” in jeopardy, and put the “legal responsibility on the third parties.”

He, furthermore, argued that he doesn’t “see how it’s [transferring guns] is Constitutionally legal… or even fair!” and that it is a “slippery slope.”

“What if someone doesn’t transfer their weapon properly?” he asked.  “You would be putting law enforcement in harm’s way.”

Personally, I have issue with McCoy’s claim that this language would put law enforcement in harm’s way.  No law enforcement agency is required to accept and store a firearm that was transferred from a convicted abuser.  If a law enforcement agency (or licensed firearms dealer) choose to store the firearm, they could also charge a fee equal to the cost of storage.  They could even dispose of abandoned firearms.  There is no affirmative new burden on law enforcement.  In fact, according to FBI data, across America, over 150 law enforcement officers have been killed responding to domestic violence disturbances!

This law will save law enforcement lives!

McCoy said his house bill would go more in-depth than Martin’s Senate bill – which is co-sponsored by a diverse group of lawmakers including Katrina Shealy, Gerald Malloy, John Courson, Greg Hembree and Mike Fair.  Specifically, he says his bill will change the criminal penalties and make this a social issue.  It will also offer counseling and education on CDV for South Carolinians.  Finally, it would will change the conditions for issuing bonds for CDV charges.

McCoy also says this bill has an issue reconciling existing federal law with the addition of more gun control measures (i.e. transferring).  He raises a good point when he says that anyone who has been convicted of a CDV has already lost their right to posses a firearm.

“They’re already breaking the law,” he said.

Despite his differences with the Senate legislation, McCoy has “made it [his] mission to champion CDV reform” which is “very near and dear to [his] heart… [he wants] to bring awareness and tackle this issue head on.”

I agree – and I think it is incredibly heroic when lawmakers stand behind such an important cause for the people (especially the women) of this great state.

This is a bill that transcends politics – a straight-forward, comprehensive measure that will save lives.

Shame on State Senators Lee Bright and Tom Corbin – who are opposing this bill based purely on politics.  Do the lives of women matter so little to these lawmakers that they’re willing to let political considerations trump their obligation to protect those who need it the most?  Stand up for your constituents, lest you have several less votes due to women being murdered by their partners – something they could have prevented by voting “aye.”

Stand up for the women of South Carolina.  Put their lives ahead of politics.

Taylor Brown is a 20-something Wofford College graduate who somehow got sucked into politics at an early age.  She is easily won over with Rush’s fast food (obviously), wine, and spirited political arguments.

***

Related posts

SC

Hurricane Matthew: Outlook Worsens For SC Coast

FITSNews
SC

Tom Ervin Qualifies For November Ballot

FITSNews
SC

#SCStateHouse: No Budget Deal

FITSNews

127 comments

Rocky January 29, 2015 at 11:19 am

Needs a better Taylor photo.

Reply
Fecal Matters January 30, 2015 at 10:49 am

This one is infinitely better than the former Taylor making a duck face at her wine glass.

Reply
No principles worth fight for? January 29, 2015 at 11:33 am

“limited gov’t” is nothing more than a platitude for most Republicans

Reply
Try To Keep Up January 29, 2015 at 11:57 am

Just like “stronger, more effective government” is for Democrats. There are plenty of platitudes to go around, in fact.

Reply
No principles worth fighting 4 January 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm

I don’t disagree.

Reply
The Colonel January 29, 2015 at 11:36 am

A “new” gun law that makes complete sense – I might go a little further and say “conviction on any “violence” charge” = lose your right to own a gun.

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 12:20 pm

Good comment Colonel.

Reply
Rakkasan January 30, 2015 at 5:44 am

It’s very difficult to ID “the real idiots here”. After working in DV for 13 years, I can tell you that’s it’s amazing to see otherwise “normal” people become crazy-panicky when their abandonment fears are triggered. You won’t recognize them as a threat unless this happens, then they are every bit a threat and scary as the sociopathic type controller who doesn’t care about one more conviction.

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 12:19 pm

NIce job Taylor. My mother was a victim of domestic violence (step-father). He pulled a gun on her one night. Affluent and well known in their Florida community she didn’t to cause him a problem-he was a pilot and would have lost his job.

Big mistake. They only took the gun for 10 days. After the divorce she continued to live in fear from the knowledge of him having that gun as she continually was drug back into court for modification of her alimony. She always won but lived in fear of what might happen even though she lived in a gated community.

You are wise beyond your years and thank you for this article.

Reply
Buz Martin January 29, 2015 at 12:33 pm

Commenting like a real human being for a change, Flippy Pogo. I’m impressed.

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 12:34 pm

I will take that as a compliment Buz. :-)

Reply
Self Respecting Woman February 2, 2015 at 12:32 am

Buz – really? Guest is either fabricating the “mom got abused by my step-father” or simply delusional.

Reply
Buz Martin February 2, 2015 at 7:16 am

Oh, he’s generally delusional, for sure, and fabricates at least 90% of what he posts here. But some of it may be true. If that is true, well, it was uncharacteristically human-like for him to discuss it at all.

Reply
Squishy123 January 29, 2015 at 7:07 pm

So she didn’t want to cause him any problems by reporting it… so who took his gun for 10 days?

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 9:08 pm

Indian River County Sheriffs Department…you got a problem with that? He also beat her that night and she cowered in a closet until they arrived.
Did you want her dead?

Reply
Idontthinkso January 29, 2015 at 7:12 pm

Years ago, abused women didn’t report abuse because of shame, embarrassment or loss of income. Even worse, abused women who happened to be black NEVER DREAMED of calling the cops. Black women were considered less than second class citizens. Now women can earn their own living. Black women are free to call the cops and expect action. And because of heightened awareness and caring organizations such as SisterCare, more women report abuse. SO, Is CDV occurring more or simply being reported more?

Reply
Self Respecting Woman January 30, 2015 at 6:34 pm

So your mother chose his income over her life? I’d scrub toilets for a living before I would let myself get beat up by my husband. And fuck the alimony too. Can’t tell whether you are a son or a daughter, but what kind of example was she setting for you? That it’s ok for a husband to beat his wife – that’s what!

Reply
guest January 30, 2015 at 9:41 pm

I don’t know what to say about your comment . My mother was a professional that had her own career in a major hotel chain.She did leave.

She never had too clean toilets.She had enough money to hire trash like YOU to clean em-paid em well.

Reply
Self Respecting Woman January 31, 2015 at 1:55 pm

“she didn’t want to cause him a problem-he was a pilot and would have lost his job.” That statement implies she did not file an official report with to the cops and press charges. Why would a self-respecting wife CARE if her caveman abusive husband lost his job? And if she had her own “career in a major hotel chain”, why did she need alimony. Contrary to popular belief pilots do not make much money.

Reply
guest January 31, 2015 at 2:07 pm

He retired after 30 years at over $200,000 a year. A millionaire.
You sound jealous that my mother is wealthy and has done much good with her wealth in her community.
Sorry you missed out.

Self Respecting Woman January 31, 2015 at 4:00 pm

My income is higher. And I worth more an $1,000,000. So I’m not jealous. Your becoming petty here. So I’ll assume your a woman… Back to my point now. Why would any self respecting woman stay for 10 days, or even 10 minutes after her husband pulled a gun on her? And why further provoke him after the divorce by perpetually taking him to court for alimony increases?

Self Respecting Woman January 31, 2015 at 4:04 pm

Your mother sounds like a gold digging whore. Putting up with this or that from a husband because he’s rich.

guest January 31, 2015 at 8:20 pm

She never took him to court for alimony increases.
You work at Sonic and your mother cleaned toilets. Your son is a homo and dresses like Boz and your daughter is a whore.
Fuck you.

Self Respecting Woman February 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm

What does “modification of her alimony” mean?

guest February 1, 2015 at 5:53 pm

Look it up BOZ.

Self Respecting Woman February 1, 2015 at 11:39 pm

@ Guest – Ya lost this one sweetheart. Your story is obviously fabricated complete with a wealthy step-father. Been there, done that. Go home. Your name calling is immature. Sonic, homosexual son and whore daughter. Go back to college and complete your degree – you’ll feel better about yourself.

Self Respecting Woman February 1, 2015 at 11:42 pm

I’m not BOZ

Self Respecting Woman February 2, 2015 at 12:24 am

@Guest – HELLO are you still there? Or did you realize your we figured out your story is fabricated? If not, your mother is a gold digging whore.

Self Respecting Woman February 2, 2015 at 12:29 am

FYI- I don’t work at Sonic. My mother has 2 post grad degrees and thus never cleaned toilets for a living. My son is a red-blooded heterosexual and I don’t have a daughter. Quit the immature name calling and grow a pair.

Business Traveller February 1, 2015 at 11:40 am

I’ve known a few of those high dollar professional prositutes in my day. They are a comfort for the business traveller and usuallycworth what they are paid in terms of their excellent customer service. The major hotels usually look the other way as their relationship is rather symbiotic. What chain did your mother work and when. I may have been a client of her’s at one time or another.

Reply
Self Respecting Woman February 1, 2015 at 1:17 pm

“professional in a major hotel chain”?

Grammer Police February 1, 2015 at 1:20 pm

*to not too

Reply
Grammer Police February 1, 2015 at 3:08 pm

*a professional WHO had her own career

Reply
mamatiger92 January 29, 2015 at 12:22 pm

We are in agreement on this one, Taylor.

Reply
Buz Martin January 29, 2015 at 12:31 pm

You’ll catch a lot of flack from the usual gang on this one, Taylor. But you are correct on all points. Good article.

Reply
Slurp,Slurp Suck,Suck January 29, 2015 at 1:28 pm

Anything this cunt says is good with you.

Reply
Bugger Much? January 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm

I don’t often agree with her, but she’s right on here. Calling her a cunt tell us what you are, you candyass pussy.

Reply
9" January 29, 2015 at 8:30 pm

You wanna ride the rod,bitch?

Reply
Anger Management January 29, 2015 at 1:58 pm

Why is calling her “cunt” necessary?

Reply
Casualviewer January 29, 2015 at 4:37 pm

It does seem to fit her and her juvenile ramblings.

Reply
Anger Management January 29, 2015 at 4:46 pm

I can’t imagine calling a juvenile a “cunt”. What message of hers specifically upsets you?

Cunt? January 29, 2015 at 2:05 pm

Is that you, Lee Bright? You should know better!

Reply
both of ya are filthy rats! January 29, 2015 at 3:11 pm

No.Buz has been just as offensive to Taylor as YOU! :

Buz Martin • 3 months ago

Your level of brilliance?

Holy shit, you are one arrogant little twit, aren’t you?

Girl, you got at least another 20 years to go before you start to even half-way figure shit out, never mind suddenly getting brilliant. So far all you’ve done on here reads like a cut-and-paste of any random right-wing opinion piece you care to mention by any given vapid airhead posing as a political expert.

They’re just as bad as their counterparts on the left, of course. And being hot does not even begin to make your borrowed opinions any more valid than any of them. That’s a Will Folks obsession — good looking women are worthy of our attention if they can put a decent sentence together. Lord, how he does seem set on inflicting it on all of us who loyally follow this blog/site.

Now — show me your tits or get off my lawn!

Reply
Try To Keep Up January 29, 2015 at 3:48 pm

Keepin it classy, I see. Maybe you could step away from the keypad, out of your ratty old dorm, and breathe some fresh air for once. Your brain definitely needs the oxygen.

Reply
Taylor Brown February 19, 2015 at 10:47 pm

You’re a sweetie, Tom Corbin… Or is it Lee Bright?

Reply
euwe max January 29, 2015 at 12:31 pm

The obvious solution is to arm more women.

Reply
shifty henry January 29, 2015 at 1:20 pm

Taylor is already packing two 44’s……

Reply
Libtard January 29, 2015 at 2:52 pm

Shazam!

Reply
You Know My Name January 30, 2015 at 6:56 pm

Yeah. too bad that stupid kills all kind of pretty, not that she was ever all that and a bag of chips to begin with.

Reply
FastEddy23 January 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm

Dittos to that!

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 1:36 pm

Only Republican women. How could we trust Democrat women with a gun at the rate they abort their own children?

Reply
tomstickler January 29, 2015 at 1:37 pm

And you were doing so well up to now on this thread.

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 1:39 pm

Thanks.

Reply
euwe max January 29, 2015 at 3:12 pm

Only Republican women. How could we trust Democrat women with a gun at the rate they abort their own children?

——-

I hope you’re not offended by my pointing out your ignorance of the fact that Republican women just defeated a bill banning 20 week abortions – Thursday – on the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision!

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 3:34 pm

Ignorant? There was NEVER any bill that came to a vote on the 20 week ban. Show me the VOTE totals from the house.

Do you mean this one?….185 DEMOCRATS voted FOR using federal $$$”s for abortion

“Why did it need quite so many Republican votes? Because the GOP can no longer count on a contingent of Democrats to help out on abortion-related votes.

That was obvious last week, on Thursday, when the leaders brought out a bill relating to federal funding for abortion (which is already illegal). It was the 42nd anniversary of the abortion-permitting Roe v. Wade decision, and it looked bad not to mark the occasion.

The bill did pass, but it had to do so with only three Democrats supporting it out of the current 188 in the House. And that speaks volumes about how the House has changed since President Obama was inaugurated.”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/01/26/381472527/abortion-vote-shows-how-much-democrats-world-has-changed

Reply
euwe max January 29, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Ignorant? There was NEVER any bill that came to a vote on the 20 week ban.
——-
Don’t have a stroke – have a look at the facts instead.

GOP Women Stopped the 20-Week Abortion Bill.

On the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have betrayed the movement. Republicans in the House killed the vote on a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. .

So what happened here? The short answer is that women happened. Specifically, some female Republicans, led by Rep. Renee Ellmers and Rep. Jackie Walorski, who, according to the Washington Post, wanted to soften the 20-week ban bill, misleadingly named the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, because they felt the rape exceptions were too stringent. The bill only allowed rape exceptions for women who had filed reports with the police, despite the fact that the majority of rape victims don’t report the crimes.

Mobile Holmes January 29, 2015 at 4:02 pm

Thanks, Max. I was about to school the ignorant fuck.

guest January 29, 2015 at 4:04 pm

185 of 188 Dems in house wanted to use federal $$$’s for abortion.

Mobile Holmes January 29, 2015 at 4:06 pm

Well, bless your heart!

euwe max January 29, 2015 at 4:21 pm

I think he’s SPED.

SOS January 29, 2015 at 6:40 pm

Posting to yourself again, I see.

guest January 29, 2015 at 4:02 pm

You aren’t very good at math. 188 Dems in the house killed that Bill-not 6 or 7 Rep women.Was never a vote.

euwe max January 29, 2015 at 4:12 pm

You aren’t very good at math. 188 Dems in the house killed that Bill-not 6 or 7 Rep women.Was never a vote.

——-

I passed Advanced Engineering Mathematics at Texas Tech University in their Electrical Engineering Program. I can count Republican women who defeated the bill – can you?

Walorski, Ellmers, and other, mostly unnamed Republican women – reportedly including Reps. Ann Wagner of Missouri and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee – led an effort to pull the bill, which would bar abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. Walorski and Ellmers removed themselves as co-sponsors of the bill last Tuesday, two days before the expected vote.

In a bizarre twist of irony meeting ignorance, one of the women most responsible for the decision not to vote on a bill to end late-term abortion stood on the stage at the 2015 March for Life and received an ovation from hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates.

So, at the last minute, the House leadership withdrew the 20-week abortion.

:) January 29, 2015 at 4:36 pm

…and you thought that everyone would consider that a joke.

:)

Reply
euwe max January 29, 2015 at 4:43 pm

Poe’s law.

Reply
Rakkasan January 30, 2015 at 8:38 am

Ah, the “we need more good guys with guns” fantasy. Thank you gun manufacturers lobby via NRA

Reply
euwe max January 30, 2015 at 8:55 am

fantasy?

It’s becoming a reality!

…well, except for the good guys part.

When a car backfires in New York City, hundreds of armed pedestrians will try out their latest toys on each other.

That will separate the men from the boys!… and the girls.. and babies.

Reply
jimlewisowb January 29, 2015 at 12:33 pm

“….Shame on State Senators Lee Bright and Tom Corbin – who are opposing this bill based purely on politics…..”

Sorry Darlin, you’ve got it wrong

Bright and Corbin ain’t human, they have no concept of the impact of CDV

Bright and Corbin are spawn of an alien Cockroach who piggybacked a ride on a meteorite from another Galaxy far, far, far away

Look at them, that’s right take a hard look – tell me with a straight face that anyone other than a Alien Mother Cockroach could wean these two

Reply
FastEddy23 January 29, 2015 at 1:22 pm

A Statistical Anomaly: Volvos kill more children than hand guns do.

Reply
shifty henry January 29, 2015 at 1:23 pm

— ???

Reply
FastEddy23 January 29, 2015 at 1:26 pm

Come on, this is not too deep is it?

Reply
shifty henry January 29, 2015 at 1:32 pm

I was going to go back to post my question. Who keeps that kind of record and why? What is the relevance of it anyway, and are records kept for kids killed as pedestrians or as passengers in the car? Are these records kept by someone for every brand of vehicle and whether a man, woman, child, or elderly died from a particular car that was involved? —just curious.

Reply
tomstickler January 29, 2015 at 1:36 pm

A simple “sniff test” may clue you in to where that factoid came from.

sparklecity January 29, 2015 at 2:29 pm

Ms. Taylor:
You may have gone to Wofford but sadly you don’t know Upstate politics in its present twisted form.
Bright and Corbin are darlings of the Spartanburg Tea party under the control of Karen Martin and the Spartanburg Tea Party eats the peanuts out of Bright’s & Corbin’s shit.
Go to the Spartanburg Tea Party website and you will see what I mean. There are a number of articles on that site concerning this bill and they are basically opposed to it.
Look it up and see for yourself.
I can understand some concern over 2nd Amendment rights but nowhere near the level that these rightwing nuts have elevated the issue.
Further more there is no doubt that Bright & Corbin are demaagogues of the worst type and use stuff like this to establish themselves as defenders of the 2nd Amemdment but know this:
Both of those dipshits have been my represenative in the Senate at one time or another (I NEVER voted for either of these dicks) but it is your beloved Republican Party that was involved in gerrymandering that has kept them as senators. Bright now has a big swath of the most populated (and more importantly AFFLUENT) sections of Spartanburg and Greenville counties and Corbin is now the senator for northwestern Spartanburg county as well as northern Greenville County. There was a territory swap after Bright threw Northern Spartanburg County under the bus after a local Fire Department squabble and Corbin stepped in.
I’ve got no respect for either one of them but again, you only have your own party to blame for them interfering with this bill and the Tea Party types stand behind them 100% of the way.
You know they will vote at the drop of a hat and are very organized and are a potent force to be reconded with.
Your beloved Republican Party took this monster into your house and now you will have to deal with it.

Reply
Try To Keep Up January 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm

You must have forgotten to read the last line. “Stand up for the women of South Carolina. Put their lives ahead of politics.” Taylor has obviously put aside her political ties for this issue and yet you want to put that political rope around her neck and strangle her with it as though it’s her job to hold Republicans’ hands.

Reply
sparklecity January 29, 2015 at 9:21 pm

Hey,

She is in bed with Republicans and is not an Independent so she must accept/admit that her party of choice which she fully supports may very well squash that which she is raising in this article.

if you are a staunch Republican (or Democrat for that matter) and ESPECIALLY Republican you are expected to go whole hog on the matter and forgo individual differences. Putting lives ahead of political dogma if you are a political activist (as MS. Brown claims herself to be) is nothing but a cop out.

Ms. Brown proudly touts herself as a conservative and a Republican thus she has to choose whether she is a Republican or a free thinking Independent (which most conservatives are incapable of doing)

The ball is in her court.

Lesson learned Ms. Brown: The world ain’t black or white and the sooner you learn that the better.

Reply
Bible Thumper January 30, 2015 at 5:31 am

Sparklecity, you are falling in to a trap. “Free thinking people agree with me. Most who disagree are incapable of free thinking”. Logical fallacy. Circular argument. Attack the messenger.

Reply
sparklecity January 30, 2015 at 11:37 am

I don’t see how a free thinking person could ever engage in such doublespeak.
That being said, if someone constantly touts either liberal or conservative ideas/dogma ad nauseum they are definately not free thinkers (IMHO)

sparklecity January 29, 2015 at 9:32 pm

Plus,

I’m telling the truth about what transpired in Northern Spartanburg and eastern Greenville counties and yet you haven’t the faintest idea about what went on a few years back.

I’m not surprised about that because South Carolinians have the shortest memories in the world in addition to being blissfully ignorant about what the Republican Party is doing right under their noses.

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 9:11 pm

I hope Nikki Haley opens up a nuclear waste dump in downtown Moore, SC.
I can smell you from Ohio-won’t hurt a damn thing.

Reply
sparklecity January 30, 2015 at 11:41 am

Anytime you want to come and kiss my ass in order to verify that it is me you smell, you are welcome to do so

Reply
Mike at the Beach January 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm

If any significant portion of this bill passes, Thomas Ravenel will again renounce his citizenship and threaten to move to an unnamed Third World (but warm) island somewhere in protest.

Reply
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James January 29, 2015 at 2:45 pm

We should only hope.

Reply
Mike at the Beach January 29, 2015 at 3:47 pm

Agreed, but it’s a pointless exercise…he huffs, puffs, and throws histrionic girlie-style hissy fits, but doesn’t follow through.

Reply
Dave Chappelle I'm Rick James January 29, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Ok. Let me make sure I understand this.

“. . . statistically use guns as a weapon of choice to kill people.” –> Hmm…thanks Captain Obvious. Its probably because they couldn’t get to their bow and arrow–or machete.

” . . . staunch advocates for the Second Amendment (I have my concealed weapons permit).” –> Ok, I have a Sam’s club membership. Does that mean I am a staunch advocate for small local restaurants? Being an advocate for the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with completing the CWP course.

“I think it is incredibly heroic when lawmakers stand behind such an important cause for the people.” –> Ha! You are still living in a pipe dream. Do you actually think a politician is supporting this because its the “right thing to do?” Of course not, its all about pleasing others and getting votes, and therefore, furthering their own greed and wealth.

“Do the lives of women matter so little to these lawmakers that they’re willing to let political considerations trump their obligation to protect those who need it the most?” –> Uh, yea. Of course they think so. They’re politicians. What else were you expecting?

Reply
Blair Pettrey January 29, 2015 at 2:47 pm

“Stand up for the women of South Carolina. Put their lives ahead of politics.” — in South Carolina??! Never going to happen! :(

Reply
guest January 29, 2015 at 2:48 pm

Keep the faith and the pressure on em!

Reply
Marraige First, Then Sex February 1, 2015 at 4:07 pm

@Blair – YOU need to stand up for the women of S.C. Instead you had sex outside of marriage and will produce an illegitimate child. Play by the rules. Rulebook being the Bible.

Reply
Blair Pettrey February 1, 2015 at 8:38 pm

I agree – and I learned (am suffering) the consequences of my behavior and actions. The ‘illegitimate child’ will be surely loved by her parents and family though.

Reply
Marraige First, Then Sex February 2, 2015 at 1:00 am

+1 – Live and Learn. Hopefully others can learn from your mistakes. Keep your chin up – You can still have a fulfilling life.

Reply
9" February 2, 2015 at 3:49 am

You should have sex before marriage to make sure the ‘plumbing’ works.I knew a Christian woman who got divorced right after her honeymoon,because his dick was too big.I’d tried to tell her how long and thick it was,but she had to find out for herself.Live and Learn.

Libtard January 29, 2015 at 2:51 pm

Why not elevate CDV to a felony? If convicted it would accomplish what the bill intends to do without adding new legal requirements to existing law, not to mention few 2A defenders disagree with the loss of 2A rights for a felony conviction.

Reply
Idontthinkso January 30, 2015 at 6:18 pm

Because it’s already a felony to shoot your wife!

Reply
easterndumbfuckistan January 29, 2015 at 3:04 pm

I generally agree with Taylor on many issues but this is a bridge too far. Denying a citizen a constitutionally guaranteed right based on an accusation, and a one sided order of protection.

Additionally the wording of the law is extremely vague, especially the section “reasonably creating fear of imminent peril” which could mean anything from “get the fuck out of my way” to an implicit death threat. Poorly worded vague laws are 50% or more of the reason this country is in the predicament it is in.

A better expenditure of time and resources would be training victims of CDV in self defense, expediting CWPs for anyone with an order of protection and teaching victims to stand up for their rights. In other words Stop perpetuating the culture of victimhood

Reply
Taylor Brown January 29, 2015 at 3:08 pm

48 women being shot to death per month isn’t a “culture of victimhood.” It’s slaughter. These women ARE victims. And there will be more women senselessly murdered if there isn’t something done about it. I’m fully for empowering women to get their CWP.. I’m fully in favor of the everyday citizen getting their CWP to protect themselves, but sometimes it’s not feasible.

Reply
euwe max January 29, 2015 at 3:14 pm

48 women being shot to death per month isn’t a “culture of victimhood.” It’s slaughter.

——-
If the women and their children had been armed, they could have shot it out!

Reply
The gov't can't fix everything January 29, 2015 at 4:51 pm

“And there will be more women senselessly murdered if there isn’t something done about it.”

When you try to legislate society to attain the “Garden of Eden” status, you end up with tickets for seat belts, close to unrestrained spying by gov’t on our citizens(but not themselves),etc., et al.

The price of living in a free society does have a cost, and sometimes that cost is high.

Around 3000/month are killed in/by cars each month. Ostensibly we could eliminate that if we ban cars.

We could stop the “slaughter” Taylor. We could prevent the creation of a car victim class.

But at what price?

Reply
Buz Martin February 2, 2015 at 7:21 am

Trying to keep women from being senselessly slaughtered in ones home state is NOT trying to attain a Garden of Eden status. The comparison with car deaths is absurd.

Reply
Idontthinkso January 29, 2015 at 7:17 pm

And just like any gun control law, remember the bad guys will get guns anyway. Or they will just build their guns themselves.

Reply
Correctomundo! January 30, 2015 at 1:56 pm

You can 3d print them now too. Let’s outlaw printers.

Reply
Sad 4 You January 31, 2015 at 8:23 am

Much more people killed by Drunk Drivers than guns. Much more people killed by illegal Mexicans than those killed in CDV. But its ok. We know you are narrow minded.

Reply
Buz Martin February 2, 2015 at 7:20 am

Well said.

Reply
Aaron M. Ringel February 4, 2015 at 1:18 am

People should only be stripped of their rights if they have been found to have broken the law by a jury. The end doesn’t justify the means, especially not when you’re considering shredding due process as the means.

Reply
Tazmaniac January 29, 2015 at 4:06 pm

I don’t think the Law goes far enough. It should be against the Law to kill

anyone with a gun when your angry whether you are at home or not. DUH

Reply
Idontthinkso January 29, 2015 at 7:00 pm

If someone breaks into my house, I’m gonna be angry. And I’m gonna shoot him!

Reply
Tazmaniac January 29, 2015 at 7:20 pm

I think there should be a Law that it is against the Law to break the Law. Did that simplify things. In other words if a pecker weed is going to break the Law by beating someone at home he more than likely won’t care about a firearm Law. That is tantamount to it being impossible for a guy to be arrested twice for armed robbery. How many violent crimes do you think are committed by Law abiding citizens? Answer: obviously zero. But it sure makes everyone feel safer the more freedoms you take away.

Reply
Guest January 29, 2015 at 4:53 pm

Taylor, a very passionate (and probably correct) argument, but it goes very much against core Republican beliefs. One issue that you have to resolve is whether we have a constitutional right to bear arms. And if we do, can there be reasonable limits on that right? This issue has never been directly addressed by the US Supreme Court. Continuing to maintain the belief in an inalienable right to bear arms is going to continue to get people killed, both men and women. The Republican platform strongly favors such inalienable rights. Many politicians state their desire to limit gun ownership or create a system for gun confiscation because they know they should, but it will always rub against the absolute believers in the 2nd Amendment. The Republican party brought the gun people under their tent, I don’t think the GOP will find come up with an answer until they’re willing to tell those people that not all Americans have the right to bear arms – namely those with violent or criminal tendencies. While the GOP might run the gun nuts out of the party, they might get replaced with the kind of people that made the GOP a great party.

Reply
Rakkasan January 30, 2015 at 8:52 am

Repubs demonstrate that that they have immense capacity to tolerate the suffering of others in order to support their “core values”. The shooting and deaths of women and children continue rise as the right stands stubbornly on their belief that it’s just unfortunate cause freedom isn’t free, right? BTW, would someone help me understand why the phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was removed from the outside of the NRA HQ building?

Reply
Rakkasan January 30, 2015 at 3:49 pm

No takers? I’m shocked!

Reply
Lenny Musso January 30, 2015 at 10:21 am

Exactly right! The U.S. Constitution strictly forbids Congress from passing gun control legislation without an amendment but Congress does it anyway. The state constitution parrots the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment which, in effect, makes all the general assembly’s gun control law’s null and void. But, thankfully, we are not about rule of law in either case but about being ruled by our rulers. Both constitutions are essentially toilet paper and our fascist politicians demonstrate their dominance over those old laws by using it as such. The so-called principles contained within them are those of dead people who would have had no idea on how to deal with a largely urban population that needs to be subjected to our police-state philosophy. If it’s good enough for the rest of the world, it’s good enough to impose here at home as well. People are essentially animals and can’t be trusted, especially if you look at the Bell curve and the number of stupid people out there. They need to be led, cajoled, and imprisoned as necessary–and as conveniently as possible without all that paperwork and due process garbage–by those who know better than they do. Without strict behavioral controls in place, there would be chaos in the streets and complete breakdown of law and order.

Reply
Idontthinkso January 29, 2015 at 6:20 pm

While it would nice to make sure mean husbands/boyfriends don’t own guns, Taylor is naïve to think it’s possible to enforce. Convicted felons and Mentally Ill persons are not supposed to own guns – a law we all support. However, this is a slippery slope. Even Will Folkes was once accused of abusive behavior toward his girlfriend.

Reply
Taylor Brown February 19, 2015 at 10:43 pm

If you want to let CDV offenders keep their guns, why not rapists? Murderers? Let’s let anyone convicted of a violent crime keep a gun. If you don’t support this Bill, you simply don’t support women. Plain and simple.

Reply
Hanging Ropes Coming January 29, 2015 at 6:37 pm

We The People of South Carolina say, “We want the entire unethical, criminally corrupt legislative body thrown under a prison.” ….. How that shit? Massive numbers of residents of SC are starting to show a lot of anger for all of the out of control criminal activity inside the statehouse.

Reply
Squishy123 January 29, 2015 at 7:04 pm

Anyone else stop reading this after the first paragraph or two? If they don’t have guns I’m sure they could find something else to use, baseball bat, knife, fist, lamp cord, etc…

Reply
You Know My Name January 29, 2015 at 10:19 pm

Her little Wofford-educated mind hasn’t grown enough to wrap around that fact, yet. Sadly, it appears that many of the regulars on here who should know better also suffer from that condition.

Reply
9" January 29, 2015 at 8:27 pm

You’re as dim as a 20 watt light bulb.

Reply
Slartibartfast January 29, 2015 at 8:46 pm

All women need to spend some time in Union. The girls there will cut you if you even raise a pinky-finger.

Reply
SomalianRoadCorp January 30, 2015 at 12:14 am

The root of the problem is the junkyard America that is Sakerlina.

Reply
Bible Thumper January 30, 2015 at 6:13 am

Advocacy organizations are not a good source of unbiased reseach. The National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence is no better of a source than the NRA would be.
Shirky Principle – “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
NCDSV says that states that restricted gun ownership saw 25% drops in domestic homicides. States that didn’t restrict gun ownership also had similar declines in domestic homicides. Your link to NCDSV has a chart that shows a nation wide decline declines in domestic homicides since 1979. This decline occurred during a trend of increased gun ownership.

They will break the gun laws just like they break the domestic violence laws. The only way this law might help is if it gives law enforcement additional charges to keep abusers in prison longer.

Reply
Lenny Musso January 30, 2015 at 9:44 am

Being the brutally honest fascist that I am, I absolutely LOVE this line of reasoning. It is a huge foot in the door for disarming certain segments of the population. Machiavelli recommended not disarming the people as a whole since doing so takes away a false feeling of power they have by possessing them and also makes them unduly angry with the government. HOWEVER, for the security of the state, we must have, on the one hand, a veneer of the right to self-protection but, on the other hand, only allow it for those who are given the privilege by the state which should take that privilege away when it is deemed necessary for individuals or for groups of people. The principle of disarming a citizen based on a mere accusation provides the government with an easy way to demonize the gun owner AND be the hero when the gun owner is disarmed by them. Nevermind that getting the women voluntarily out of the situation would be the best answer, this is about a proactive government maintaining a tight grip on the populace and utilizing preemptive actions to fix a situation before it happens. It’s a win-win for all us statists out here and should be an easy sell to the public whom we’ve made accustomed to such commonsense sacrifices of liberty for the sake of security. And it doesn’t hurt to have a cute little airhead like Taylor Brown parroting the establishment line. We need more attractive fascists like her to appeal to the citizenry with such reasonable compromises!

Reply
9" January 30, 2015 at 11:08 pm

Life is too short for anyone to be living in fear,and carrying a gun.If you’re that scared of the world,you should go ahead and shoot yourself or move to Australia;few gun deaths,and also,a top ten pick for expats..

Reply
The The Truth January 31, 2015 at 11:29 am

Australia’s violent crime rate increased when they took up all the citizens’guns. I would much rather have a gun and the option of defending myself, even with increased ods that I might one day be shot, than to be at the mercy of a crud or group of cruds who might choose to beat and kick me to a pulp, bludgeon or stab me, or perhaps even shoot me since criminals don’t give a shining shit about breaking a gun law on top of murder, felonious assault, armed robbery, or the like.

Reply
9" January 31, 2015 at 7:32 pm

Those are some scary fantasies.Too many to live with.Shoot yourself,or take an over overdose,and call me in the morning..

Reply
The Truth February 1, 2015 at 4:20 pm

Fantasies? Really? So, I guess the maimed and murdered victims of a terrorist in Australia recently who had no means to fight back were havinhg a fantasy?
Same for thousands of people in the USA each year who are maimed or murdered at the hands of criminals? I guess the young mother of four who was brutally murdered while working at a local bakery by three thugs was having a fantasy?

Was the night clerk at a local motel who was robbed at knife point and about to be tied up and raped fantasizing when she shot and killed the wanted criminal who she otherwise would have been at the mercy of?

One last thing, why do you invoke such hostility towards me? I merely disagreed with your erroneous comment. I wished you no harm or insult, though I do respect your right to be unarmed and a potential crime victim if that is your choice.

Reply
David Matos January 31, 2015 at 11:19 am

This isn’t about taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, but rather taking guns away from domestic violence predators… through due process. If you think domestic violence abusers right to guns are more important than you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

Reply
You Know My Name January 31, 2015 at 7:49 pm

This is also about quite a few innocent men (and women) who will necessarily be deprived of property and a means to protect themselves when a disgruntled former mate uses this law to extract revenge for some misdeed (real or imagined) from the target of their anger. Yes David, innocent law-abiding men (and women) will become victims of this law as it is written, if it passes.

Reply
Dan Roberts January 31, 2015 at 11:15 pm

Sorry, I simply can not ever support confiscatory laws based on a mere accusation. Why ? Dont I care about domestic violence and women ? Of course I do, I have three daughters, including to 20 year old twins. BUT, Im also a victim of false accusations of domestic violence by their mentally unstable mother, who even admitted on tape to intentionally fabricating the allegations because she was mad and wanted to “punish” me. My legally purchased, lawfully owned property was taken from my house for over a year and my rights suspended ( not just my 2A rights, but also my 4th Amendment RIghts) and I was immediately considered to be guilty until I could prove my innocence. Not to mention the couple thousand dollars worth of ammunition and accessories that were confiscated and never returned, most likely ending up in an Officers personal stash.

All based solely on a mere accusation, with absolutely NO supporting evidence of any kind

Women abusing the Domestic Violence laws as a tool of revenge or advantage during a separation or divorce is so common, attorney’s have been known to counsel their clients to engage in the practice, law professors have discussed it in the media and entire books have been written about it.

Sorry, but until something meaningful is done, to punish those that abuse the laws ad process and use it as a weapon and suffer serious consequences when they do, I simply cannot and will not support such laws

Reply

Leave a Comment