NRA Member Who Lost Sister To Gun Violence Tearfully Asks Senate To Protect Women

[Lakhota]

WASHINGTON -- Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois. He became an unlikely witness for the Democrats on Wednesday at the first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence against women.

Daniel choked back tears at the hearing as he recounted the story of his sister, Zina, who was shot and killed by her estranged ex-husband in 2012. After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

Zina's husband then murdered her and injured four other people before shooting himself.

"Now I'm helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her," Daniel told the committee. "I'm here today for Zina and for the stories like Zina's that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put women's lives in danger."

American women account for 84 percent of all female gun victims in the developed world, and more than a quarter of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by an intimate partner.

The two bills being considered in the Senate, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would strengthen federal gun prohibitions for convicted domestic abusers and those deemed by a judge to be a physical threat to a woman. Klobuchar's bill would include physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers in the category of persons who are prohibited from buying or possessing a gun. Blumenthal's bill would ban guns for those who have been issued a temporary restraining order by a judge for domestic violence.

"If we can save just one life, that would be worth everything we're going through," he said. "And I know we can save more than one life."

More: NRA Member Who Lost Sister To Gun Violence Tearfully Asks Senate To Protect Women

More proof that universal background checks can save lives.

 

[Mr. H.]

Proof that enforcement of restraining orders saves lives.

 

[Lakhota]

Elvin Daniel, 56, is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, an avid hunter and a self-described "constitutional conservative" from a small town in Illinois.

I wish more "constitutional conservatives" would wake up - and stand up to the NRA.

 

[rdean]

I think I hear GOP laughter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Proof that she should have had a gun herself so she could shoot him before he got through the fucking door.

 

[whitehall]

For once democrats want to protect victims of domestic abuse instead of celebrating the political careers of sleaze bag domestic abuser politicians like Bill Clinton.

 

[LiberalMedia]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

 

[Lakhota]

The NRA and their toady politicians failed this woman - and many other women.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

Two of the three points you made are lies.

 

[hadit]

The real question becomes, which is better, to assume women are weak, helpless, and need paternalistic protection, or that they are strong, and fully capable of defending themselves if we give them the necessary tools?

 

[Lakhota]

The real question becomes, which is better, to assume women are weak, helpless, and need paternalistic protection, or that they are strong, and fully capable of defending themselves if we give them the necessary tools?

So, forget the law - just give them a fucking gun?

 

[Lakhota]

I love guns. I love wildlife. I love hunting. I hate the NRA.

 

[LiberalMedia]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

Tow of the three points you made are lies.

Identify which ones, and prove that they are incorrect.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[whitehall]

The NRA has had a program designed specifically for female armed self defense for decades. The NRA used to be affiliated with the federal government but right now there is absolutely no government agency that trains civilian women how to defend themselves with firearms. The NRA supports safe use of firearms, enforcement of existing laws that prevent crazy people and felons from obtaining firearms and encourages women to learn about firearms and gun safety. If anyone has failed society it is the federal government.

 

[Lakhota]

The NRA has had a program designed specifically for female armed self defense for decades. The NRA used to be affiliated with the federal government but right now there is absolutely no government agency that trains civilian women how to defend themselves with firearms. The NRA supports safe use of firearms, enforcement of existing laws that prevent crazy people and felons from obtaining firearms and encourages women to learn about firearms and gun safety. If anyone has failed society it is the federal government.

It isn't about arming more people, you dumb fucking idiot. It's about disarming those who shouldn't be armed in the first place.

 

[hadit]

The real question becomes, which is better, to assume women are weak, helpless, and need paternalistic protection, or that they are strong, and fully capable of defending themselves if we give them the necessary tools?

So, forget the law - just give them a fucking gun?

We all know the law isn't going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. There are just too many of them out there. The only thing more laws will do is make people feel good about themselves. They won't help protect women. And there are many women who believe they are the ones most responsible to protect themselves.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

After her ex slashed her tires and physically threatened her, Zina had obtained a restraining order against him, which should have prohibited him under federal law from buying a gun. But he was able to purchase a gun online, where private sellers are not required to conduct background checks.

"He posted an ad saying, 'Serious buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP,'" Elvin said. "Within an hour, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald's parking lot."

The highlights in this case:

1. There are no regulations on conducting background checks for online gun sales.

2. There are no regulations on unlicensed gun dealers.

3. There are no regulations on federal law-breakers preventing them from buying guns.

We need to regulate criminals more heavily. Maybe then, there would be less crime. I'm sure the Wrongpublicans of USMB will be outraged at the thought of more regulation, but guess what, Wrongpublicans? Next time, it won't be someone you view as less than humyn, like a minority or womyn. Next time, it'll be you instead. So when you whine about "hurr durr we don need no rules," remember that those rules are in place to protect everyone, including you.

1- there are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
2- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.
3- There are regulations, they just don't apply to criminals.

You can't regulate criminals more heavily. If you could that would make them not be criminals. All you can do is regulate those that obey the laws more heavily.

In other words it won't be me in your fantasy situation unless I allow you to make me a victim as a law abiding citizen. The only rules you are trying to make up only affect my ability to self defense. It does nothing for the criminals intent on doing me harm.

Zina should have forgone the restraining order and went to a gun show. Restraining orders don't stop bullets.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The NRA has had a program designed specifically for female armed self defense for decades. The NRA used to be affiliated with the federal government but right now there is absolutely no government agency that trains civilian women how to defend themselves with firearms. The NRA supports safe use of firearms, enforcement of existing laws that prevent crazy people and felons from obtaining firearms and encourages women to learn about firearms and gun safety. If anyone has failed society it is the federal government.

It isn't about arming more people, you dumb fucking idiot. It's about disarming those who shouldn't be armed in the first place.

You can't disarm criminals you moron. The laws you pass only apply to those that obey the law...the ones that actually need to be armed.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, pass this silly law...how does anything they propose change the outcome...this guy apparently didn't go to a gun store...right...which means if they pass a law that prohibits someone from getting a gun if they are under a restraining order, they can still very easily get a gun online from a criminal...right...that is what happened here...right...the guy selling the gun didn't care about the nature of the request for the gun...so another law won't stop the next guy...but ending the killing of innocent people isn't really the goal is it...

the real purpose is not real victims of these crimes because this new silly law won't stop the ex from beating her to death with a baseball bat, stabbing her with a knife or strangling her with his bare hands...or setting her on fire which has also been a method used by these types...all that takes is a gallon of gas and a lighter...

What this is about is disarming more regular people...because the anti gunners know that most times,a restraining order is also a tool of divorce,for custody hearings...it happens all the time...so, it becomes automatic that with a restraining order, wether real or not, or necessary or just a tool in a divorce case...the cops,take the guns...right...and the victim is still killed...just not with a gun...and the anti gunners can feel all happy inside.

How about expediting training and permitting carry licenses for the women...but of course..it isn't about them is it...it is still all about the guns...