Yesterday, the revised Violence Against Women Act passed in the House 263-158. I'm happy about that, you're probably happy about that -- but the NRA is not happy about that, which means a lot of Republicans out there are pretty darn bummed. Why? Because the new version would keep guns out of the hands of those convicted of domestic violence and stalking misdemeanors, and apparently they think that it is actually a very good idea for those people to have guns.

During the hearing, Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell got up to advocate for the bill, and said a few very sense-making things like ...

"All this does — we are not taking away due process. All we are saying is if someone has been convicted (of abusing) an intimate partner, then they would not have access to a gun. If someone has been convicted of stalking..."

But many Republican men in the audience were not having it, and just started screaming and grunting at her as she tried to talk. Of course, it is possible that what they were screaming was an unassailable explanation for why we should all want domestic abusers and stalkers to have guns, but alas, no one ever heard it.

As it turns out, screaming hysterically at a woman for saying words you don't like is not a great way to convince people to vote against a bill about violence against women. Who ever would have thought?

Other Republicans used their words to speak out against the bill, but failed to make much more sense than the grunters did.

Via Detroit News:

Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Watersmeet, agreed with Stefanik, saying Democrats had "sabotaged" the reauthorization.
"Preventing domestic violence and sexual assault against women should never be politicized," Bergman said in a statement.

"I'm disappointed that instead of a clean authorization bill, Democratic leadership chose to add provisions to this bill that would deny due process and fail to offer necessary protections to victims of domestic violence."

Are Democrats really the ones making this "politicized"? Can't you be for guns but also agree that maybe some people shouldn't have them? I like cars, but I don't think drunks should be driving them. Similarly, people with a tendency towards violence, people with a tendency to not take no for an answer, should maybe not have guns.

Now, it's possible that these Republicans are under the impression that some poor schmuck might get slammed with a stalking misdemeanor just because he asked a woman out who wasn't interested in him, and then never be able to go hunting again or whatever. That is not how people get convicted of misdemeanor stalking. I know women who have been stalked to the point of being afraid to leave their house and the most they ever got was a restraining order (and that itself usually takes a lot of work), so they are not exactly handing out misdemeanor stalking convictions willy nilly.

When the bill passed the House, 30 Republicans joined in voting for it, including Fred Upton -- also of Michigan -- who had this not stupid thing to say about the bill.

"The big change here is that folks that are convicted or plead guilty to stalking, domestic assault, you know, a number of different things are viewed is not law abiding and, therefore, they lose that right" to firearms. "I don't have a problem with that," said Upton, who also supports universal background checks.

"There are a lot of crimes committed against the most vulnerable women by stalkers and others, and it just breaks your heart. We've got to make sure to, legally, give them protections that they need."

It's almost as if he has met and spoken to a woman in his life before! Maybe even his niece, model/actress Kate Upton, or maybe a different one, we don't know.

We do know the men can boo and yell and attempt to shut the women up as much as they'd like. The women are persisting.

[Detroit News]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Just once Monthly

Select an amount (USD)

$2$25$5$50$10$100$15$500$20$1000