Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould US citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms?
Results so far:
| No | 37% | 188 votes | Total: 508 votes | |
| Yes | 63% | 320 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe very question is an affront to both the Bill of Rights and the English language! It doesn't take four hundred words to explain the obvious: NOTHING which is a "Right" can or should be Lawfully taken away from another for ANY reason - by definition.
Only "privileges" can be taken away, and then only from children or legal incompetents, by their parents or masters. And while it should be equally obvious that an "accusation" of the increasingly-nebulou s term "domestic violence" is hardly the same thing as what was once - when we were still a "nation of Law" rather than a "nation of men" - called "conviction by a jury of one's peers", we should remember the priorities.
A State which no longer believes in or understands "God-given Rights" because it has instead embraced privileges (called "civil liberties") from an almighty Government will also ignore nuances.
The Declaration of Independence stated that the singular purpose of lawful government was "to secure these Rights" that came NOT from any government on earth, but were instead "endowed by their Creator". Once we take what James Madison presciently called "a single step" beyond that principle, the line has been crossed.
The Second Amendment in what was once understood to be the "Bill of Rights" is unequivocal. Like the rest of those explicit prohibitions in the Constitution, it amounts to a definitive "thou shalt NOT" commandment to the central government. That Right to "keep and bear arms" was acknowledged to PRE-EXIST the document, and it simply "shall not be infringed".
It is in fact the strongest imperative in the Constitution - surpassing even the almost equally-ignored prohibition, "shall make no law" (Thought crimes, or so-called "hate speech," are only the latest desecration of that one.)
Such "infringements" of the Supreme Law of the Land are not new, of course. But they have accelerated, especially since the last major infringement of the Constitution having to do with the Right to "keep and bear arms", which was also based on the same "domestic violence" pretext.
The infamous "Lautenberg Gun Ban" not only violated the Second Amendment, but also the Constitutional prohibition against "ex post facto" laws, since it additionally penalized people for crimes IN THE PAST!
I will leave the question of jurisdiction, and of what constitutes a "US citizen" for another debate. After all, it stands to reason that any government which ignores the clear prohibitions of its own alleged "Supreme Law", as well as the history which acknowledges any Power or Authority superior to it, will not readily be thwarted by arguments based on more trivial limits to any claims of control over lives, liberty, or property of mere people.
Learn more about this author, Mark Niwot.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
It was easy to challenge the title and to wonder how fair it is to take away a person's self defense based on an accusation. But people are arrested and incarcerated all of the time, based on allegations and accusations. There is no more potentially dangerous situation than a domestic abuse situation, and denial of arms, even if temporary, is appropriate at the accusatory stage of events.
One of the most difficult parts of the processes for breaking the cycle of domestic abuse is in getting the victim to report, complain, and press charges, then witness in court if necessary. When even a potential or alleged abuser is released on bail, confesses to a lesser charge, or otherwise is able to retaliate, having access to a weapon is not a bright idea.
There are processes for prosecuting and suing individuals who make false claims of abuse, but there are far more situations where the victim is killed at a later date, by the same abuser who was reported and arrested. In cases where the abuser is progresses to a psychotic, alcohol fueled, or drug induced state of rage, there is no predicting when that will occur, and if enough disturbance in the home or domestic situation has occurred to justify a law enforcement response, then there should be the extra caution of removing any dangerous weapons from the home and holding them until the facts can be straightened out.
Another problem with the title: "US Citizens". Why on earth would we single out citizens of the United States for such action, when we have a huge population of non citizens who can be even more at risk for post arrest or post accusation violence with deadly weapons.
After a conviction, the right to bear arms should be lost, just as voting rights, the right to drive a car, the rights of registered sex offenders, and other rights remain restricted after felonies and other serious crimes are committed. Too many Americans focus far too much, and far too senselessly on misinterpreting one aspect of the constitution, while they fail completely to pay attention to their other responsibilities in life, as citizens, and as Americans.
Abusers who are convicted should permanently lose their right to own, be in the home with, or to operate a deadly weapon. Had this been the case long ago, a lot of women and children would be alive today.
Learn more about this author, Elizabeth M. Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Family Law
- Should the age of sexual consent become standardized across all US states?
- Abortions: Should the father have some say?
- Should polygamy or plural marriages be legalized?
- Should parents who leave (unharmed) children alone in cars face charges?
- Are age-based curfew laws effective in reducing teenage crime rates?
- Should "deadbeat dads" face jail time?
