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% | 185 votes | Total: 505 votes | |
| Yes | 63% | 320 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe wording of this topic lends an easy answer to what should have been a difficult question. Should U.S. citizens ACCUSED of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms? Certainly not...
This nation was founded on principles where the accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty. To abridge individual rights and freedoms - especially Constitutional freedoms - without any proof would be tantamount to igniting that sacred parchment with a ninety-nine cent Bic lighter. Certainly we have not allowed our executive branch to erode our liberties to the point where we are willing to take away people's freedoms before guilt has been assessed...
Had this topic been, "Should U.S. citizens CONVICTED of domestic abuse...", THEN we would have a serious topical debate on our hands. After a domestic-abuse conviction, there certainly is a groundswell of support to take away the right to bear arms. Knowing that there may very well be an imminent threat to the abused domestic partner/spouse, a judge - in individual circumstances and according to the unique characteristics of the case in question - should be afforded the ability to discriminately remit weapons-possession rights from those most dangerous domestic-abuse offenders... those who are at the highest risk of recidivism.
But to take away these rights, before a jury of one's peers can weigh the evidence at hand and either convict or acquit the suspect, we are effectively giving into the same scare tactics which have allowed the erosion of other American liberties through such measures as the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping and an unaccountable executive. There is a need for due process to be served before we strip individuals of ANY rights. The judiciary is designed to assess guilt or innocence, not to preemptively assume danger in a situation...
Blanket statements such as the aforementioned question only serve to damage our nation as a whole. If the government can indiscriminately sabotage those inalienable rights which were granted more than two centuries ago solely through suspicion or accusation, then we quickly will devolve into full-blown fascism... a police state. Let the courts determine guilt before taking away the right to bear arms - no matter WHAT crime an individual is accused of committing...
Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Domestic violence, like pedophilia, is a crime of escalation. Violators will get progressively worse until something bad happens to them, and then they scale back for the short term.
The other problem with domestic violence is that the crime typically isn't reported until it has begun the cycle of escalation. The quick slap on the face wasn't enough to make the battered person (man or woman) seek the court's protection. Then the black eye wasn't enough to fill out a report. Some broken ribs that required hospital treatment were reported to authorities, only to have the battery victim retract his or her statement in court.
Finally, when the batterer stabs the victim in the stomach, the line has been crossed and charges are pressed through the court system. My question isn't how many times the batterer has been convicted of domestic violence. My question is how many times has he or she gotten away with it?
Even after conviction, the batterer will typically go back to a lesser degree of violence against their partner until it becomes unbearable. At some point, weapons come into play. You can argue that a knife is just as deadly as a gun all you want, but the fact is that a gun depersonalizes the killing. That level of detachment makes the weapon all the more volatile. With a knife, you have to be up close and personal with the victim.
In most of American society, handheld firearms have outlived their usefulness. There should be a distinction between shotguns, rifles, pistols and revolvers. Upon conviction of any crime with a potential jail sentence of at least 1 year of incarceration (this includes DUI), you should forever sacrifice your PRIVILEGE to carry a pistol or revolver. A felony conviction should forever carry the sacrifice of possession of any firearm whatsoever.
Learn more about this author, John Hale.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Family Law
- Should polygamy or plural marriages be legalized?
- There should be restrictions on the availability of abortion, except when the mother's life is at stake
- Should parents who leave (unharmed) children alone in cars face charges?
- Should "deadbeat dads" face jail time?
- Should abortion for underage children require parental consent?
