Politics, News & Issues >
Family Law
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% | 184 votes | Total: 504 votes | |
| Yes | 63% | 320 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhile it is true that some abusers use firearms on their victims, it is not true in all cases. As a victim of domestic abuse, I can truthfully say I was only threatened three times with a firearm. A true abuser will use anything they can get their hands on to beat their victim and some of their tactics are more terrifying than a firearm.
The right to bear arms is part of the original constitution of this country. I can assume that there were domestic abusers at that time also. Our founding fathers still decided that, no matter what, this should be a privilege and right of citizens of this country.
An accused perpetrator of domestic abuse loses a number of rights with his or her crime. Jail time, house arrest, not seeing his family are a few of them. No where should a granted privilege of the constitution be taken away. As the legal system tends to the violation, it should also tend to the rights of that same person.
If an abuser wants to shoot his victim, he can borrow or steal a firearm. Because he breaks the law anyway, one more crime is not going to bother him. If an abuser is not accustomed to breaking other laws, he would not consider the use of a firearm. Just because one person chooses to use a gun, does not mean another one will.
The country right now is in a process of coming up with new laws to give rights to a minority topic while taking away laws that have been granted since the beginning of this country. They have not figured out how to instate a new freedom without taking freedom away from the opposite side of the issue.
The right to bear arms is a major issue. Living in the country, everyone has at least one gun because most people hunt for food during hunting season. Trap shooting and target practice between friends is a normal way of life. Every boy gets a gun for his twelfth birthday. It is a right of passage that gives a place of honor to that boy. And with that honor comes the responsibility of gun safety. A safety course must be taken in order to get your hunting license.
The problem is with the person, not the weapon. The focus should be placed on the abuse problem, not gun control. There are people who find it exciting to kill another person but wouldn't think of using abuse in their own home. Using domestic abuse to take away someone's right to bear arms is in violation of the constitution. More time should be spent on the abuser's mental problem than by thinking that taking a gun away will make the problem disappear.
It is still America, which was founded on freedoms. Bearing arms is one of them. As soon as we start doing away with constitutional rights, we soon will have no rights at all. This should be given great consideration, and as Americans, we should make sure our governmental leaders do not cross the lines of the constitution.
Learn more about this author, Linda Steinbiser.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The rights given to us as citizens of our country are as 'law abiding citizens'. Once the choice has been made not to respect the laws that govern our country, it should be expected and/or upheld that certain rights and privileges are forfeited. This is common knowledge. Categorically, it seems fitting that someone who has chosen to engage in domestic violence and has also been convicted of such a crime should lose the right to own a gun. Any reasonable person would expect social stigma and disapproval, lessened interest by employers, decreased trust by the community and other consequences for the commission of criminal conduct. It is the ultimate betrayal to discover that a person you share a part of your personal life with and someone that you trust would act out violently towards you. This type of betrayal declares a heavy amount of untrustworthiness, to say the least. Domestic relationships usually depend on each other for protection of the home and for each other. The demonstrator of violence within these walls has spoken out as an enemy of sorts. Controlling the ability for violators, of such a crime, to own a firearm is protecting the people that are at the receiving end of this persons ill behavior. Usually this is a spouse, child, parent, sibling, roommate or someone who shares a child with this person. I have personally witnessed many situations in which domestic violence was present and times where a gun was involved. None of these people have ever been convicted or even charged with a crime related to this. Therefor, I can only imagine how many of these violations go unreported. When they are reported and these people are convicted, the law should take a great amount of seriousness into the consequences bestowed. The crimes are usually not reported because the abused live in fear of retaliation, which is threatened to be worse than the initial abuse. Knowing that a person convicted of domestic abuse is not accepted as trustworthy to our government sends as message as to how serious these crimes are finally being taken. Creating laws that restrict the freedom of criminal offenders is an attempt to control and prevent crime itself that is out of control.
Learn more about this author, Dawna Dees.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Family Law
- Should teens face criminal child porn charges for "sexting"?
- Abortions: Should the father have some say?
- There should be restrictions on the availability of abortion, except when the mother's life is at stake
- Should the age of sexual consent become standardized across all US states?
- Should "deadbeat dads" face jail time?
