Should US citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms?

Yes

9 of 27

by Victor Strange

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Should U.S. citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms?
Any person who has been formally prosecuted with a Domestic Abuse offense should have their right to bear firearms revoked immediately. If an individual is to be trusted with the responsibility to bear firearms, they must be able to prove that they are disciplined enough to exercise mature, sound judgment.

According to the second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a right for all U.S. citizens. Many people would use this amendment as a point of defense for individuals who have been charged with domestic abuse, but they fail to realize that when a person breaks the law his rights and privileges are placed in jeopardy.

To be more specific the amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A person who has been charged with domestic abuse will surely not be interested
in owning a firearm for the security of freedom. To be more factual the second amendment was not written for criminals, but for law abiding, freedom loving citizens. The mentality of the latter is in direct contrast with a criminal who has been charged with domestic abuse.

Domestic abuse happens in many forms which include:
1. Physical abuse IE; battering, bondage, punching, kicking, slapping, kidnapping, gagging.
2. Emotional abuse IE; neglect, terrorism, control, manipulation and submission.
3. Sexual abuse IE; Assault, Pedophilia, Rape, Date rape and Molestation.

Now I present another question. If the man next door was charged with any of these offenses would you feel comfortable with him living next door, or even down the street? Would you feel comfortable with your kids outside unattended, knowing this type of person is in the vicinity? Do you think that this type of individual would make a suitable Police Officer, Marshall, FBI agent or any other professional who frequents the use of weapons?

Allowing this type of person to bear arms would only complicate the problem further, thus enabling a more deadly incident. Hypothetically, what could have been an assault or simple rape (which is indeed heinous), can now been escalated to assault or rape consummated by murder with a firearm.
Perhaps without a firearm the assailant may find it more difficult to subdue a victim, and as a result the victim may stand a better chance of escape. But with a firearm, the assailant could less forcibly make his demand while wielding the firearm and have his demands met more readily.

The root of domestic abuse is control and placing a weapon in the hands of a person with a control problem only serves to empower the individual. What we would have on our hands as a result is the likelihood of increased homicide. More than half of all domestic murder cases involved the use of a firearm. Could we allow ourselves to be so willingly naive as to think that these people should be able to exercise the right to bear arms like the next man? If a person has bad credit, the likelihood of getting a loan will be substantially unlikely.
When an individual has taken the time to make a conscious decision to ruin his own credit so to speak, they should not expect to get treatment from the mortgage lender like they had perfect credit. If a person breaks the law then they should clearly understand that they will find themselves subject to the penalty that parallels the trespass.

The constitution was drafted with "freedom" in the forefront however, if a person breaks the law his freedom can be taken away for any length of time. It should be the same for any person who has been processed for domestic charges. There could be an exception made possible
for individuals through: proved rehabilitation by attending court mandated classes IE; anger management, weapons safety, counseling and evaluations.

The bottom line is we as a people should not want to empower dysfunctional, dangerous conduct and there should be a clear distinction between rights and privileges. It is not a matter of the state or the government infringing upon peoples rights, it is a matter of individuals
waiving their rights through unlawfulness.

The Luatenburg Amendment makes it a felony for any individual who has been charged with Domestic Violence to own a firearm. Military personnel have been terminated from service because of it. It may be true that there are some who have fallen victim to legal red-tape and some failed to receive proper vindication due to extenuating circumstances. It is in these instances where there should be a thorough appeals process available wherein the involved individuals are given the opportunity to "plead" their case and state why their rights should be re-instated.

In closing, all citizens have rights, that includes the victims of abuse. And when any person feels that they have the right to infringe upon other peoples rights, they should expect their rights to be infringed upon as well. If a citizen is accused of abuse their right to bear arms should be taken immediately.

Learn more about this author, Victor Strange.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.