1 of 27

Yes

Write now Article Tools

The right to bear and retain arms is guaranteed to all Americans in the Bill of Rights' second amendment, however, the application of this constitutionally designated right in favour of accused abusers represents a grave misunderstanding of the amendment's purpose. All of the Bill's Rights, second amendment included, are written with the expressed purpose of protecting citizens from any arbitrary deprivation of liberty by the state. In fact, the Constitution itself states that the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the ruling government, thus the Rights were clearly NOT devised to be used as the basis to abuse and cause harm to fellow citizens.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." (Bill of Rights, Preamble)

The constitutionally protected liberty to bear arms cannot be manipulated by abusers to terrorize and batter their partners, and the Bill itself nullifies rights where they are used to harm the liberties of other people. Article IX of the Bill states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We must remember that, for many reasons, domestic violence is a crime that is under-reported and under-prosecuted, and society must be sensitive of this fact. Allowing accused abusers to retain their arms denies and disparages a victim's sacrosanct right to personal safety and security. Everyone is entitled to security of the home and person.

Homeland security, the freedom to live in a country free from constant terror, real or implicit, is a hot topic in American politics. Does the victim, who, in domestic violence cases is predominately a woman, not deserve the freedom to live in her own home and relationship free from terror and the threat of violence, real or implicit?

Would you be comfortable if a suspected (but unconvicted) terrorist boarded an aircraft with a set of plastic knives?

Would you knowingly permit an accused (but unconvicted) arsonist to have a lighter in the lobby in Empire State Building?

In the interests of public security, probably not, on both counts. Those accused of these atrocious crimes and publicly wielding these devices constitute a genuine threat to public harm. The accused wielding these objects theoretically have the right

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should US citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms??
We want to hear your view. Write now!