Should You Lose Your 2A Rights If Convicted Of Domestic Abuse?

[ronwill]

What's your opinion?

http://www.helium.com/debates/sbs/87...cused-domestic

[HK4U]

Accused or convicted? Good article.

[Brainchild]

My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.
As for with the 'yes' side,how does society have the authority to strip away an individual's rights if he is accused of something,but not convicted?Until a conviction is reached,he is still a free individual.If I accuse someone of being a homosexual pedophile,should he not be allowed around young boys,even his own sons,simply because I said he did,or might do something wrong?
As for the answer to the original question,should someone commits domestic violence lose his right to keep and bear arms?I do not have an answer.I am not a domestic abuser,and niether was my father or mother,so,thank God,I have no experience with that nightmare.

[HK4U]

Originally Posted by Brainchild

My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.
As for with the 'yes' side,how does society have the authority to strip away an individual's rights if he is accused of something,but not convicted?Until a conviction is reached,he is still a free individual.If I accuse someone of being a homosexual pedophile,should he not be allowed around young boys,even his own sons,simply because I said he did,or might do something wrong?
As for the answer to the original question,should someone commits domestic violence lose his right to keep and bear arms?I do not have an answer.I am not a domestic abuser,and niether was my father or mother,so,thank God,I have no experience with that nightmare.

QUOTE=Brainchild;12886]My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.

+1 for me.

.....be allowed to own firearms because it's already proven that they cannot control their rage and are prone to violence. As responsible gun owners we need to police our own ranks so that anti-2A'ers do not. Just as persons convicted of multiple DUIs have driving priveleges taken away so should violent people be denied the right to own weapons (Lautenberg Amendment).

-my $.02

[gvaldeg1]

Originally Posted by echo_5

.....be allowed to own firearms because it's already proven that they cannot control their rage and are prone to violence. As responsible gun owners we need to police our own ranks so that anti-2A'ers do not. Just as persons convicted of multiple DUIs have driving priveleges taken away so should violent people be denied the right to own weapons (Lautenberg Amendment).

-my $.02

Lemme see...where are you from...Connecticut? Ah yes...I understand. However, you all misspelled privilege.

[gvaldeg1]

Here's a little tidbit. The number of gun deaths vs non-gun deaths in intimate (spouses, etc.) homicides from 1975 to 2005 declined steadily to the point where they were almost on a par. If the trend continued through 2007, non-gun deaths in intimate homicides (same as domestic violence) may well outnumber gun deaths now. In any event, in domestic violence, it's not at all unusual for something other than a gun to be used.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Sic transit gloria mundi

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by gvaldeg1

Here's a little tidbit. The number of gun deaths vs non-gun deaths in intimate (spouses, etc.) homicides from 1975 to 2005 declined steadily to the point where they were almost on a par. If the trend continued through 2007, non-gun deaths in intimate homicides (same as domestic violence) may well outnumber gun deaths now. In any event, in domestic violence, it's not at all unusual for something other than a gun to be used.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Sic transit gloria mundi

It doesn't matter what an individual used to kill. It shows they are unable, or just plain don't care, to handle the tremendous responsibility that comes with 2A RIGHTS. For this reason, in my opinion, anyone CONVICTED of a violent crime (murder, rape, child abuse, armed robbery, etc.) should lose that right. Note, when I say rape I mean without permission rape, not statutory rape between an 18 year old and a 16/ 17 year old where it was consensual relations.

[gvaldeg1]

Originally Posted by ronwill

It doesn't matter what an individual used to kill. It shows they are unable, or just plain don't care, to handle the tremendous responsibility that comes with 2A RIGHTS. For this reason, in my opinion, anyone CONVICTED of a violent crime (murder, rape, child abuse, armed robbery, etc.) should lose that right. Note, when I say rape I mean without permission rape, not statutory rape between an 18 year old and a 16/ 17 year old where it was consensual relations.

WOW...you got your wish! In case you hadn't noticed, all of the crimes that you discussed are felonies for which you automatically lose your civil rights including the right to vote or even buy a gun. I only posted the link because I thought that it was an interesting statistic. Remember this thread is about "domestic violence" which in many cases may be only a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg Amendment imposes felony punishments upon even misdemeanor offenses. I have to admit that I got a little sarcastic in one of my posts but just seeing Lautenberg's name causes me to shudder. Sorry for the sarcasm, I know that a lot of you in anti-gun states and areas are as upset about it as I.

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by gvaldeg1

WOW...you got your wish! In case you hadn't noticed, all of the crimes that you discussed are felonies for which you automatically lose your civil rights including the right to vote or even buy a gun. I only posted the link because I thought that it was an interesting statistic. Remember this thread is about "domestic violence" which in many cases may be only a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg Amendment imposes felony punishments upon even misdemeanor offenses. I have to admit that I got a little sarcastic in one of my posts but just seeing Lautenberg's name causes me to shudder. Sorry for the sarcasm, I know that a lot of you in anti-gun states and areas are as upset about it as I.

No need to apologize. My response was just a rebuttal to your post and not meant to offend either. It's not really my wish that this be the law because, like so many laws, it can be misused. Cases like a spouse accusing one of abuse just to make a point or in a fight for child custody. Sometimes these false accusations can be hard to defend against since the one being accused of abuse must prove their innocence instead of the accuser proving guilt. That's why I stressed "convicted" not just accused.