• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners

Winchester said:
I'm not sure what this bill would accomplish. If someone is hell bent on killing someone they're going to find a way.
Click to expand...

It would punish men and gun lovers, a twofer according to many.
 
Winchester said:
I'm not sure what this bill would accomplish. If someone is hell bent on killing someone they're going to find a way.
Click to expand...

So making it easier and legal to obtain a gun as a convicted stalker or abusive person is OK because they might find a way illegally?
 
Mac77 said:
Convicted felons have to give up their firearms already
Click to expand...

But they get Convicted with a due process trial. This policy opens the door for Govt Bureaucrats to be able to on a whim take away anyone's civil right they want.
 
Casca XV said:
But they get Convicted with a due process trial. This policy opens the door for Govt Bureaucrats to be able to on a whim take away anyone's civil right they want.
Click to expand...

Currently that happens all the time
 
Casca XV said:
But they get Convicted with a due process trial. This policy opens the door for Govt Bureaucrats to be able to on a whim take away anyone's civil right they want.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Gun grabbing libs would use it as an excuse to take guns away from everyone
 
Black Dog said:
So making it easier and legal to obtain a gun as a convicted stalker or abusive person is OK because they might find a way illegally?
Click to expand...

It's not might it's will find a way. Hell most of them probably already have firearms. In theory I'm not against keeping guns away from convicted stalkers/abusers, I just don't see it doing one damn bit of good.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And yet we do exactly this with sex offenders. We want to do it to people who sexually desire kids even if they have never touched a kid.
Click to expand...

restriction of rights can only occur if someone is convicted in my book.
if you haven't been convicted I do no see an constitutional ability to restrict anyone's rights in fact I see the opposite that it is unconstitutional.
 
trblmkr said:
However, if you are law enforcement, you can kill them for precisely that reasoning.
Click to expand...

why can't you stick to the topic I never said anything about this and your strawman just blows away in the wind.
 
Black Dog said:
I don't know man, they already do it for domestic abuse be it misdemeanor of felony. So I disagree.
Click to expand...

OK. I don't know who they are but I think they are wrong in my view.
 
ludin said:
restriction of rights can only occur if someone is convicted in my book.
if you haven't been convicted I do no see an constitutional ability to restrict anyone's rights in fact I see the opposite that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No state in the union operates this way
 
vegas giants said:
No state in the union operates this way
Click to expand...

show me a person that has not been convicted that gets the rights taken away unless they are deemed mentally incompetent.
almost all states operate this way more so with felony convictions.

now they are talking about taking away peoples rights for just being charged not convicted.
there is a huge difference and it is unconstitutional.
 
ludin said:
restriction of rights can only occur if someone is convicted in my book.
if you haven't been convicted I do no see an constitutional ability to restrict anyone's rights in fact I see the opposite that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Felony only, and only sometimes.

But see in America now almost no one cares about justice, though many claim to.
 
Winchester said:
It's not might it's will find a way. Hell most of them probably already have firearms. In theory I'm not against keeping guns away from convicted stalkers/abusers, I just don't see it doing one damn bit of good.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. Even if it stops 1 bad guy from getting a firearm, that's good enough. At least I see it that way.
 
ludin said:
show me a person that has not been convicted that gets the rights taken away unless they are deemed mentally incompetent.
almost all states operate this way more so with felony convictions.

now they are talking about taking away peoples rights for just being charged not convicted.
there is a huge difference and it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

He has a problem with the concept of "due process."
 
ludin said:
show me a person that has not been convicted that gets the rights taken away unless they are deemed mentally incompetent.
almost all states operate this way more so with felony convictions.

now they are talking about taking away peoples rights for just being charged not convicted.
there is a huge difference and it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Cops can show up.at your house for a call and take your guns if they feel.they present any kind of a danger
 
vegas giants said:
Cops can show up.at your house for a call and take your guns if they feel.they present any kind of a danger
Click to expand...

and they can be sued as well. they have to have a warrant as well etc ... they simply can't take your stuff without having probable cause.
 
ludin said:
and they can be sued as well. they have to have a warrant as well etc ... they simply can't take your stuff without having probable cause.
Click to expand...

No warrant or PC required. They have wide discretion
 
Black Dog said:
You can read about this bill here - Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners

I don't have a problem with this one as long as it is only against convicted stalkers and abusers. The only problem I see is some women have and do lie about abuse and rape etc. So what do you do before any conviction?

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I would probably not support the bill. Its useless legislation. If a domestic partner, or stalker wants to kill you.. I hardly doubt that THIS law is going to act as a deterrent.

Its already illegal to murder or injury someone.

If the law was to be enacted it would be necessary to make sure its NOT retroactive. Otherwise its going to catch up a bunch of people that pose no threat.. but years ago pled no contest or pled to a charge because they were not really guilty but it was easier than taking a chance with a court.
 
jaeger19 said:
I would probably not support the bill. Its useless legislation. If a domestic partner, or stalker wants to kill you.. I hardly doubt that THIS law is going to act as a deterrent.

Its already illegal to murder or injury someone.

If the law was to be enacted it would be necessary to make sure its NOT retroactive. Otherwise its going to catch up a bunch of people that pose no threat.. but years ago pled no contest or pled to a charge because they were not really guilty but it was easier than taking a chance with a court.
Click to expand...

That's one of the biggest problems with Lautenberg - the retroactivity.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's one of the biggest problems with Lautenberg - the retroactivity.
Click to expand...

Yep. Truthfully.. these laws don't help. How can they?

I mean who in their right mind thinks a fellow planning to stalk and kill their former girlfriend, or rape here.. is going to be deterred because of this law? If a law against MURDER doesn't deter you.. how is this law going to?

The worse thing is that again.. a useless law that sounds good.. ends up taking up valuable resources.. when what really should be done is having police available so that when the woman says "he is stalking me".. the police can respond. .rather than say "well until he does anything.. our hands are tied".
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep. Truthfully.. these laws don't help. How can they?

I mean who in their right mind thinks a fellow planning to stalk and kill their former girlfriend, or rape here.. is going to be deterred because of this law? If a law against MURDER doesn't deter you.. how is this law going to?

The worse thing is that again.. a useless law that sounds good.. ends up taking up valuable resources.. when what really should be done is having police available so that when the woman says "he is stalking me".. the police can respond. .rather than say "well until he does anything.. our hands are tied".
Click to expand...

Its called harm reduction. No law can stop every crime. Why have murder laws if they don't stop murder? We have laws because it deters SOME people. Harm elimination is impossible.
 
jaeger19 said:
I would probably not support the bill. Its useless legislation. If a domestic partner, or stalker wants to kill you.. I hardly doubt that THIS law is going to act as a deterrent.

Its already illegal to murder or injury someone.

If the law was to be enacted it would be necessary to make sure its NOT retroactive. Otherwise its going to catch up a bunch of people that pose no threat.. but years ago pled no contest or pled to a charge because they were not really guilty but it was easier than taking a chance with a court.
Click to expand...

Again this argument makes no sense to me. It is not useless. If it keeps even 1 stalker etc from legally getting a gun, then that is in my eyes not useless. Why should a convicted stalker or domestic abuser be allowed to legally buy a weapon? Well we should let them get a weapon legally because they are going to get one anyway? What kind of reasoning is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with laws on the books for murder etc. It is to deter or prohibit questionable convicts from legally getting firearms.

Now as for your retroactive concern, I absolutely agree. If the language of this law says it is going to be retroactive I also would not be for it.
 
Last edited:
Black Dog said:
Again this argument makes no sense to me. It is not useless. If it keeps even 1 stalker etc from legally getting a gun, then that is in my eyes not useless. Why should a convicted stalker or domestic abuser be allowed to legally buy a weapon?
Click to expand...

They would still be allowed to legally buy weapons. Firearms aren't the only lethal weapon used by men to kill women. Why would we block guns but not knives, hammers or baseball bats? Why would we permanently take away a protected right for a misdemeanor?

Well we should let them get a weapon legally because they are going to get one anyway? What kind of reasoning is that? It has absolutely nothing to do with laws on the books for murder etc. It is to deter or prohibit questionable convicts from legally getting firearms.

Now as for your retroactive concern, I absolutely agree. If the language of this law says it is going to be retroactive I also would not be for it.
Click to expand...

The last one was retroactive.

Why just for DV? The number of men killed by a gun outnumber the number of women killed by a gun 5 to 1. Evidently men are much more susceptible to gun violence than women. Why not ban any convicted of any violent or alcohol misdemeanor from owning a gun to protect all those male victims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom