• 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

Black Dog

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
8,380
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Some people lie about absolutely anything, male or female. That's no reason to ignore criminal convictions.

That said, I'm pretty against any restrictions on the realization of our natural right to self defense. I'd probably begrudgingly support the bill, presuming only criminal convictions are considered for limiting our natural right. And there must be provisions for restoration.
 
ecofarm said:
Some people lie about absolutely anything, male or female. That's no reason to ignore criminal convictions.

That said, I'm pretty against any restrictions on the realization of our natural right to self defense. I'd probably begrudgingly support the bill, presuming only criminal convictions are considered for limiting our natural right. And there must be provisions for restoration.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "that's no reason to ignore criminal convictions?" I understand not ignoring criminal convictions, I don't understand what that has to do with the article or my statement?

As for the part I bolded, I agree.
 
Black Dog said:
What do you mean "that's no reason to ignore criminal convictions?" I understand not ignoring criminal convictions, I don't understand what that has to do with the article or my statement?

As for the part I bolded, I agree.
Click to expand...

I mean people lying is not a consideration. Criminal courts should handle that sufficiently. No system is perfect.
 
ecofarm said:
I mean people lying is not a consideration.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was. I said it could be abused as it is with any system of law. Either way I think we agree.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
I agree with you...I think the timeline would make this law ineffective - either it would be too late, or the person was never going to use it in the first place. I think it's a well intentioned, but poorly thought out, and will draw a lot of criticism from the 2A crowd, not without merit.
 
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...

How do we legally identify dating partners? What are the legal criteria?

Why does someone lose a protected right for a misdemeanor?
 
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 say bull hockey as always.
you can't restrict someone's rights because of a fear they might do something.

this has been ruled on constantly by the SCOTUS.
 
Rucker61 said:
This addresses misdemeanors and charges without convictions.
Click to expand...

In another words denial of rights without due process

Just what I would expect from gun grabbing liberals
 
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 disagree with bill sponsors Debbie Dingell, D-Michigan, and Dan Donovan, R-New York; I believe they are morons .........

I am 110% against this, as it arbitrarily infringes upon the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens.

the ONLY way I would agree to this is if they ALSO take away knives, forks, pry bars, screw drivers, box cutters, machetes, bar gasoline purchases, automobiles, common household poisons, baseball bats, bricks, shovels, pitch forks, metal patio chairs, motorized lawn tools, blenders, grills (gas & charcoal), sandpaper, concrete mix, liquid acids/chemicals/solvents, batteries that contain acid, ............... the list could go on for infinity ..............
 
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...

It seems to be argued as a common sense measure. As such I would not want it to pass. If on the other hand a significant danger can be shown statistically and that the same level danger would not be associated with other weapons after forbidding gun ownership of that group of persons, I am still not convinced I would want to support it and would have to think about it. But I would certainly want a court ruling in each case.
 
If a person is known to be such a danger to society they can't be trusted with guns, then why aren't they locked up in a cage?

If they're not too dangerous to be locked up in a cage, then why are they too dangerous to be trusted with guns?
 
joG said:
It seems to be argued as a common sense measure. As such I would not want it to pass. If on the other hand a significant danger can be shown statistically and that the same level danger would not be associated with other weapons after forbidding gun ownership of that group of persons, I am still not convinced I would want to support it and would have to think about it. But I would certainly want a court ruling in each case.
Click to expand...

According to CDC about 45% of adult female homicide victims were killed by means other than a firearm, all of which would still be available to anyone covered by this bill.
 
Bill's going to be busy.
 
ludin said:
I say bull hockey as always.
you can't restrict someone's rights because of a fear they might do something.

this has been ruled on constantly by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Those who hate men and those who hate guns have teamed up. This is going to be a problem.
 
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...

We already do it with several groups. There is ample precedent
 
Rucker61 said:
According to CDC about 45% of adult female homicide victims were killed by means other than a firearm, all of which would still be available to anyone covered by this bill.
Click to expand...

So we would help 45% of those women. Great
 
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 think it is already against the law for convicted felons to lose their guns. Taking someone's right to firearms for a misdemeanor is not only a slippery slope but one that won't get far.
 
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'm not sure what this bill would accomplish. If someone is hell bent on killing someone they're going to find a way.
 
fmw said:
I think it is already against the law for convicted felons to lose their guns. Taking someone's right to firearms for a misdemeanor is not only a slippery slope but one that won't get far.
Click to expand...

I don't know man, they already do it for domestic abuse be it misdemeanor of felony. So I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom