Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
In contrast people’s rights and privileges shouldn’t be allowed to be taken away with a one sided claim with no evidence. It’s really tough to balance, and if it only happened to actual abusers, no one would really care.
The problem I have with this is the cost.
The cost of living in a world where someone can strip you of your right to currently possess a firearm by accusing you of violence, is that you get to not have access to a firearm, currently.
The cost of living in a world that doesn’t restrict a person’s right to access a firearm via a claim of violence, is that people die to firearms by those in possession of a firearm.
I haven’t really seen a good argument as to why someone’s right to have the ability to always, at all times, and forever be allowed access to a firearm that makes it more valuable than a human life.
I’ve seen a lot of fantastic arguments for ownership of firearms, lemme tell ya. And I support them. But if we are paying for those privileges with human lives, we need to quantify the value of a firearm, versus the value of a human life. I can’t (I’m being serious, I really can’t) figure out exactly how many human lives we should be willing to “pay” in order to continue to have those freedoms.
It’s not about guns specifically, it’s about the government depriving a person of property without due process. It would be even safer if we just took these people to jail and promised a real hearing within 72 hours. We don’t do that because that’s more obviously a denial of due process.
“Due process” is fair treatment through the judicial system. When we discuss making laws regarding how people should be treated, those laws become the process that is due. I reject the idea what we can’t discuss changing the law because “that’s the way the law is.”
Additionally, broadening the point to “property” doesn’t at all somehow change the premise. “It’s about property rights!” It’s about the rights to the property of firearms.
And you did what the other person did! Y’all keep completely ignoring what I’m asking, to try and make some other point!
Property isn’t property. You don’t have to go through a background check to buy a package of socks. You don’t have to pay annual taxes in order to continue to own your underwear. You don’t register your toothbrush, nor need a license to mow your lawn.
Society has already decided certain forms of property are treated differently than others.
You don’t have to go through a background check to buy a firearm in most parts of the US (although you do to purchase a firearm from a dealer; private sales are largely legal).
Aside from NFA items, you shouldn’t be paying a tax to own firearms, period. Can you imagine paying a tax to be allowed to go to church, or to abstain from going to church? Or, say, to vote?
You don’t need to register a firearm in most places in the US. (Nor should you!)
You don’t need a license to own a firearm in most places in the US. (Nor should you!)
The fact that society has, in some places, decided that the constitution shouldn’t apply to them, is not a good answer.
You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege. If you do not respect the nature of a privilege it can be taken away. Look at cars. There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car. Yet more and a wider variety of people likely own cars than guns. If you are caught using your car in a way that endangers regular citizenry - say you are drunk or show a history of repeated reckless endangerment while operating then you can have your licence to operate a vehicle suspended or permanently removed. Taking someone’s ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to because driving is a privilege, everyone knows it’s a privilege and when you fuck around with that privilege you find out.
There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.
It’s downright nifty to feel that way.
The reality is it’s a constitutionally-protected right.
I’m not sure you thought this through; they’re entirely unregulated in use on private property.
Lol - it’s okay because occasionally people don’t complain? Yikes.
Have you heard of the danger of the indifference of good men?
Canada, in particular, is doing its best to do away with even that - it’s not a great example. I’m also not sure you can find any example that even approaches the level of ownership we enjoy.
Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.
There’s this fantasy that has been planted in your head that you need this security blanket of complete unrestricted access to firearms to uphold your democracy… But just like a child’s security blanket it is a fantasy of false security. What would happen if you and a bunch of your buddies decided to turn on your own government and plan an insurrection or resist a sitting government directive? If it comes to resources you would have to create concensus for enacting violence all under the spectre of surveillance and then you would be facing one of the most milliterized nations in the world on their home turf. Your right to carry does less to protect you than the reluctance and image concerns of a governing body that calls itself “free” to fire on it’s own citizens…
This isn’t the 18th century anymore. What makes a constitutional right is a CURRENT agreement by the standing government body. Dynamic rules that exist to modify it. That document can be amended AND repealed. Saying “It’s a constitutional right!” as though that is immutable isn’t a reason in itself. The option always exists to ditch it as a right.
I see we’re going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you’ve got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.
Lol, good luck with that amendment.
Give it long enough and enough people will stop gulping down 2nd Amendment flavoraid and realize how many stable democratic societies exist where the kids have never had to participate in an active shooter drill.
Conversely, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand the appropriate way to solve a problem is to address the underlying causes, e.g. actually addressing the reasons behind mass shootings instead of only caring because firearms are involved.
Ah yes, good old “we just have to focus on mental health bandaids because it’s miserable people who are the problem, not easy access to weapons to enact their misery on others!”
Heads up, no matter how much you increase access to therapists miserable people are still going to exist. Society’s focus on psychiatry as a catch all leaves a lot of people in the lurch as therapy providers are already overwhelmed with paitent backlog. You can’t even get the US to agree to fund accessable health care, you think they are gunna find success in the pro-gun politicians somehow funding any kind of public mental health initiative?
It’s good you didn’t bring out the actual statistics of those killed by their abusers vs. those temporarily deprived of their grown man pacifiers. Your facts might have hurt their feelings.
After all, it’s mostly just women and children dying and living in fear. No big deal. /s
Theoretically what if it is A and B have fallen out and A is abusive and threating to B but gasligjts B and blames them…B finally gets courage to leave and find shelter, this annoys A and they are really manipulative and coerciaeve so they play victim and put order on B and then B has no protection
I started typing up an answer to your hypothetical but then I realized you didn’t at all address my question. I’d love an answer to the content of my comment instead of an answer designed to try change my mind without addressing the premise or in any way engaging what I said.
Things like this have happened.
My wife got hit with a TRO after her ex and his girlfriend attacked her. It would be a great way of ensuring a victim had no access to the means to protect themselves, wouldn’t it?